The Housing Bubble

I grew up in the age when most of the women in the neighborhood stayed home. Not once did I see, “helpless dependence or household servanthood”. What I see now with women juggling career and family is far worse. I feel sorry for a lot of the women I see now.

As a woman, there is no way I’d go back. I don’t think women “screwed up”. I’m really grateful for the fight they put up to change things. The fifties hold no appeal for me.

I can’t say anyone “screwed up” but as a stay at home mom, I find it increasingly difficult to live like this even though we think it’s important for our kids to be attended to by the down to earth people we are not the giant stressball parents that give their children an xbox to substitute parental guidance. And, of course, we live a paired down lifestyle in order to do this and I can’t help but resent the working moms in their giant suvs, manicured nails, coiffed hairstyles, and designer clothing saying that they HAD to work……..for what? the perks? I’ll take time with my kids any day over the “perks”

rant off
Danni

“I can’t help but resent the working moms in their giant suvs, manicured nails, coiffed hairstyles, and designer clothing”

Don’t forget the maxed out credit cards, crippling HELOC and no savings.

“…I can’t help but resent the working moms”

If you’re happy with your choice, why resent anyone? I’m for everybody choosing their own way in life, and for more options, not fewer. If you want kids, then you make arrangements to take care of them. Whether you’re a mom or a dad, the responsibility belongs to both sexes.

The problem in the 50’s is that women were expected to be “fulfilled” by raising kids and staying home. Having done both (work and stay at home) I can say the stay at home part is better. However, the 50’s attitude made no allowances for the women who wanted to be in the workforce or need to be.

Now we’ve swung the opposite way. Women are expected to do the almost nightmarish job of caring for children and dealing with 40 hours of office politics. I know our household runs much better when I work less.

And worse we’ve lost the skills that make lower income households run - people trap themselves with things and debt and make it so they have to work. I’ve seen it repeatedly with both friends and family. They got them into a “debt” trap and look down on the sacrifices and skills that would get them out.

To bring this back to housing (hey Ben!) - I think dual income families are also a big part this of the bubble. In my part of the world pre-bubble, it was getting pretty close to the point where households needed 2 incomes to own. The bubble totally and completely pushed it over the edge. My little starter house that needs work is really only affordable by a household with two incomes. As it stands it’s being sold to 2 childless professionals who wrote the contract the day they saw it. I’d say the top of local VT prices is what two upper middle-class incomes can bring to buying a house.

If we had not bought 7 years ago, we still would have been renting, as I know most 1 income households that I know do. One of many sacrifices that a 1 income household makes is lack of opportunity for home ownership. I think that will change as this all washes out but I definitely see dual incomes as part of what’s going on in the larger housing picture.

Well said Spike66. Some complain that it isn’t possible to live a middle class life on one median salary like it was in the 50s. I’d bet that it is possible to live a middle class life OF THE 50s on todays median income. 900 square foot house, no air conditioning, single car, a week at the beach or camping for a family vacation*. People CHOOSE to live a more expensive life than their grand parents and paying for it usually requires two salaries. I’m certainly all for people having that choice, but I dislike people blaming others for the consequences of their own choices.

* at least BEFORE the insane bubble that is the subject of this blog. With shacks in Compton going for half a mil, few can afford to buy into the middle class life.

I can’t understand how women haven’t rebelled against the feminists and told them to keep their mouths shut.

Personally, as a woman, I’m very grateful to the feminists that I got to have an education, got to have a job, got to buy a house (that I could easily afford, with a big downpayment and a 30 year fixed mortgage), and in general, have been able to pursue my dreams. I love to work. I don’t want to stay home. I’m grateful everyday that I had that choice.

No one seems to be mentioning the saddest causualties of women in the workplace: the latchkey kids. My wife stays home, gladly and willingly, as did both of our mothers to attend to the most important task of all: raising our children. You can see the visible results over the past thirty years of women opting to dump their offspring in kiddie kennels, and deferring childbirth until they are in their 30s instead of the early 20s like nature intended. While I’m highly critical of guys who get mail-order brides, at least I understand the well-intentioned if misguided urge to marry a woman from a more traditional society where they still believe in the virtue of being a good wife and mother.

Maybe men should pitch in more with childcare? Have you considered that? Why don’t you offer to stay home for a while instead of assuming the woman will do it?

First, my wife WANTED to stay home. Second, my income ALLOWS her to stay at home, whereas if our roles were reversed, that wouldn’t be the case. Third, when I get home in the evenings that’s “Daddy Time” for my kids. Fourth, about every four months or so I watch the kids over the weekend, usually for four days at a time, so my wife can go see her girlfriends and get a break from “mommy duties”. She’s happy with this arrangement, and so am I.

Fine, and I’m happy with my arrangment, so why criticize women who work? You do your thing and I’ll do mine and we’ll all be good.

Wouldn’t it be great if both parents didn’t have to work like this couple:

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa070531_lj_twins.17091f2.html

When it comes to children, one Dallas mother knows about having them in pairs.

The odds are one in 500,000 but she’s giving birth today to her third set of twins at Baylor University Medical Center.
…snip…
But with neither the 21-year-old father nor the 20-year-old mother employed - all the children are supported by welfare - the young family faces financial and emotional obstacles.

Somewhere along the way something got lost in translation….i resent the working mom’s that complain that they HAVE TO and that i got the life of reilly when it’s a matter of choice of how you chose to live.
and that is all i’m saying bout that…
Danni

MD Renter,

I don’t criticize women who work. The sad fact is, too many of them have to in today’s economy. I am critical of the COUPLES who put materialism above the interests of their children. My personal belief, which I don’t wish to impose on anyone else, is that if you aren’t going to raise your own children, then don’t have them.

Here, here. Ask any teacher, they can easily tell which kids in the class have stay at home moms. They are better behaved, more respectful of authority and more attentive. I RESENT that working moms tend to look down on stay at homes. Yes, I went to college, yes I had a nice career before kids but my kids are more important now. Many of my peers that work could stay at home but the fact is they don’t want to. They often don’t like their own kids that much (often because their kids have been raised by hired help and are brats). They work to support their label whoredom, designer bags and sunglasses, SUV payments, expensive trips to the salon (mani, pedi, cut, color, hi lights). Work will always be there. You can always go back when the kids are older. I do think the feminists sold us a bill of goods. We were told “you can have it all”. Sure ya can, but they forgot to tell you that you can’t have it all at the SAME time! You try to do it all (job, kids, home life, decent marriage) and it’s impossible, something’s gotta give and always the kids get the short end. Afterall, you can placate your kids with promises of “later, later” but your boss and deadlines won’t wait.

deferring childbirth until they are in their 30s instead of the early 20s like nature intended.

Nature intended for women to have kids in their 20s and 30s, and that’s exactly what they did until modern birth control became available.

I have found that in today’s world if somebody calls you “sexist or racist” there is a 99% chance that you are telling the truth. So bring it on.

I admire intelligent educated working women much more than the Paris Hiltons types. My best girlfriend has a Phd. Her intelligence was a huge turn on. I think men who do not like smart women have some inferiority complex, just like men who do not like cats!

A very important attribute to be sure BiP, right along with a lack of being needy or insecure.

Men would not want to be told their ONLY choice is to stay home and raise kids, clean house, and cook. Why should women be any different? I love being a business owner, being highly educated, and having a world of choices. I always find it interesting that people are so willing to make other people’s world small and limited so they can maintain some degree of “power.” Sorry boys, (and I don’t consider misogynists men since cowards never are) we’re not going back to being beaten with sticks no bigger than your thumbs and having no economic control over our lives. And most of the men I know love being involved in their children’s lives the way their fathers were not allowed to be.

Find a great partner, figure out what is best for you (both work, one or the other stays home, whatever) and put your kids first if you decide to have any. But there’s a thousand ways to do it and don’t let some miserable person filled with hate try to control your life.

txchick, you’re right, reward is at the core of why it’s so difficult to be a caregiver, mostly because as a society we define ourselves so often as wage-earners and comsumers (not all of us, but many). Raising a kid, you’re not really earning anything, and, as many in LA do, you can be replaced by a nanny making $8-15/hr, which, of course, reflects directly on what society thinks you are worth.

I don’t know if this adds much to this discussion, but I took care of my little girl solo one year and have some insight perhaps not a lot of men have. (I was fired on a Monday and my wife was offered a job on Tuesday.) I loved my year taking care of my little girl, and I wouldn’t give it up for anything. BUT, the one aspect of caregiving that I found so persistently difficult is that you never leave it. With work, you ultimately have your escape the moment you walk out the door (as long as your cell is turned off). With child-rearing, you’re home with the kid, then at night, well, you’re home with the kid. It’s probably not very well appreciated by people who haven’t done it.

Getting back to the reward part, there is, of course, a tremendous reward in helping a little one find their way and become a vital, content person. It just takes some perspective outside of the earning/comsuming paradigm we seem so captivated by. It’s a challenge, but certainly there’s a tremendous reward in it.

Women with kids are screwed? Don’t tell that to my wife. True, kids can try your patience, but they are also a source of great joy. Not to mention, our whole biological purpose is to carry on the species. It does not bode well when the most “intelligent” and accomplished females in our society are precisely the ones that are opting not to reproduce, or are waiting so late that they are risking having a child with health issues. If it seems like EVERYONE is only having female babies, that’s because when both parents are over 30, the odds are much higher of having girls. Meanwhile, all the cretins and welfare queens start having babies in their teens, and are cranking them out in prodigious quantities. See “Idiocracy” to get a glimpse of where our society is headed.

“Meanwhile, all the cretins and welfare queens start having babies in their teens, and are cranking them out in prodigious quantities.”

Actually, the govt made progress on that front in the 1990s, with the phase out of some poverty subsidies and an increase in subsidies for middle class workers who have kids (child tax credits). Levitt might predict a drop in the crime rate by 2015 as a consequence.

Betty Freidan died a few years ago. Gloria Steinem lives on the Uppper East Side..has to be in late 60s…but damn she looks great.

That tradition was not uncommon at all, unfortunately. It is the #1 reason, IMHO, that women need to have equal opportunities and pay in the workplace.
————————
Lionel,

If you read this…thank you for your perspective. It is much appreciated and right on. The part about being replaced by $8/hr nannies hit the nail on the head.

As a society, we always hear people go on about how important “the children” are…but those same people would absolutely have a fit if a caregiver asked for $25/hr (what many blue-collar workers are paid). Where are our priorities?

Having been a SAHM and a full-time worker (often over 80 hrs/week), I can say for a fact that working outside the home is much easier and gratifying (in a “selfish-ego” sort of way).

You really can’t grasp how difficult working as a SAHP is until you do it yourself. Those without kids haven’t a clue (I used to be one of those who put down SAHPs, much to my regret now).

Yes, there is.
Every generation needs an upcoming generation in greater numbers to fill the tax roles for retirement benefits.
All Western countries relied on a growing population for calculating support for retirees. In all western nations, the Zero Population Growth, Women are oppressed, Equal Rights NOW gangs PROMOTED and got the present system of declining births and 2-family incomes.

What is the major argument of allowing all the Illegal Aliens to stay here?? We need them in the work force. They are doing jobs we don’t or won’t do….blah, blah.
We needed to have families with more than 1.2 children, but were sold the “save the planet from overpopulation” crap.
Now, we and our brothers in Europe are importing workers to replace the children we didn’t have. The “underdeveloped” nations never quit having babies, so the ZPG has basically failed. It just shifted which countries and which people would have a future generation.

That rather begs the question. The West depends upon ever larger generations to pay for retirement. Is the problem smaller (than anticipated) generations or presistantly relying upon outdated projections for retirement planning?

Now, we and our brothers in Europe are importing workers to replace the children we didn’t have.

The US has always been a nation of immigrants - this is nothing new. Let me know when the population starts declining instead of rapidly increasing, and maybe I’ll agree that we have a problem.

“less-qualified woman can earn more than an equally qualified male employee”

I’d like to see a source for that statement.
“… the earnings of women in full-time management and professional jobs last year averaged 73 percent of men’s, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That gap can be explained to a large extent by nondiscriminatory factors, some studies have found, and are based on a division of labor in the home that relies more heavily on women than on men, according to Catalyst.
Women are not only less likely to work continuously during their lives, but responsibilities at home also influence their choice of job and type of employer…”
http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/03/news/newsmakers/mpwpay/index.htm

Hasn’t the “two worker household” played a major role in the house price explosion ??? I know many here like to blame the boomers but don’t the two worker households compete against each other for the same product thereby inflating its value ???

“I’d like to see a source for that statement.”

You won’t. The Feminazis would crusify anyone who tried to publicly verify this.

“… the earnings of women in full-time management and professional jobs last year averaged 73 percent of men’s, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

Has a man ever dropped out of a management career and onto the daddy track (other than in the movies)? They don’t have the options that women have. Options are valuable, and to the extent the market sets salaries, reflected in the labor market equilibrium.

The other thing that BLS stats don’t reflect is hedonics.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire/

That’s a very astute point, I think. I have nothing of substance to add, but this hypothesis demands further study.

During the course of a long career, I occasionally received a piece of advice from a colleague or boss that would stick with me ever after. One of them was always to focus on your slice of the pie and determine if it is acceptable to you. Worrying about what anyone else’s slice looks like will leave you frustrated and unhappy forever.

“Worrying about what anyone else’s slice looks like will leave you frustrated and unhappy forever.”

I am neither frustrated nor unhappy. When I hit a point in my career when less qualified females were beating me out for positions, I went back to school and got more qualifications. If the world gives you lemons, make lemonade.

” Women hold all the advantages in today’s world.”

Whining is never attractive. Sounds like tougher competition forced you to improve your game, by going back to school and improving your skills. So its a win for everybody.

” Women hold all the advantages in today’s world.”
————————-
Them’s fightin’ words, GS.

I could give you story after story after story that says otherwise.

You neglect the fact that men absolutely have the same choices as women. Like Lionel, many men do choose to be the SAHP (the “P” stands for “parent” — either male or female). I’ve known a number of families where the man is the primary caregiver, and they are not “girly men” either.
——————
Advantages men have:

1. Never have to choose between children and work. A highly-qualified, highly-invested caregiver (mom) is always available to take care of the kids while he’s free to pursue his work and hobbies.

2. Their ability to move up the career ladder is not impeded by having children (pregnancy, possible bed rest, nursing, recuperation, etc. — not to mention staying home with them). There is a definite bias against women who are single or newly married, as employers wonder when/if she will jump ship to have babies. Also, women with existing children are biased against because they usually cannot work past 5:00 p.m. and might have to stay home if the kids are sick or need tending to.

3. If men do **anything** around the house (like, God forbid, wash dishes), they receive accolades from friends, relatives, neighbors, etc. while women are **expected** to do everything, even when they have outside jobs. They are not considered to be “great catches” just because they throw a roast in the oven once in awhile.

A woman’s contribution to the marriage is front-loaded. Her youth, beauty and childbearing ability rank high on the list of desirable traits. Conversely, men’s contributions are back-loaded (power and earning ability).

Many women “spend” their most valuable assets on a marriage, with the expectation that the relationship will be reciprocal (life-long). Unfortunately, many women waste their most precious assets on men who dump them as soon as the tables turn, often these same men turn around and waste another woman’s most precious assets by marrying a younger woman (lather, rinse, repeat).

We won’t even go into the fact that men can more easily attract mates because women are attracted to many different traits (women go for looks, brains, power, money, sense of humor, charm, etc.). If a man isn’t good-looking, he can usually find some way to improve one of these attributes and make himself more attractive to mates.

Basically, women can attract men with only one thing — their looks. You either have them or you don’t. And it rarely, if ever, gets better with age…

Men, without a doubt, get the better end of the deal.

Men marry above, below and at the same level.
Women marry above and at the same level.

The end result is that wealthier men and more beautiful women are taken.

There is surplus of poor men and wealthy plain looking women.
Wealthy single women do just fine.
Poor single men are looking for a place to whine. They even do it at a housing board.

Thanks CA Renter for saying what I could not.

When did 100k become middle class?

Thank you for saying that. I’ve worked with many engineers who have been laid off, and almost all of them were hired back into the industry within a year at at least their previous salaries. There are not enough qualified candidates to fill the jobs that are out there. IMO, a degree in engineering (any discipline) is worth more than just about any other degree. Certainly, medical and law degrees can lead to more profitable careers, but the time and money that needs to be invested in medical or law school do not make them as attractive as engineering IMO.

When did 100k become middle class?

That’s about what I make and I certainly don’t consider myself upper class.

I have been in computer science since 1985. In 1982 I read a newspaper article claiming computer science will be the hot career for the next 20 years. It was wrong: It’s been hot for at least 25 years. My longest span without a job was 3 weeks, and that is between consulting contracts. There is no end in sight of the good times in my field. The only regret I have is that I did not become an engineering consultant long before the year 2000.

“Everyone that graduated with me in 2000 is pulling down at least 75k, and some are doing 6 figures.”

I believe that. Where I work, we have mid-20s aged people with a BS making in the 90s.

Perhaps it worth knowing what the folks who graduated in, say, the mid-70s, who are not managers are making?

The average salary for a technical staff member where I work who is not (or has not been) in mgt, who has a PhD, and 30 years experience is in the low 120s. This number is actually a bit high because many folks who were managers were able to keep their higher salary after they were no longer managers.

Imo, engineering and science occupations are the ultimate middle-class.

When did 100k become middle class?

Around the same time that $500,000 McMansions became “starter homes.”

When did 100k become middle class?

It’s certainly middle class (at best) in the regions where such jobs are clustered, i.e., Bay Area, Orange County, San Diego.

Perhaps it worth knowing what the folks who graduated in, say, the mid-70s, who are not managers are making?

I’ve found that this varies a lot - it depends on what they’ve done with their careers. I work in the Bay Area in the wireless field as a software/systems engineer with a base pay of about $120k and 10 years’ experience. I’ve met people 15-20 years older than me who make less than that (same employer, more or less the same job description) and others who make substantially more, though the base pay seems to top out at about $180k unless they go into management.

The ones whose salaries have stagnated seem to be the ones who spent a long time working at one company, with the concomitant puny raises. And of course even when they switch jobs, they only get the standard 10-percentish pay boost, in part because that’s what employers are comfortable with and in part because their negotiating skills have atrophied, if they ever existed.

The only saving grace is that the visas will no longer be tied to a particular company, so the immigrants will be free to take jobs at any company.

This means that they should be able to command the same salaries as permanent residents, so there will no longer be any financial reason for employers to prefer H1-B’s over natives. And honestly, judging from the proportion of job listings in engineering that specify “citizens or permanent residents only, local candidates only, we will not pay relocation expenses” I’m not sure that H1-B’s are as desirable to employers as you suggest. I’ve even seen jobs stipulating “must have a BS/MS in xxx engineering, preferably from a Bay Area university” - indicating that even migrants from other parts of the US are sometimes unwelcome!

This is a housing blog ya know……….

But I think it all ties into housing Ben. Mr. and Mrs. Joe America feel like they are making less while the top dogs are making more. Wanting to keep up with the Smiths they decide they need to gamble more on things such as real estate. I think the income differential caused by productivity helps to build the gambler mindset that led to this massive housing mania.

The average guy thinks “my work freed up more money for management but left me out. I need to do something to catch up to him.” He turns around and takes a loan out for a hacienda that is 8 times his income thinking, “the more I buy the more I will make”. Man, that is ugly.

“This is a housing blog ya know……….”

This discussion of women and work is directly tied in to the housing situation. Married couples with wives who don’t hold down full-time jobs are generally priced out of the housing market in my ‘hood (unless they happen to be trust fund families).

Resenting people for making personal choices in how they lead their lives is just bizarre to me. If people want to work–go for it. If they don’t want to work and can afford not to–go for it.
If you can’t afford a house in a particular neighborhood, then find another neighborhood. Or, wise up and rent.
It’s a free country–no need for folks to live their lives in lockstep with someone else’s views.

Ben chides us gently for going off on this “women in the workplace” tangent. I do think there’s a definite link between Madison Avenue telling women to “get their girl power on” (sidebar: you don’t need a man), creating all kinds of “needs” and insecurities in women, and then selling “solutions” and pandering to the gargantuan sense of entitlement they’ve subliminally planted in many females’ barren little craniums [and I DON'T mean that as a generalization of the species]. From personal observation, I think women and their sense of entitlement have been prime movers behind the housing bubble, as brilliantly captured by the “Suzanne Researched This” Century 21 commercial. Look at the percentage of wailing FBs in Ben’s posts that are females, especially single women or divorcees. It would be fascinating to see a scientifically-sound, peer-reviewed study of the linkage between women’s “needs”, spending habits, and influence, and the creation of the housing bubble.

“many females’ barren little craniums”

This is less an insightful remark than it is self-revealing.
Ben’s blog has documented an astonishing amount of financial illiteracy…in all areas of the country, in all income brackets, encompassing both genders and all ethnic groups.

Married couples with wives who don’t hold down full-time jobs are generally priced out of the housing market in my ‘hood (unless they happen to be trust fund families).

So are those of us who are single! However, I don’t blame two-income families for the bubble - surely the proportion of households with two earners hasn’t changed much if at all in the past decade. One might just as well argue that dual-income families are also responsible for the stockmarket bubble - after all there’s more spare money to dump into the market - but that hardly explains the periodic busts such as 2000-2003, or for that matter the last housing bust in the early 1990s.

This is less an insightful remark than it is self-revealing.
Ben’s blog has documented an astonishing amount of financial illiteracy…in all areas of the country, in all income brackets, encompassing both genders and all ethnic groups.

No argument here, Spike. But my point still stands. I think women are more susceptible to marketing campaigns based on creating a need or insecurity, and then filling it. Try actually reading a Cosmopolitan or any Conde Naste publication [and don't just look at the pictures]. Or watch the VIEW for that matter. Vapid tripe, aimed at the kind of people who can’t read without moving their lips. Yet it fulfills its intended purposes: creating a “need” that separates the target audience - women - from their money. Obviously, I’m excluding the millions of women, well-represented in here, who see right through the game and have the good sense not to get sucked in.

” I think women are more susceptible to marketing campaigns based on creating a need or insecurity, and then filling it.”

Nah, I don’t think so. If that were true, you could kill the whole high-end car market. Does anybody “need” a Porsche or BMW to get from here to there? Sure does fulfill a “need or insecurity” though–or how about those monster trucks for suburbanites…Toyota Tundras and the like. Add in expensive rims, high-end stereo systems. Ever try to watch a baseball game or even the evening news without being bombarded with Viagra or Rogaine ads. I believe that targets “needs and insecurities”.
I’m surprised by the anti-woman bias in the posts here. I prefer smart, independent women, and can’t think of anything more boring than some dependent Suzy homemaker type.

“and can’t think of anything more boring than some dependent Suzy homemaker type. ”

Me likes Suzy homemaker type.

Good comments from everyone (well, except for Sammy’s little rant about women and their “needs”).

Have to agree with most about the connection between the dual-income family and the housing market. While dual incomes have very little to do with the housing bubble itself, they have a LOT to do with the rather rapid rise in cost inflation, IMHO, and that INCLUDES HOUSING.

More workers means lower wages. Rising productivity exacerbates the (real) decline in wages.

OTOH, while wages per capita are fairly stagnant/declining, household incomes are up (with two incomes), these two incomes are now competing for the same homes, pushing the prices up.

If you are worried that the stocks may be in for a crash, consider the average gain over a few different stock index funds for the last 10 years (you can find out on Morningstar). If the average is over 10%, you should be concerned. If below, you should not be concerned. I’m not concerned about stock prices.

Also the dot com bubble was in the 90s. Many growth stocks are far below their value of early 2000. And we are supposed to think there will be a major stock crash in 2007 or 2008? More likely late 2009. The S & P 500 is slightly over its 2000 record high. Some of my funds have just barely recovered from when I purchased them. What bubble?

Apple at $120. RIMM at $165. GS at $230. It goes on and on. I agree David. Bears should stay out of the woods until they are sure the hunters are gone.

I shorted AAPL at $120 and loaded up on CAU at $0.58. Wish me luck!!!

I wish ya luck Sammy. I am a big Apple fan and made some $$ on it long but got out too early. AAPL is a great company but at $120???, Geez, seems too high. That last $20 only took about a month on what news? I don’t think the iPhone will be that popular at $500, or whatever it is, not when J6P is so tapped out like he is. I recently looked at their web traffic on alexa.com (after a great site tip here the other day) and traffic has dropped significantly while the stock price keeps hitting highs. In fact, it seems all consumer online spending sites (amazon, ebay, craiglist, apple) are down in traffic. I hope your right and I bet you are. I, however, don’t quite have the testicular fortitude to make that bet with AAPL.

I think Macs are superior to PCs. I was also leery about shorting even at 120, given Apple’s cult following. It could easily go to 130, because the herd mentality and blind brand loyalty are still driving the trajectory, not solid fundamentals. I never bet money I can’t afford to lose, so I’m not talking about a huge short position. I just happen to think they’ve hit apogee, and there’s a lot more downside risk than upside potential.

DISCLAIMER: This is emphatically NOT investment advice, just an opinion based more on gut instinct than in-depth research and analysis.

“Bears should stay out of the woods until they are sure the hunters are gone.”

Does the Endangered Species Act cover bears on Wall Street? Because I am thinking they are at serious risk of extinction — along with fools who save any $ out of their paychecks.

Hey, we should be happy to be a country that can have fat poor people. Throughout most of history, and in most of the world today, the idea is an absurdity.

“we should be happy to be a country that can have fat poor people.”

You would be absolutely estatic while riding the NYC subway.

tx, I see where you’re coming from, I was just surprised that the people who made up that letter picked a number so low, maybe there are a lot of crackheads in the area.

“Based on the historical correlation between housing starts and construction employment we should be observing now at least 50K job losses per month in construction alone. Add to those the dozens of thousands of workers being fired as about forty sub-prime lenders are closing shop; add to those the dozens of thousands of mortgage brokers, mortgage lenders employees, real estate brokers and agents that are now losing their jobs. Do these job losses appear anywhere in the employment report? Not even the shadow if it: in May the BLS reported that “real estate” related employees in financial institutions were actually up 1.4K? Does anyone believe that?”

Nouriel is a bit behind the times on the lender implosion, which is understandable, since this rapidly-unfolding story is kept out of the financial news for some reason. (I suppose it doesn’t jibe very well with the “subprime is contained” and “U.S. economy recovering from non-recession” bylines we have seen in great abundance as of late…).

‘Since late 2006, 77 major U.S. lenders have “imploded”‘

http://ml-implode.com/

Catching the one extra COLA by retiring in June has been around for awhile. Definite blip in the numbers.

What’s the latest on when and how much you have to start contributing to UCRP again?

I asked for a 07 annual projection but she didn’t have one.

The number was for just UCD, correct. End of the academic year bump was my first guess as well. BM has a better handle the UCRP numbers. I just know I thank my lucky stars every day that I’m in UCRP and CalPers. CalPers is such a monet.

I know people in CA are hoping for a reduced gov workforce. I’m guessing UC can accomodate it through atrition and not layoffs.

“I know people in CA are hoping for a reduced gov workforce. I’m guessing UC can accomodate it through atrition and not layoffs.”

Why not bump up typical class sizes from 200 students to 300? That would enable the use of only 2/3 the current professorial classroom time. And any student who could learn enough to survive a degree under such unfavorable learning conditions could pretty much handle himself in any other situation life throws his way.

Ybor is where you go when you want to smash a beer bottle over some dude’s head because you don’t like the way he looked at the same girl you’re looking at. I am not joking.