Recent comments in /f/dataisbeautiful

RSomnambulist t1_j9tz9n3 wrote

The 2050 figure is 89%. I don't see people moving out of cities, just into smaller, cheaper ones. I'd be willing to bet that the result of that will be the urbanization of more almost-suburban areas in the future--more cities, rather than people living outside of one.

3

jeremevans t1_j9tv5js wrote

It is based on a theory. Essentially, the WACC (weighted average cost of capital).

The idea is that all “Capital” whether from a stock holder or bond holder demands some rate of return. Bonds interest coupons are explicit, stocks return whatever profits remain.

When you think about it that way, adding debt actually allows for more growth/spending because the overall (weighed) rate of borrowing actually decreased before it increases when interest rates are low (and the tax shield helps since some interest in debt is deductible - usually about a third of it).

It’s leverage. It does increase risk. Just imagine if you used a credit card to buy a tool and used this tool to expand your business. Same concept. You’d better be sure that spending will pay for itself.

2

studmuffffffin t1_j9tumav wrote

The slope is still lower than the other generations slightly. It takes 13-15 years from age 20-35 to get from 10% to 60% for the other generations. It takes 22 years from age 25-42 the boomers to get from 10% to 60%.

I don't think OP explanation is good enough. Even with a late start, it takes longer to get there.

0

Cptof_THEObvious t1_j9ttu3p wrote

It seems to imply moreso that they got a late start. Great Depression before the war, so not great ownership then. The war happens, their wives join the work force, the ones who come back get GI bill and other benefits on top, and suddenly they can afford some houses. By retirement age, they've pretty much caught up in ownership, aided by the start of a boom in housing development (the effect of the fully developed boom can be seen in the extremely high rates in Boomers).

2

ZombiePlaya t1_j9ttqbo wrote

From what it looks like, California and Texas have similar tax rates. It's just that Texas splits it to make up for the no income tax, and California takes it at once.

Pay now or pay later I guess, both have really close class revenues I see as well.

All I can say is that I wouldn't live in either, especially when both I hear have energy problems.

−1