In article <41318007.A5DFA705@yahoo.co.jp>, Eric Takabayashi
<etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:

> > > What do you think $5,000 a year can get you? Should old people be
> > > required to live in Alabama?
> >
> > Real estate is also something I'm not an expert in, so I'm unsure
> > why you're asking me.  5k a year in a house will get you a house
> > that will cost somebody else 10k a year in 5 years.
> 
> Forgot to take what one would be paying in rent into account. Let's
> call it 10k a year. 10k a year won't buy you anything decent in
> Hawaii.

Won't by you anything in Nice either. Some places are more expensive
than othes. 

> It won't even pay the rent on a house where I come from.

People shouldn't live in your house?

> Should the elderly in Hawaii move to rural Arizona?

Maybe you need to be told this directly: I can't run the world for you
or "the elderly".  Did you want that job?

> > Is that a good enough answer.  If one is buying any kind of house
> > these days it seems a good investment.
> 
> It's a fine investment. I'd do it if I could. Note however, about 40%
> of people in the US and Japan don't own their own homes.

Sad but true.  It's a bad bad world, particularly when the only things
that mean anything to the voting populace are blowjobs and gay
marraige. Millions of folks rent.  Most renters could buy
something--how every ghastly and inhuman. (Bullshit rebuttal defense,
"elderly" aren't "most", 51%  of renting humans are most.)  If they buy
anything at all it will be worth more next year.  I'm sure you have a
turn around for that.  Let's just assume I'll concede at that point.
 
> Also important: where do they live after they sell the house to enjoy
> any gains (minus taxes), and how long do you expect that to last an
> aged couple? Also where I come from, a nursing home can cost $10,000
> a month, and it seems all long term care, even at the hospital, has
> been privatized. Not a misprint.

My suggestion is suicide. Is there any other answer to your question,
except allowing Republican politicians to champion whatever they are
told by the 8 guys who own the Party in rewriting Social Security law
to make more money for rich folks? Clearly the only other option is
suicide.

> > Maybe they should vote for candidates in all their elections that
> > address these issues, rather than focusing on gay marriage,
> > blowjobs in the oval office, ancient military records and who
> > invented the internet.  Amazingly these topics seem to be the
> > central issues of their lives rather than such as  health care,
> > insurance, good jobs, clean water, etc.
> 
> So if through some miracle the minority of people who are considered
> poor (about 11% in the US, or 4% in Japan)

You're citing dogma. Under Reagen we had the "percentage of those
living under poverty" dramatically diminish.  They decided that 12k and
under was poverty for a family of four instead of 15 or some such. 
They later did the same thing with unemployment figures deciding that
anybody who hadn't documented their search for work was "no longer
looking" for work and thus not unemployed anymore.  Where the hell can
you get statistics except from someone running for office?

> were able to have their voices heard, would it not bother you if
> taxes were raised on those better able to care of themselves or their
> benefits cut, to pay for those less able to take care of themselves?

Do you think that a voting populace not taking responsbility for the
operation of their own government to further the citizenry's needs is a
good thing?

I'm not debating you, you know.  I'm just keeping you company.  Carry
on.

-- 
Invest wisely: Over the past 75 years, stocks have averaged annual gains of 2.3
percent under GOP administrations, compared with 9.5 under Democratic ones. 
 -- Jerry Heaster