#46 President Joe Biden

brianlux

Merkin Baller said:

brianlux said:

In her letter this evening, Heather Cox Richardson does a fine job of revealing the disconnect were seeing in some of the posts here:

October 27, 2023

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 28

An article this morning jumped out at me. Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post noted that the U.S. economy “looks remarkably good.” A recent stunning jobs report, showing that the economy continues to add jobs at record rates—more than 13.9 million since President Joe Biden took office—along with yesterday’s stunning report that U.S. economic growth grew at an annual pace of 4.9% in the third quarter of this year, puts the U.S. economy at the forefront of most of the world. And inflation is back in the range that the Federal Reserve prefers—it’s at 2.4%, close to the Fed’s target of 2%.

The U.S. is outperforming forecasts made even before the pandemic began for where the economy would be now, even as other countries are worse off. 

And yet, Rampell notes, Americans are about as negative about the economy today as they were during the Great Recession after 2008, when mortgage foreclosures were forcing people out of their homes and unemployment rested at about 9%, more than twice what it is today. In contrast, consumers give high marks to the Trump years, when average growth before the pandemic was 2.5% and the U.S. added only about 6.4 million jobs.

There is a crucial divorce here between image and reality. Americans think our economy, currently the strongest in the world, is in poor shape. They mistakenly believe it was better under Trump.

That profound and measurable disjunction ought to make us sit up and take notice, especially as the Biden administration continues to try to make the economy responsive to ordinary Americans and the country continues to pay little attention. Today, for example, the White House announced an effort to turn the dual problems of empty office buildings and a shortage of affordable housing into a win-win. It announced a series of actions to convert vacant commercial properties to residential buildings. Their efforts are designed to create affordable, energy-efficient housing near public transportation and jobs. 

(See Mickey's Heather post for the rest of the letter.)

The timing of this is uncanny. 

For sure.

static111

brianlux said:

Merkin Baller said:

brianlux said:

In her letter this evening, Heather Cox Richardson does a fine job of revealing the disconnect were seeing in some of the posts here:

October 27, 2023

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 28

An article this morning jumped out at me. Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post noted that the U.S. economy “looks remarkably good.” A recent stunning jobs report, showing that the economy continues to add jobs at record rates—more than 13.9 million since President Joe Biden took office—along with yesterday’s stunning report that U.S. economic growth grew at an annual pace of 4.9% in the third quarter of this year, puts the U.S. economy at the forefront of most of the world. And inflation is back in the range that the Federal Reserve prefers—it’s at 2.4%, close to the Fed’s target of 2%.

The U.S. is outperforming forecasts made even before the pandemic began for where the economy would be now, even as other countries are worse off. 

And yet, Rampell notes, Americans are about as negative about the economy today as they were during the Great Recession after 2008, when mortgage foreclosures were forcing people out of their homes and unemployment rested at about 9%, more than twice what it is today. In contrast, consumers give high marks to the Trump years, when average growth before the pandemic was 2.5% and the U.S. added only about 6.4 million jobs.

There is a crucial divorce here between image and reality. Americans think our economy, currently the strongest in the world, is in poor shape. They mistakenly believe it was better under Trump.

That profound and measurable disjunction ought to make us sit up and take notice, especially as the Biden administration continues to try to make the economy responsive to ordinary Americans and the country continues to pay little attention. Today, for example, the White House announced an effort to turn the dual problems of empty office buildings and a shortage of affordable housing into a win-win. It announced a series of actions to convert vacant commercial properties to residential buildings. Their efforts are designed to create affordable, energy-efficient housing near public transportation and jobs. 

(See Mickey's Heather post for the rest of the letter.)

The timing of this is uncanny. 

For sure.

I think it can be true that it was a worse economy as ascertained by economists under Trump while being easier on people's pocketbooks.

High interest rates and rising costs don't help people have confidence no matter what economists and wall street say.

I dontbattribute any success or failure either way to Trump or Biden when it comes to the economy.  The real economy is more than a bunch of numbers and who won the quartenary presidential elections.

F Me In The Brain

Is that a word?

brianlux

F Me In The Brain said:

Is that a word?

I think he meant guaternary.

quat·er·nar·y

/ˈkwädərˌnerē/

adjective: quaternary; adjective: Quaternary

1.fourth in order or rank; belonging to the fourth order.

Quarternary is a quarter of a canary.

F Me In The Brain

I take the quarter with the tail

brianlux

F Me In The Brain said:

I take the quarter with the tail

Good choice.  Comes with a free coal mine.

I don't know what the hell this thread is about anymore!

static111

brianlux said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Is that a word?

I think he meant guaternary.

quat·er·nar·y

/ˈkwädərˌnerē/

adjective: quaternary; adjective: Quaternary

1.fourth in order or rank; belonging to the fourth order.

Quarternary is a quarter of a canary.

Yes thanks Brian. I don't care which canary is in the birdcage.

OnWis97

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

yeah, my house in 2005 was $113K. It's now close to $300K. it's insane. my house is a starter. we just never left. lol. $300K as a starter, even in CDN funds, is insanity. 

That at least is over almost a 20 year period. You're seeing that growth in about 1/3 that time in a lot of the parts down here. Imagine buying your first home as a younger couple and paying 3-5 times the mortgage you did 20 years ago. Most people can't do it. 

And now the boomers think today's 30-year-olds are too lazy to achieve their lifestyle. Good for my parents for their 1974 purchase of a $29,000 home now worth $300,000 but income hasn't grown at anything close to that clip.

I'm absolutely blown away by the cost of housing nowadays. My wife and I (DINKs) spent $240,000 on ours and we just would not entertain $300,000. Meanwhile people making our money with kids are probably living in houses they payed $400,000 for and have two car payments. I don't know that I could endure the stress of that.

Like you said in a post above, I also don't want my value to go down but this all is a huge problem and I (admittedly in an extremely privaledged position) would make that sacrifice if housing was much more affordable. I honestly don't know how some people even live indoors anymore.

Morally speaking (i.e., with no thoughts on the market), a decent home should be very low six-figures. Given how much money people are making, that would serve us very well. Mansions that the common person cannot afford would still exist. Not everyone would have the perfect home, but they'd be able to get what they need without living check-to-check from age 25 to age 60.

HughFreakingDillon

the only quaternary I am aware of:

brianlux

OnWis97 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

yeah, my house in 2005 was $113K. It's now close to $300K. it's insane. my house is a starter. we just never left. lol. $300K as a starter, even in CDN funds, is insanity. 

That at least is over almost a 20 year period. You're seeing that growth in about 1/3 that time in a lot of the parts down here. Imagine buying your first home as a younger couple and paying 3-5 times the mortgage you did 20 years ago. Most people can't do it. 

And now the boomers think today's 30-year-olds are too lazy to achieve their lifestyle. Good for my parents for their 1974 purchase of a $29,000 home now worth $300,000 but income hasn't grown at anything close to that clip.

I'm absolutely blown away by the cost of housing nowadays. My wife and I (DINKs) spent $240,000 on ours and we just would not entertain $300,000. Meanwhile people making our money with kids are probably living in houses they payed $400,000 for and have two car payments. I don't know that I could endure the stress of that.

Like you said in a post above, I also don't want my value to go down but this all is a huge problem and I (admittedly in an extremely privaledged position) would make that sacrifice if housing was much more affordable. I honestly don't know how some people even live indoors anymore.

Morally speaking (i.e., with no thoughts on the market), a decent home should be very low six-figures. Given how much money people are making, that would serve us very well. Mansions that the common person cannot afford would still exist. Not everyone would have the perfect home, but they'd be able to get what they need without living check-to-check from age 25 to age 60.

I agree and empathize with the plight of younger adults struggle to find affordable housing, and I agree with most everything you said.  What I don't understand is the "boomers" bashing.  What kind of shitty peers of mine are you hanging with? 

OnWis97

brianlux said:

OnWis97 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

yeah, my house in 2005 was $113K. It's now close to $300K. it's insane. my house is a starter. we just never left. lol. $300K as a starter, even in CDN funds, is insanity. 

That at least is over almost a 20 year period. You're seeing that growth in about 1/3 that time in a lot of the parts down here. Imagine buying your first home as a younger couple and paying 3-5 times the mortgage you did 20 years ago. Most people can't do it. 

And now the boomers think today's 30-year-olds are too lazy to achieve their lifestyle. Good for my parents for their 1974 purchase of a $29,000 home now worth $300,000 but income hasn't grown at anything close to that clip.

I'm absolutely blown away by the cost of housing nowadays. My wife and I (DINKs) spent $240,000 on ours and we just would not entertain $300,000. Meanwhile people making our money with kids are probably living in houses they payed $400,000 for and have two car payments. I don't know that I could endure the stress of that.

Like you said in a post above, I also don't want my value to go down but this all is a huge problem and I (admittedly in an extremely privaledged position) would make that sacrifice if housing was much more affordable. I honestly don't know how some people even live indoors anymore.

Morally speaking (i.e., with no thoughts on the market), a decent home should be very low six-figures. Given how much money people are making, that would serve us very well. Mansions that the common person cannot afford would still exist. Not everyone would have the perfect home, but they'd be able to get what they need without living check-to-check from age 25 to age 60.

I agree and empathize with the plight of younger adults struggle to find affordable housing, and I agree with most everything you said.  What I don't understand is the "boomers" bashing.  What kind of shitty peers of mine are you hanging with? 

Well, I think we do tend to overgeneralize all generations. That said, it would be the boomer generation that was able to buy a house for low/mid five figures and make an absolute killing financial killing on it. Therefore, those who think younger generations are not working hard/smart enough, etc. and don't realize how much more difficult things have gotten tend to be boomers. I'm sure there are some well-off people in younger generations that fit that gap. I'm sure you can find a 30-year-old lawyer who can't believe their lazy former peers are still renting and haven't joined him in the purchase of a $600,000 house. That said, when people are bagging on calling millennials, gen y, gen z, etc., it tends to be boomers and I am sure gen X (my generation) is participating, as well.

Also, all generations get older and think the younger generations are a bunch of punks.

mace1229

brianlux said:

OnWis97 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

yeah, my house in 2005 was $113K. It's now close to $300K. it's insane. my house is a starter. we just never left. lol. $300K as a starter, even in CDN funds, is insanity. 

That at least is over almost a 20 year period. You're seeing that growth in about 1/3 that time in a lot of the parts down here. Imagine buying your first home as a younger couple and paying 3-5 times the mortgage you did 20 years ago. Most people can't do it. 

And now the boomers think today's 30-year-olds are too lazy to achieve their lifestyle. Good for my parents for their 1974 purchase of a $29,000 home now worth $300,000 but income hasn't grown at anything close to that clip.

I'm absolutely blown away by the cost of housing nowadays. My wife and I (DINKs) spent $240,000 on ours and we just would not entertain $300,000. Meanwhile people making our money with kids are probably living in houses they payed $400,000 for and have two car payments. I don't know that I could endure the stress of that.

Like you said in a post above, I also don't want my value to go down but this all is a huge problem and I (admittedly in an extremely privaledged position) would make that sacrifice if housing was much more affordable. I honestly don't know how some people even live indoors anymore.

Morally speaking (i.e., with no thoughts on the market), a decent home should be very low six-figures. Given how much money people are making, that would serve us very well. Mansions that the common person cannot afford would still exist. Not everyone would have the perfect home, but they'd be able to get what they need without living check-to-check from age 25 to age 60.

I agree and empathize with the plight of younger adults struggle to find affordable housing, and I agree with most everything you said.  What I don't understand is the "boomers" bashing.  What kind of shitty peers of mine are you hanging with? 

I didn't see it as bashing either.
I've been frustrated with the situation. I am paying the price for Boomers to have a better retirement than me, and it's frustrating.
Teachers who retired 10 years ago are going to be much better off financially than when I retire. They are frequently increasing my contributions and lowering my pension.
For example, when I first moved to Colorado I was paying something like 7.5% of my salary into my pension and would be getting something like 2.25% of my salary per year. Each year they'd raise it a little, so I was contributing closer to 9% by the end. So if I worked 30 years, I'd get 67.5% of my salary in retirement.
But those who retired earlier paid less and received something like 3% per year into retirement. So they would have worked 30 years, paid less of their paycheck and gotten 90% of their salary in retirement.
The problem is people were retiring earlier and living longer, so the only way to fund it was to make new hires pay more and get less. I believe they could raise your contribution amount, but I don't think they could change your retirement rate. That per year rate was locked in. Meaning if when you were first hired you were getting 3%, then that is was you got. But new hires were getting less and less. Every several years they'd drop the percent down slightly. Most states have the retirement posted if you look hard enough. Many are around 2% a year now, when it was much higher 30 years ago, meaning those retiring now are getting a lot more.
I'm not mad at the boomers, it's not their fault. But it is frustrating, that I am paying for their retirement and will be getting less for my higher contributions. 
And not just teachers, other public and state positions are similar, like law enforcement, etc.
And that's not even factoring in the point OnWIs made, the 20k they paid for their first house that is now selling for 500.

brianlux

OnWis97 said:

brianlux said:

OnWis97 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

yeah, my house in 2005 was $113K. It's now close to $300K. it's insane. my house is a starter. we just never left. lol. $300K as a starter, even in CDN funds, is insanity. 

That at least is over almost a 20 year period. You're seeing that growth in about 1/3 that time in a lot of the parts down here. Imagine buying your first home as a younger couple and paying 3-5 times the mortgage you did 20 years ago. Most people can't do it. 

And now the boomers think today's 30-year-olds are too lazy to achieve their lifestyle. Good for my parents for their 1974 purchase of a $29,000 home now worth $300,000 but income hasn't grown at anything close to that clip.

I'm absolutely blown away by the cost of housing nowadays. My wife and I (DINKs) spent $240,000 on ours and we just would not entertain $300,000. Meanwhile people making our money with kids are probably living in houses they payed $400,000 for and have two car payments. I don't know that I could endure the stress of that.

Like you said in a post above, I also don't want my value to go down but this all is a huge problem and I (admittedly in an extremely privaledged position) would make that sacrifice if housing was much more affordable. I honestly don't know how some people even live indoors anymore.

Morally speaking (i.e., with no thoughts on the market), a decent home should be very low six-figures. Given how much money people are making, that would serve us very well. Mansions that the common person cannot afford would still exist. Not everyone would have the perfect home, but they'd be able to get what they need without living check-to-check from age 25 to age 60.

I agree and empathize with the plight of younger adults struggle to find affordable housing, and I agree with most everything you said.  What I don't understand is the "boomers" bashing.  What kind of shitty peers of mine are you hanging with? 

Well, I think we do tend to overgeneralize all generations. That said, it would be the boomer generation that was able to buy a house for low/mid five figures and make an absolute killing financial killing on it. Therefore, those who think younger generations are not working hard/smart enough, etc. and don't realize how much more difficult things have gotten tend to be boomers. I'm sure there are some well-off people in younger generations that fit that gap. I'm sure you can find a 30-year-old lawyer who can't believe their lazy former peers are still renting and haven't joined him in the purchase of a $600,000 house. That said, when people are bagging on calling millennials, gen y, gen z, etc., it tends to be boomers and I am sure gen X (my generation) is participating, as well.

Also, all generations get older and think the younger generations are a bunch of punks.

Well, that may be true and if so, it sucks.  I think things are getting harder for each progressive generation.  Jeez, toddlers, preschoolers... what will they have to deal with.  It's hard to imagine.

The things about boomers doing well is that a lot of them could have done well but either blew it and either burned out, died from poor life-style choice (drugs/alcohol), or went crazy from going into the war in Vietnam.  So you won't hear much from them.  There were what you might call "boomer generation slackers"- I knew people my age like that who were lazy, freeloaders- most of them identified themselves as hippies. Those who are still around are mostly poor, live in trailer parks or are older homeless, so also not heard from a lot.  

On the other end of the spectrum, many boomers inherited money and/or houses from their G.I. generation parents who passed on (I know a number of such people), or they had the good fortune to ride the coattails of their G.I. parents to get into college when college was dirt cheap (and I mean really cheap).  If those people are bashing younger generation, they forgot their good fortune and just plain dumb luck. 

It's also true that there were a lot of heavy duty career-driven boomers, but again, a lot of that was luck of the times.  Opportunities abounded.  Even less skilled people could get good paying jobs that have now taken over by robotics. If they were smart about personal finances, they could buy into at least a starter home.  

It's a hell of a lot harder world to get by in today. 

The best advice I would give to any younger person today is to learn how to manage your money.  Personal finance is more important than ever.  It probably seems easy for me to say that, being a boomer and all, but I went from being a professional in the early 90's to living in my vehicle and had to figure it all out from scratch.  By then it was the new century and I was 50 years old- past my prime.  Once I got myself back on track, I still never managed to make an average persons annual U.S. income, but I did OK in the end with a lot of work, a little luck, and using good personal finance skills.  It's a hard road.  I feel bad for younger generations today and can only hope for the best for them.

mickeyrat

https://apnews.com/article/biden-ai-artificial-intelligence-executive-order-cb86162000d894f238f28ac029005059   Biden wants to move fast on AI safeguards and signs an executive order to address his concerns

 

Biden wants to move fast on AI safeguards and signs an executive order to address his concerns

By JOSH BOAK and MATT O'BRIEN

Yesterday

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Monday signed an ambitious executive order on artificial intelligence that seeks to balance the needs of cutting-edge technology companies with national security and consumer rights, creating an early set of guardrails that could be fortified by legislation and global agreements.

Before signing the order, Biden said AI is driving change at “warp speed” and carries tremendous potential as well as perils.

“AI is all around us,” Biden said. “To realize the promise of AI and avoid the risk, we need to govern this technology.”

The order is an initial step that is meant to ensure that AI is trustworthy and helpful, rather than deceptive and destructive. The order — which will likely need to be augmented by congressional action — seeks to steer how AI is developed so that companies can profit without putting public safety in jeopardy.

Using the Defense Production Act, the order requires leading AI developers to share safety test results and other information with the government. The National Institute of Standards and Technology is to create standards to ensure AI tools are safe and secure before public release.

---

JOE BIDEN

Biden and Jill Biden hand out books and candy while hosting thousands for rainy trick or treating

Biden administration is moving toward a narrower student loan relief targeting groups of borrowers

Mission impossible? Biden says Mideast leaders must consider a two-state solution after the war ends

Biden will visit a Minnesota family farm this week as top officials kick off stops in rural America

The Commerce Department is to issue guidance to label and watermark AI-generated content to help differentiate between authentic interactions and those generated by software. The extensive order touches on matters of privacy, civil rights, consumer protections, scientific research and worker rights.

White House chief of staff Jeff Zients recalled Biden giving his staff a directive when formulating the order to move with urgency.

“We can’t move at a normal government pace,” Zients said the Democratic president told him. “We have to move as fast, if not faster, than the technology itself.”

In Biden's view, the government was late to address the risks of social media and now U.S. youth are grappling with related mental health issues. AI has the positive ability to accelerate cancer research, model the impacts of climate change, boost economic output and improve government services among other benefits. But it could also warp basic notions of truth with false images, deepen racial and social inequalities and provide a tool to scammers and criminals.

With the European Union nearing final passage of a sweeping law to rein in AI harms and Congress still in the early stages of debating safeguards, the Biden administration is “stepping up to use the levers it can control,” said digital rights advocate Alexandra Reeve Givens, president of the Center for Democracy & Technology. "That’s issuing guidance and standards to shape private sector behavior and leading by example in the federal government’s own use of AI.”

The order builds on voluntary commitments already made by technology companies. It's part of a broader strategy that administration officials say also includes congressional legislation and international diplomacy, a sign of the disruptions already caused by the introduction of new AI tools such as ChatGPT that can generate text, images and sounds.

The guidance within the order is to be implemented and fulfilled over the range of 90 days to 365 days.

Last Thursday, Biden gathered his aides in the Oval Office to review and finalize the executive order, a 30-minute meeting that stretched to 70 minutes, despite other pressing matters, including the mass shooting in Maine, the Israel-Hamas war and the selection of a new House speaker.

Biden was profoundly curious about the technology in the months of meetings that led up to drafting the order. His science advisory council focused on AI at two meetings and his Cabinet discussed it at two meetings. The president also pressed tech executives and civil society advocates about the technology's capabilities at multiple gatherings.

“He was as impressed and alarmed as anyone,” deputy White House chief of staff Bruce Reed said in an interview. “He saw fake AI images of himself, of his dog. He saw how it can make bad poetry. And he’s seen and heard the incredible and terrifying technology of voice cloning, which can take three seconds of your voice and turn it into an entire fake conversation.”

The issue of AI was seemingly inescapable for Biden. At Camp David one weekend, he relaxed by watching the Tom Cruise film “Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One.” The film's villain is a sentient and rogue AI known as “the Entity” that sinks a submarine and kills its crew in the movie's opening minutes.

“If he hadn’t already been concerned about what could go wrong with AI before that movie, he saw plenty more to worry about,” said Reed, who watched the film with the president.

Governments around the world have raced to establish protections, some of them tougher than Biden's directives. After more than two years of deliberation, the EU is putting the final touches on a comprehensive set of regulations that targets the riskiest applications with the tightest restrictions. China, a key AI rival to the U.S., has also set some rules.

U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak hopes to carve out a prominent role for Britain as an AI safety hub at a summit starting Wednesday that Vice President Kamala Harris plans to attend. And on Monday, officials from the Group of Seven major industrial nations agreed to a set of AI safety principles and a voluntary code of conduct for AI developers.

The U.S., particularly its West Coast, is home to many of the leading developers of cutting-edge AI technology, including tech giants Google, Meta and Microsoft, and AI-focused startups such as OpenAI, maker of ChatGPT. The White House took advantage of that industry weight earlier this year when it secured commitments from those companies to implement safety mechanisms as they build new AI models.

But the White House also faced significant pressure from Democratic allies, including labor and civil rights groups, to make sure its policies reflected their concerns about AI’s real-world harms.

Suresh Venkatasubramanian, a former Biden administration official who helped craft principles for approaching AI, said one of the biggest challenges within the federal government has been what to do about law enforcement’s use of AI tools, including at U.S. borders.

“These are all places where we know that the use of automation is very problematic, with facial recognition, drone technology,” Venkatasubramanian said. Facial recognition technology has been shown to perform unevenly across racial groups, and has been tied to mistaken arrests.

While the EU’s forthcoming AI law is set to ban real-time facial recognition in public, Biden’s order appears to simply ask for federal agencies to review how they’re using AI in the criminal justice system, falling short of the stronger language sought by some activists.

The American Civil Liberties Union is among the groups that met with the White House to try to ensure “we’re holding the tech industry and tech billionaires accountable” so that algorithmic tools “work for all of us and not just a few,” said ReNika Moore, director of the ACLU’s racial justice program, who attended Monday's signing.

After seeing the text of the order, Moore applauded how it addressed discrimination and other AI harms in workplaces and housing, but said the administration “essentially kicks the can down the road” in protecting people from law enforcement’s growing use of the technology.

mickeyrat

https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1719384361966190921?t=DBUjfDJi0bmk_jUcZUDzgA&s=19

mickeyrat

whats this now? infrastructure?  the hell you say.....

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1722325215097856233?t=OD9feWhMsSppEJwknC98fA&s=19

brianlux

mickeyrat said:

whats this now? infrastructure?  the hell you say.....

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1722325215097856233?t=OD9feWhMsSppEJwknC98fA&s=19

Improved railroads?

YES!

 

gimmesometruth27

brianlux said:

mickeyrat said:

whats this now? infrastructure?  the hell you say.....

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1722325215097856233?t=OD9feWhMsSppEJwknC98fA&s=19

Improved railroads?

YES!

 

LETH GO BARNDON!!!!!!

brianlux

gimmesometruth27 said:

brianlux said:

mickeyrat said:

whats this now? infrastructure?  the hell you say.....

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1722325215097856233?t=OD9feWhMsSppEJwknC98fA&s=19

Improved railroads?

YES!

 

LETH GO BARNDON!!!!!!

Thpit yaa gum out, bud! 

mickeyrat

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1722448579971706993?t=jMxbZp7T0EjEwUBIaXX1nQ&s=19