WORK ETHIC

[martha24]

As with so many things in life, this isn't an issue with simple solutions or answers.

It is a great human temptation to take the easy way out and not work any harder than necessary. This is true for rich or poor or anywhere in between and as true in the past as in the present. My grandfather used to say the worst thing a rich man good do is leave his son all his money since it ruined many a character.

So if the government will offer people "free" money for not having to do much of anything, many will take it. It may take away the incentive to go out and work hard. For others they find a way to scam the system or commit outright fraud go get money out of the many government programs, which is a huge problem today.

On the other hand, there are people who are more than willing to work and who would rather work but can't find work, are injured or have other problems. Help is needed. Go back in time and people used to end up in debtors prisons or depended on charity or perhaps starved to death. Also not all people have equal capabilities in trying to fit into the job market or deal with life.

So the answers or solutions aren't simple. Some of the government programs are set up with the best of intentions and sometimes they have unintended consequences that create problems in themselves. This is where government programs must be created with care so they do more good than harm and are properly monitored.

I work with a well known charitable organization through my church and I can say there is no such thing as a one size fits all, as people and situations are different. Some truly just want a helping hand to get back on their feet, others are just barely making it and need some help with the glitches in life, and still others want to figure out ways to get as much out of the system as possible. Then others have various problems and are trying to figure out how to cope with life one day at a time keeping a roof over their head and food on the table. Still others seem to have a knack of making some very poor choices and end up in a financial mess.

It seems to me there is no one right answer or one right solution. The government has many good intentions, but the way it has been spending money it may bankrupt us all, that is not an unintended consequence that I would look forward to.

[48Rob]

It is in fact the Bankers, housing lenders, and Wall Street who have brought us to the brink again.....as during the depression.
_________________

Is it?

Or is it greed and the fact that we do not think for ourselves as well as we should...

The people who take out loans should do their own math; it can't "all" be the bankers fault.
The people taking out loans, did they really need that new house that they knew they really couldn't afford, or that they should have known they might loose if they were laid off?
Because a banker or lending institution says; you're qualified! Doesn't mean it is wise, only that you qualify to place your hard earned everything in jeopardy so you can "have" something and they can make money.
And investors.
Who is Wall street?
It boils down to people trying to make more money, knowing the risks, but playing the game anyway.


Rob

[Shadow Catcher]

Some First Nations (they were here before Columbus) groups had a, I suppose you could call it a policy, to consider what effect an action would cause for seven generations. For the most part the current crop of politicians can not look past the next election and we are bumping up against the laws of unintended consequences.
• Ignorance
• Error
• Imperious immediacy of interest. The consequence is so important to the individual that they chose to ignore unintended effects.
• Basic values. E.g. The Protestant ethic of hard work and asceticism, he wrote, "paradoxically leads to its own decline through the accumulation of wealth and possessions."
• Self-Defeating prediction. The prediction that unchecked abuse of the environment will lead to global warming should have caused sufficient changes that it did not happen
I am going to hit only a couple of examples. 401K's were intended as a supplement to pensions and social security, many companies did away with pensions (mine included) and contributed to your 401K (that contribution declined and disappeared with time).
Man made chemicals we have put into the environment (over 250,000) have had an epigenetic effect during pregnancy leading to a sharp rise in among other things autism spectrum disorder children.
There are a number of wanabe politicians who are using "Ohio has lost 400,000 jobs". I have been asking them where that number came from and have received a reply that it comes from the Ohio labor statistics and can not tell me where. The job loses started before the Bush administration and accelerated greatly under the Republicans.
We are in an ecosystem, cultural, natural... and there are no simple or single answers.

[S. Heisley]

I will not forget the speech my department head gave when our corporation was devoured by another. He warned us all of what was coming...layoffs. This is not word-for-word but, among the things that he said was:

...This is not the working society that your parents enjoyed. Very few people will work for 30 years and retire from the same company that they were hired at 30 years before. You must take care of yourself, always protecting your assets, which includes continuing education to make yourself the best person to hire. A few years from now, most the people you work with will not even remember your name. Look after yourself and do the best you can for you. The company that your work for is not going to do that for you....

He was right. Corporations are greedy and do not care to get involved in a person's day-to-day life. They don't care how hard you work or what your problems are. Even if you have done wonderful things for them in the past, what's important is, "What have you done for the company lately?" They only care about how much it is costing them and how much they can save by hiring someone else, maybe overseas, etc. In today's economy, that's the way it has to be to for the corporation to survive. The price of the stock is the bottom line. Some schools and even some city governments have done similar things. I had some teacher friends who lost their jobs because the school could hire two new graduating teachers for the price of one older teacher.

This corporate attitude has rubbed off on our young. Just like the corporations of today, they want to know how much they can get for the least effort and many simply live for today. Add this working atmosphere on top of being spoiled by their parents and you can see where young people's attitudes and work ethics have changed. That doesn't mean that a person can't succeed but it may mean that the majority, if working for a corporation, will need to change their tactics and that, if they want to succeed, they will need to change their ethics and the way they look at things.

There are still good companies out there and there are still good people. Some will succeed wildly and some will not. The dream still exists and can be attained by some; but, for many, the rules to achieving ones goals have changed. Society is evolving to a new way of being. It is extremely doubtful that we will ever see society go back to what it used to be.

If you are lucky enough to be retired and living comfortably, count your blessings but protect your assets.

[caseydog]

It is in fact the Bankers, housing lenders, and Wall Street who have brought us to the brink again.....as during the depression.
_________________

Is it?

Or is it greed and the fact that we do not think for ourselves as well as we should...

The people who take out loans should do their own math; it can't "all" be the bankers fault.
The people taking out loans, did they really need that new house that they knew they really couldn't afford, or that they should have known they might loose if they were laid off?
Because a banker or lending institution says; you're qualified! Doesn't mean it is wise, only that you qualify to place your hard earned everything in jeopardy so you can "have" something and they can make money.
And investors.
Who is Wall street?
It boils down to people trying to make more money, knowing the risks, but playing the game anyway.


Rob

Something that the bankers and the homebuyers fell for in equal measure was the notion that home values would go up forever. That's not rational -- especially in places where home values already didn't make sense.

Bankers encouraged people to buy bigger homes than they should have, and people gladly did it, because the assumption was that the home would be worth more every year they were in it.

Home equity loans and home equity lines of credit were popular products, once again, based on the assumption that a home is going to increase in value forever.

CD

[martha24]

Something that the bankers and the homebuyers fell for in equal measure was the notion that home values would go up forever. That's not rational -- especially in places where home values already didn't make sense.

Bankers encouraged people to buy bigger homes than they should have, and people gladly did it, because the assumption was that the home would be worth more every year they were in it.

Home equity loans and home equity lines of credit were popular products, once again, based on the assumption that a home is going to increase in value forever.
CD

That is absolutely true. I don't know if it is more true in CA or not, but certainly there was a mentality here that real estate values were going to keep going up and if you wanted to buy a house you had better do it sooner than later as it was going to get less affordable not more. A couple of cases that I know of as.

My daughter's sister-in-law and husband bought a house that needs both their salaries with a INTEREST ONLY loan. This got them in the house that they wanted and the bank told them not to worry since surely the value of the house would go up.
Unfortunately since they bought on the high side, they are now upside down on the loan compared to the value of the house. They have also since had a child and the sister-in-law wants to work less. She has been trying to deal with the bank for the last 2 years, but they basically won't do anything unless they stop paying the mortgage which recently they have done. She wants the bank to eat some of the loss of value of the home and she would like to be able to keep it and refinance. If this can't be done, she is ready be to foreclosed on. The bank hasn't let them do a short sale either. When I heard that they had an interest only loan I couldn't believe it, as that just isn't in my line of thinking. Also for a young couple to be buying house that needs both salaries, locks them into always needing both salaries. Their original plan was either to sell the house or refinance once the value went up.

Second case concerns our ex-next door neighbors. Just recently I found out that they were being foreclosed on as they were in the process of moving out. According to them the bank wouldn't work with them and they couldn't qualify anymore of home loans due to disabilities etc. At the time I didn't ask but wondered what happened to all the equity in their house as they have lived in this house 20 years. A few days later a contractor came by who is going to work on the house so the bank can sell it. David ended up talking to him, and according to his story as he said he knows the famiy, the bank did try to work with them but they wanted a better deal and didn't get it. The contractor also said that they owed a million dollars on the house. I can't say that I was aware that these homes were ever appraised quite that high, but if that is the case they pulled most or all of the equity out of the house especially during the height of the market. Again I presume they figured the value would keep going up. The neighbor told me she thought "Obama's program" should have helped them and it didn't and she was mad about that.

So who in the end is responsible for making the decisions be it based on the idea that housing would always keep going up? Unfortunately in this situation there are a lot of people who have lost a lot of money and it is very unrealistic to expect that the banks can just eat all the losses and still stay in business. I would say no one wants to be held responsible for the losses or suffer the consequences, individuals and banks alike.

[starleen2]

I've always wondered: How can you sell a loan (or mortgage) and make money? This is what brokers do all the time

[caseydog]

I've always wondered: How can you sell a loan (or mortgage) and make money? This is what brokers do all the time

There you go, stirrin' up trouble, again.

CD

[glassice]

Well where do we start when you bout a loan that had not been bundle
You give a discount of 4 are 5 % the writer of the loan keeps .That you make it up on the 2st year of loan