|
Occupy Toronto (pg. 25)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| GGM |
| So there seems to be a side saying that corporations should be given free reign to people over, and it's solely up to those people to protect themselves? |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by GGM
So there seems to be a side saying that corporations should be given free reign to people over, and it's solely up to those people to protect themselves? |
I think there's a middle ground.
For instance, with the mortgage issue. A bank might URGE you to take the expensive mortgage you can't afford or don't want. But, they can't FORCE you to take it, if you've been approved for $400,000, but only want, need, or can afford $150,000, then they must allow you to take that $150,000 mortgage.
Some would say that at that point, they shouldn't be able to urge you to reconsider, but I say let them urge all they want, no matter how strongly they urge, they shouldn't be allowed to deny the smaller mortgage.
If you make $30,000/yr and you let the bank convince you that you can afford a $400,000 mortgage. I strongly feel like that's your own ignorance, greed and stupidity ing you over, not the bank. |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
If you make $30,000/yr and you let the bank convince you that you can afford a $400,000 mortgage. I strongly feel like that's your own ignorance, greed and stupidity ing you over, not the bank. |
nah. nobody takes personal responsibility for their actions anymore. it's always someone else's fault! |
|
|
| 1dawoman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
And you used your common sense, told them you were only going to take the $280,000 that you needed, and made the right decision.
You're backing up RJ's point. |
True but I also think the lenders need to uphold a certain standard of moral responsibility...
| quote: | Originally posted by GGM
So there seems to be a side saying that corporations should be given free reign to people over, and it's solely up to those people to protect themselves? |
I totally felt like I had to protect myself when negotiating that mortgage. Pressure tactics were used and I almost felt like I was being bullied by the bank. It wasn't easy getting him to agree to lend me the amount I was asking for... |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by 1dawoman
True but I also think the lenders need to uphold a certain standard of moral responsibility...
I totally felt like I had to protect myself when negotiating that mortgage. Pressure tactics were used and I almost felt like I was being bullied by the bank. It wasn't easy getting him to agree to lend me the amount I was asking for... |
How does it work?
Do they give you paperwork describing the limit they've approved you for, or do they just tell you what you've been approved for?
Never having negotiated a mortgage myself, I'm interested in what, exactly, the process is.
Ideally, I'd like to have paperwork telling me my limit, then I just go out and get a house somewhere within that limit. So that, say, if they approve me for $300,000, they give me the approval in writing, but if I find the house of my dreams at $200,000, I simply... "purchase" it and my mortage is $200,000.
Your story sounds like you must be approved for an exact amount, so I'm feeling like how I imagine it should work, is way off the mark. |
|
|
| The Highroller |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Poor decisions by INDIVIDUALS are what is "tearing the Western world apart" not any structure or system.
This is a perfect example of some people's (including the Occupy folks) refusal to take personal responsibility for their own (and other's) situation.
Blame the system, blame the structure, blame the corporations, blame the 1%, blame the man, blame the (elected or not) government, blame, blame, blame, blame, blame.
Nobody forced anybody to take out mortgages they couldn't afford (caveat emptor). Nobody forced people to over-extend themselves and forget about saving for a rainy day. Nobody forced people into "buy now, pay later" mentality. Nobody forced anybody to go to Harvard on student loans. Nobody forced people into being greedy. Funny how greed only exists when talking about others vs. oneself - point proven.
I think what is becoming apparent is the world's general lack of personal responsibility for anything and an apathy and expectation that things should be "easy" or "simple" just because one wants them to be.
Unfortunately the real world requires hard work, risk, sacrifice and investment to get something out of it (to get anything out of it); it's much easier to blame others than to take ownership over your situation and make something out of it. |
I agree with everything you are saying here.
However, I think the big issue here is the transfer of wealth from the many to the few. Not only does income disparity cause economic inefficiencies, but it also has significant moral implications. Although there are still opportunities to make a decent living, it is becoming harder and harder to do so. Wages in the last 10-15 years have stagnated, whereas the wallets of the wealthy have expanded significantly.
From a personal perspective, I look around at my generation and notice that a good majority of people my age are unemployed, underemployed, underpaid and/or lacking benefits. This is creating the perception that my generation has been robbed of the opportunities that our parents once had.
People should be accountable for their actions, and people should educate themselves before they make significant decisions. However, I truly believe that income disparity is a systemic problem and that the current social unrest surrounding this issue shows that the general public's tolerance is wearing thin. |
|
|
| Xavier Moriarty |
| quote: | Originally posted by 1dawoman
The bank was urging me to take out a $380,000 mortgage when all I wanted, needed and could handle, was a $280,000 mortgage.
I think the banks are the ones who need to start using some common sense! |
simple question, are you an immigrant, moved to Canada in the past 10-15 years? |
|
|
| Elendil |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Highroller
I agree with everything you are saying here.
However, I think the big issue here is the transfer of wealth from the many to the few. Not only does income disparity cause economic inefficiencies, but it also has significant moral implications. Although there are still opportunities to make a decent living, it is becoming harder and harder to do so. Wages in the last 10-15 years have stagnated, whereas the wallets of the wealthy have expanded significantly.
From a personal perspective, I look around at my generation and notice that a good majority of people my age are unemployed, underemployed, underpaid and/or lacking benefits. This is creating the perception that my generation has been robbed of the opportunities that our parents once had.
People should be accountable for their actions, and people should educate themselves before they make significant decisions. However, I truly believe that income disparity is a systemic problem and that the current social unrest surrounding this issue shows that the general public's tolerance is wearing thin. |
Personally, I look around at our generation and I see an incredible amount of entitled, lazy people. I see people who are poorly educated and seem to possess very little desire to self educate. I see a profound lack of self-reliance, and an incredible outsource of responsibility on a grand scale. I see individuals raised in a "you can be anything and everything you want to be" culture, which is - whilst inspiring in ways - incredibly difficult to accommodate when, in fact, many people need to be exactly what they don't want to be in order for many facets of our lifestyle to function smoothly. It is no secret that there has been a fundamental psychological shift in our culture from a general "we" to "me" perspective. We're the "I" generation. Our culture is going through radical shifts because of it.
*edit* - I don't mean to imply that this shift towards individualism is inherently negative. In fact, it isn't - it's brought an incredible amount of psychological freedom in many ways. However, I do point out that it is - in many ways - in opposition with many mechanisms of our current societal structure.
Furthermore, I also see the transfer of wealth happening amongst people all around me. I see people WILLINGLY transferring their own wealth (and often the wealth they do not have) to the elite as they chase down their 1500 dollar macbooks, their 600 dollar jackets and 200 dollar pairs of jeans, paying heaps of money simply to advertise brand names on their chests - money which would increase their wealth if invested prudently.
Many businesses are locked in a downward spiral to the zero mark. They are continually forced to cut costs and increase profit in a drive to appease the fickle will of markets, and to remain competitive in their dealings with other businesses - also driven by shareholders at large (many of whom are not the super elite, but every day investors who react like frightened deers to market shifts they have little understanding of). Many businesses are destroying themselves every bit as much as anyone else.
Every day shoppers seek the lowest prices on every day items, willingly choosing to kill skilled jobs in their own nations in order to increase their own ability to acquire cheap possessions which fill their homes. Consumer pressure forces businesses to react in desperate bids to move product.
We've, as far as I see it, equally engaged in our own downward spiral, but really, it all starts with the consumer - as it is us on whom this whole system is based upon.
Sure, it's wearing thin on the general public. And of course, they're ever eager to point their finger outwards - projecting their shadow and casting stones at their own projection. It's such simple psychology acting out on a macro scale that it's laughable, really.
Our nature has gotten us into this problem, as far as I see it, and no amount of regulation or lawmaking in general will allow us to emerge from it. Any change must happen on a fundamental level within the individual. For all large systems are built solely by the outward activity of individual psyches. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by 1dawoman
not really....
But they should be concerned about their clients defaulting when they are not able to pay back their loans because they pushed them to borrow excessive amounts.... |
That's what I would think, and we are seeing this more now than pre-2008 for sure.
Regarding income disparity Graham, there was a great article in the globe this week on how the Canadian movement is middle class driven. The bottom 10th percentile of the Canadian population saw their incomes increase 10-20% over a specific time frame (can't remember what) while the 50th percentile only increased 4%.
If the middle class wants to have a movement, then go for it - but call it what it is. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by GGM
So there seems to be a side saying that corporations should be given free reign to people over, and it's solely up to those people to protect themselves? |
There should be a free, unbiased middle party where people can seek advice. Government funded. I've always had difficulty wrapping my head around taking on a financial advisor because I can't find many that aren't trying to sell me stuff. |
|
|
| The Highroller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elendil
Personally, I look around at our generation and I see an incredible amount of entitled, lazy people. I see people who are poorly educated and seem to possess very little desire to self educate. I see individuals raised in a "you can be anything and everything you want to be" culture, which is - whilst inspiring in ways - incredibly difficult to accommodate when, in fact, many people need to be exactly what they don't want to be in order for many facets of our lifestyle to function smoothly. It is no secret that there has been a fundamental psychological shift in our culture from a general "we" to "me" perspective. We're the "I" generation. Our culture is going through radical shifts because of it. |
While this is true, it is a well-known fact that there has been a trend in almost industry away from full-time work to contract work with no benefits, and with the employer being able to fire the employee at any time. The "me" generation observation has nothing to do with this phenomenon.
| quote: | | Furthermore, I also see the transfer of wealth happening amongst people all around me. I see people WILLINGLY transferring their own wealth (and often the wealth they do not have) to the elite as they chase down their 1500 dollar macbooks, their 600 dollar jackets and 200 dollar pairs of jeans, paying heaps of money simply to advertise brand names on their chests - money which would increase their wealth if invested prudently. |
This is also true. Over the past 10-20 years, the attitude of the North American consumer has been that of significant leverage; borrowing on credit cards, against your house, for poor reasons such as wanting to buy a new TV, or go on vacation. However, the income disparity issue stems more from stagnating wages, rather than consumer culture. For even if consumers chose to save, stagnating income means that this transfer of wealth would still happen.
I'm sorry I'm only replying to your post in a limited fashion, but I don't have a lot of patience for discussing these issues on message boards. I prefer to talk about it in person. |
|
|
| Elendil |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Highroller
While this is true, it is a well-known fact that there has been a trend in almost industry away from full-time work to contract work with no benefits, and with the employer being able to fire the employee at any time. The "me" generation observation has nothing to do with this phenomenon.
This is also true. Over the past 10-20 years, the attitude of the North American consumer has been that of significant leverage; borrowing on credit cards, against your house, for poor reasons such as wanting to buy a new TV, or go on vacation. However, the income disparity issue stems more from stagnating wages, rather than consumer culture. For even if consumers chose to save, stagnating income means that this transfer of wealth would still happen.
I'm sorry I'm only replying to your post in a limited fashion, but I don't have a lot of patience for discussing these issues on message boards. I prefer to talk about it in person. |
Hey man. Firstly, no worries about the limited fashion deal ;) I don't blame you. I've sunk more time into this thread than I would normally care to. Alas, I haven't been able to resist.
On your first point: I disagree that the me generation has nothing to do with this phenomenon. Don't forget that corporations are all inhabited by everyday people, and make decisions that mirror the population within which they reside.
Furthermore, on your second point, I didn't necessarily mean they have to save in the traditional sense. On the contrary, straight saving takes money out of the economy (as you of course are well aware) and contributes to the issue... However, prudent investment comes in many forms, many of which are income generating and - in a strict sense - aren't necessarily saving, simply directing existing wealth to wealth generation vs. wealth elimination.
Furthermore, I believe that by directing the majority of your wealth towards cheap consumer goods - or garbage - (which experience continued pressure for price decrease), you are directly contributing to the problem of depressed wages. We keep gobbling up the cheap goods, businesses keep cutting costs to offer cheaper goods... it's a downward spiral and self-fulfilling prophecy.
I think it is all tied together quite well.
Anyways, I'm sure we'll chat more effectively in person - see you out soon! |
|
|
|
|
