July 24, 2008

Bits Bucket For July 24, 2008

Please visit the HBB Forum. Post off-topic ideas, links and Craigslist finds here.




RSS feed | Trackback URI

291 Comments »

Comment by wmbz
2008-07-24 04:34:41

Here’s a sure fire way to raise unemployment…What do businesses do when forced to raise wages? They must either raise their rates for their goods and services, or reduce their number of employees…

Minimum wage set to rise, but views vary…WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The national minimum wage is set to increase by 70 cents on Thursday to $6.55 an hour, the second of three increases to take place after the wages earned by the nation’s poorest and least educated failed to rise for ten years.

In an economy where the richest 20 percent in the country earned more than half of all income earned, experts say the increase is more than due.

“It’s about as perfect an economic stimulus as you can get. Minimum wage raises go directly to those who absolutely need to go out and spend it on food and healthcare,” said Holly Sklar, director of Business for Shared Prosperity, a network of business owners supporting minimum wages.

U.S. wages have not kept pace with inflation. Taking into account higher prices paid for food, healthcare, housing and a range of other necessary expenditures, U.S. wages are equal to those paid 40 years ago.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2361519020080724

Comment by WT Economist
2008-07-24 06:18:24

Hey its a competive world. If we just cut the wages and benefits of younger generations of Americans low enough, and raise their taxes while cutting their public services and beneifts, we’ll achieve our economic goals.

What were those again?

Comment by wmbz
2008-07-24 06:43:46

Why screw around? Lets raise the minimum wage to say $50.00 per hour. That would really solve the low wage problem.

Comment by 85701 is overrated
2008-07-24 07:20:32

Why stop there? Make it $500/hour. Everyone will be rich, all due to the omnipotence of government policy!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by MEaston
2008-07-24 07:28:05

I’m with wmbz
I think we should lower wages to zero that way there will be infinite jobs available??

With inflation the average minimum wage worker has seen thier income cut by about a 3rd or more. They spend a huge percentage of their income on food and energy.

 
Comment by SaladSD
2008-07-24 08:58:27

Let’s see…. $120,000/year pensions for the retired workforce, less than minium wage for the working workforce. Priceless.

 
 
 
Comment by ET-Chicago
2008-07-24 07:08:25

… we’ll achieve our economic goals.

What were those again?

Apparently they don’t include a livable wage for everyone.

Comment by wmbz
2008-07-24 07:59:48

“Apparently they don’t include a livable wage for everyone”.

Please define… What is a “livable wage”? Is that anything like ‘affordable’ housing.

I think most folks forget what the intention of the ‘minimum’ wage was, back in 1938.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ET-Chicago
2008-07-24 09:10:18

I’d define it quite simply: a person who works full-time at minimum wage should be able to afford a decent one-bedroom apartment at market rates, be able to feed and clothe themselves, and be able to cover minimum transportation and healthcare costs. In other words, they should be able to fend for themselves independently of any social safety net, whether that’s governmental, faith-based, or non-profit.

I’d also argue that same person should be able to support one child-dependent on the same wage, but I realize that makes me sound like a Pinko Socialist Pie Eater to some — so let’s start without the dependent.

In most of America, we’re far short of either measure.

It’s shameful.

 
Comment by wmbz
2008-07-24 09:49:41

Roughly 9.8% of the American work force are being paid minimum wage. It was never intended to be a life long wage,it was simply a base from which a person would work themselves up to a higher paying job. Now, the people with a poor education or low IQ or shiftless or lazy will always be at the low end of the pay scale. No amount of up lifting programs will change that.

So the question is still what is a living wage in today’s environment? $10,$20,$30,Etc… Why not $50.00 I have yet to hear anyone put a number to it and explain what impact it would have on the market place.

 
Comment by speedingpullet
2008-07-24 09:54:23

Indeed - ET-C - while I was away last week at my cousin’s wedding, I read ‘Nickle and Dimed’ by Barbara Ehrenreich. If you haven’t read it, its well worth the read, even though she did her research around 2000.

As she was ‘pretending’ to be a low wage earner, she always had a cushion, like a working car and a small amount of ready cash in emergencies.
But she goes into great detail about how she’s fortunate, and that many of the workers she writes about don’t have that level of security.
She often found herself working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week simply to pay for basic neccessities like a roof over her head, and simple meals, working at jobs that paid less than $10 an hour. Forget about fripperies like health insurance…..

Ironically enough, she had the biggest problem finding safe, cheap housing.
Affordable housing was almost impossible to find, and many people in her position end up living in motels by the week (at outrageous prices) because there’s simply nothing else available - without hefty security deposits and first-and-last-month’s rent.
This was in 2000 - around the time of the inflation of the Housing Bubble nationwide - so conditions must be worse now for minimum wage earners.

After reading it, I have more sympathy for people who give up and go on welfare - at least you get a shot at Section 8 and Food Stamps - sometimes a better option than working yourself into ill-health and despair trying to make ends meet on minimum-wage jobs - that never raise you above the abject poverty level, no matter how hard you work and try to succeed.

 
Comment by whyoung
2008-07-24 10:14:17

Not sure if it’s still this way, but back in the 1970’s in Missouri, the fed mimium wage did not apply to businesses that didn’t do interstate commerce, SO a friend in graduate school in Warrensburg couldn’t even find a part time job that paid minimum wage…

 
Comment by ET-Chicago
2008-07-24 11:59:29

So the question is still what is a living wage in today’s environment?

Perhaps you can tell us what we incur as taxpayers in welfare costs, food stamps, Section 8 subsidies, day care, healthcare costs, lost productivity, literacy programs, etc. when we make the choice as a society not to pay a decent wage. Aren’t you for smaller government?

 
Comment by exeter
2008-07-24 12:21:19

ET, understand he’s speaking from an ideological perspective, theory-based with no historical precedence. It’s an insane world where nobody wants to live other than the fringe minority that dreamed it up. In a nutshell, socialism bad, fascism good.

 
Comment by patient renter
2008-07-24 13:07:22

i’d be fine with boosting minimum wage and cutting the social programs (foodstamps and the like) that make up for its current level.

 
Comment by wmbz
2008-07-24 13:17:03

I am most decidedly for far less Government The yoke of ever increasing taxes and more control, was one of the reasons our ancestors crossed the big pond. A blind man can see what it’s gotta us, it’s been working wonders for our currency for many years now.

Still no one will put a number $$ on what it take to pay someone a ‘livable’ wage so all these problems could be solved. How come?

 
Comment by Bub Diddley
2008-07-24 15:11:02

Nice straw man. So, we’re not allowed to even discuss a living wage until we provide you with an exact figure? Yeah, you’re not ideologically blinded at all.

Goes without saying that what makes a living wage would vary by location anyway. Some places are more expensive than others. Here’s a site that offers a calculator:

http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/index.php

I find their estimates a little on the low side, but whatever. I think we can all agree a living wage would be OVER the current five bucks and change an hour? UNDER, say, fifty bucks? Okay, there’s a range to start with.

Can it be discussed now, or is there some other requirement we have to meet?

 
Comment by speedingpullet
2008-07-24 16:11:13

Ehrenreich in her book calculated that she - as a single person - needed to make about $15-and-change an hour to have a decent living.

By ‘decent’, she meant a room/apt of her own (which neccesitates savings for deposit, f-and-l, etc), a beater car with minimal insurance, food (she always cooked for herself when she had access to cooking facilities, but often found herself in places without them), bills, and a small cushion for things like buying uniforms/equipment for jobs (most min-wage employers will take it out of your paycheck, and charge whatever they see fit), and emergencies.
This didn’t include things like health insurance, or savings - as she spent more to live than she earned, in most cases.

If you have dependents - and a lot of single mothers work min-wage jobs while raising kids - the ‘living wage’ needs to be more, especially as you have to factor in child care while working (very few places offer free or subsidized childcare to employees).
And, as a working parent, you have to calculate the cost-effect ratio between paying for more child care (where many child care establishments charge more than min-wage per hour) to work more hours, or staying home to take care of kids for ‘free’, and cutting back work hours at work to do so.

Obviously, if you’re young, free and single and don’t intend to do it forever - or if you pool your paycheck with a wife/husband, you might need less.

So, if it was $15 in 2000, factor in a generous 3% per annum to get to around $20 in 2008. Which is still almost 4 times what the new National Minimum Wage will bring.

So - Bub Diddly, $50 an hour might be too high, but $25 would allow for saving, emergencies, and a little bit better than a hand-to-mouth existence.

 
Comment by aflurry
2008-07-24 16:33:41

The minimum wage issue it tied in with walfare, social aid programs, and homelessness.

Here in San Francisco, people get uptight about the visible homeless, but fail to put that population into the larger context of the marginal economy - that whole invisible population described in Nickeled and Dimed. The more precarious the lives of those people become, the more apt they are so stumble into a harder to resolve destitution at the mercy of public asistance, for which we will al pay a greater price.

So, destruction of the living wage has the direct result of greater taxpayer burden, on individuals and businesses.

 
Comment by wmbz
2008-07-24 16:37:02

Can it be discussed now, or is there some other requirement we have to meet?

Anything can be discussed, it really is a never ending subject though and ultimately will never be solved. The only answers to social up lifting given by bleeding hearts is always the same. Tax the rich and give to the poor, and that’s fine, it’s all you can grasp. Charity is a wonderful thing, but forced charity is not. What happened before the food stamp program was enacted in the early 60’s? Where there emaciated poor people roaming wide eyed in the streets? No. There have and will always be charitable people and organizations, churches etc. I give my time when I can by helping some old folks at and assisted living center. The point is, you folks can make all the points you think are valid as can I, but more Government and higher taxes won’t ‘fix’ a thing.

 
Comment by deogee
2008-07-24 20:18:01

“Still no one will put a number $$ on what it take to pay someone a ‘livable’ wage so all these problems could be solved. How come?”

Because the definition of a “living wage” depends on whom you are asking; the person giving it, or the person receiving it.

 
 
 
 
Comment by hwy50ina49dodge
2008-07-24 06:48:27

“…U.S. wages are equal to those paid 40 years ago”

40 years ago…a starting elementary school teacher, with a x1 “domestic engineer” & x3 small children….could by a 3 bdrm 2 bath house in Orange CA …with only x1 wage earner income.

What happened? ;-)

Comment by NoVa Sideliner
2008-07-24 07:47:26

The 1968 house didn’t have central air, granite countertops, Subzero appliances, marble bathroom, or a two-car garage. It was missing half the electrical outlets we expect today, had cheap water-wasting fixtures, single-paned windows, and minimal insulation. And the buyer had 20% down payment in his pocket.

Still, at least a single-earner could buy a house then. (And still can in much of the country, but certainly not in most of California.)

Comment by James
2008-07-24 09:02:45

You could also point out the manfacturing and human effort require to make all those items has dropped by 50% or more.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Rental Watch
2008-07-24 10:08:54

I don’t think my parents had a 20% down when they bought their first home in the lat 60’s/early 70’s. I think they told me that they got a 5% down deal.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by dannll
2008-07-24 10:52:12

I believe our first house was bought on the GI Bill for $1 down…in the 50’s…Damn, I’m getting old.
But the point is that one could live on a single income so the wages are no where near comparable. If it wasn’t for hedonic adjustments to the CPI and all the other games they play we might realize that we have probably lost at least 50% of our purchasing power in those 40 years.

 
Comment by CA renter
2008-07-24 15:00:22

And a lot more of those people had defined-benefit pension plans, employer-sponsored healthcare, fairly stable job, and MUCH better medical care (not get kicked out of the hospital waaay too early — and it cost far less than it does today!).

No doubt in my mind, people were far better off in the 40s-60s than today.

BTW, who the heck needs granite countertops & saltillo tile floors? I’d much rather have Formica, linoleum and carpet…and a much lower price.

 
 
Comment by Muir
2008-07-24 10:49:11

As a person who has built a house, I tell you that the houses built today are cheaper in every sense of the definition.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by redhead69
2008-07-24 20:57:54

I don’t know that I agree with you about that. I’m moving from a rental house built in 2005 to a house I purchased that was built in 1978. With the exception of mature landscaping, the ‘78 house is not nearly as nice as the ‘05 house. Insufficient insulation, poorly designed plumbing & electrical service, crappy particle-board cabinetry, etc. We bought it because we have the resources to fix those things, and the house is in a great neighborhood right around the corner from work, but I would hardly call the house an example of fine home-building.

 
 
 
Comment by taxmeupthebooty
2008-07-24 08:20:15

taxes
tax & spending as % of gdp has doubled since the late 50’s
that’s what happened
now 2 people work and get less as big gov gets more

Comment by exeter
2008-07-24 08:35:10

So is it revenue or outlays as a percentage of GDP that has doubled?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by wjk
2008-07-24 07:06:28

Great article by John Browne on the risks of high inflation when the Treasury/Fed team moves to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. I think the time to buy homes (with cash) will be when the mortgage interest rates hit 15% plus (like in the early 1980″s).

No Bottom Yet For Flailing Financials
John Browne

“”In recent months, even the most blindly optimistic forecasters have come to grips with how our banks and investment banks took wildly imprudent risks that will result in horrific losses. Although voices of prudence were dismissed at the time, these banks’ risks were leveraged largely through “off-balance sheet” mechanisms that generated massive financial rewards for the financials while keeping the losses supposedly at arm’s length. The resulting windfall yielded $26 billion in bonuses for Wall Street in 2007. The tolerance for the risks and leverage was based upon the widespread belief that real estate prices were set to rise without correction. We now know that this was a fairy tale.

Soon, gullibility gave way to greed, which soon led to fraud, and the sub-prime world was born. It was camouflaged by means of securitization, in the form of Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs), sometimes packaged within triple “A” bundles. This so-called “toxic waste” was passed on to unsuspecting financial institutions around the world. The hidden virus infected the entire vast international financial system. Soon, the credit markets tightened, threatening first their own financial crisis and then, with their reduced lending ability, an economic recession.

When the Treasury/Fed team moved to rescue Bear Stearns and, more recently, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, the $5 trillion-plus burden of risk was neatly transferred to the American citizen. This week, the Wall Street Journal commented on Nouriel Roubini, the New York University economist. He aptly observed that it was “the price of a system that privatizes profit and socializes losses.”

The rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, in particular, generated a wave of buying amongst the so-called “bargain basement” financial stocks, off some 80 percent from their highs. This optimism was based largely on the belief that the taxpayer would be forced to rescue the banks. But the banks are not the only financial institutions in trouble. The home lending and credit boom provided a feast for all manner of other speculations. Credit cards lenders became very aggressive as did auto lenders and lenders to students. Even businesses borrowed in order to participate in the great consumer credit boom.

These categories of lending are vast, in sum, amounting to several trillion dollars. All financials are exposed, but the degree of infection is not yet fully understood. Soon, even the government must wonder how much more taxpayer “rescue” the $14 trillion U.S. economy can afford?

Investors should estimate what the long-term cost of government support will be in terms of higher taxes and the hyperinflation that will cause the further debasement of the U.S. dollar. How will they further inhibit future economic recovery? While the true extent of the problem is hard to estimate, it is a certainty that the U.S. dollar is likely to remain under downward pressure. Gold is likely to experience strong upward pressure as high inflation leads into hyperinflation and systemic financial risks become increasingly manifest, offsetting the downward pressures of recession.”"

Comment by hwy50ina49dodge
2008-07-24 07:31:40

“…will be when the mortgage interest rates hit 15% plus”

wjk,
You get front row seating in Linus’s “Great Pumpkin Patch” this year!

14+ % = “Kill the beast!” ;-)

Comment by hd74man
2008-07-24 09:13:43

RE: 14+ % = “Kill the beast!”

My first mortgage was $43k @ 14.25% 30 years fixed rate taken out in 1981!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by tangouniform
2008-07-24 20:35:37

I didn’t know that you could buy a low-end Lexus with Tier-B credit back in 1981!

Oh, wait…that was a HOUSE for $43k, not a CAR.

 
 
 
Comment by YuppieNOVARenter
2008-07-24 08:20:37

Another article on the FNM and FRE bailout. I’m too far behind the curve to judge if it’s a good article or not, but I found it informative.

Why You Should be Worried About the Rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
By Elizabeth MacDonald

http://tinyurl.com/6puywc

 
Comment by James
2008-07-24 09:13:24

I don’t think the Fed will raise rates in a highly deflationary enviroment. If you just look at interest rate moves you will get fooled. I think you have to look at debt growth (M3), lending standards and obligation costs. Cost for long term expenditures will go down in a deflationary enviroment.

The enviroment is highly deflationary as banks need to gather capital and investors are in a flight to safety.

What is the saying out there… Its still early people are worried about return on capital vs return of capital.

People are still chasing yield but expect that to change over the next year or two.

Also figure the impending failure of Downey, Wamu and Wachovia to whipe out the FDIC reserves. The fine print says you won’t see your money for a while.

Comment by wjk
2008-07-24 09:37:25

The cost of borrowing money at the Fed Funds 2% rate serves as a benchmark. If one uses the official Consumer Price Inflation index, then something close to a 5% CPI is the prevailing figure. The ‘Real Cost of Money’ is Minus 3% but only if one resorts to a bogus CPI figure posted. But wait! The USGovt reported CPI is a joke. Its purpose is to minimize Social Security annual increases, to limit federal pension lifts, to offer low phony inflation adjustments to many other statistics like economic growth (GDP), and to maintain a charade for selling USGovt debt wrapped in USTreasurys at low yield.

The divergence of the CPI from reality is a story in itself. The ‘Shadow Govt Statistics’ website removes the hedonic adjustments. The true Consumer Price Inflation is shown as raging near 10%, as its divergence from the baseline false statistic is widening steadily. This means the cost of borrowing money at the Fed Funds 2% rate is over 8% lower than the CPI. So money really costs MINUS 8%.

These negative interest rates are killing both the banks and the US bond market. The mortgage interest rates and the long term US bond yield must rise to reflect inflation to save the banks. I think the time to buy homes (with cash) will be when the mortgage interest rates hit 15% plus (like in the early 1980″s).

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by James
2008-07-24 10:02:41

You are confusing price inflation with inflation.

If you are looking at over all inflation the number is negative.

Why?

Because the velocity of money is going down. Even if the government decides to sit on a lot of bad loans from the GSE it doesn’t mean that banks will be able to create more debt.

Nor does it mean that people will be willing to accept more debt.

The only way the government could accelerate things is through monitization of debt. Even that might not work because the newly printed currency will slip out of the country.

You are seeing some price increases now but as the contraction of debt continues; it will eventually drag the CPI with it.

 
Comment by wjk
2008-07-24 11:42:12

James, “The only way the government could accelerate things is through monitization of debt.”

When the Treasury/Fed team moves to rescue the major banks and Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac, the $5 trillion-plus burden of risk will be transferred to the American citizens with the magic of monetization of US bond debt. The US Treasury will sell billions/trillions of dollars of bonds to the Fed. Res. System to raise the money.

How else could the Treasury raise the money? Hope is not a plan.

How would this monetization of US bond debt effect inflation and long term interest rates (bond and mortgage)?

 
 
 
 
Comment by exeter
2008-07-24 08:23:05

More WMBZ smoke. Like the Obama “facts” that got completely obliterated and of course the Abe Lincoln “quotes”.

The truth is, in those states where state leaders saw fit to increase the minimum wage above the Federal mandate saw an *increase* in economic activity.

 
Comment by edhopper
2008-07-24 08:26:57

Except if you look at every minimum wage increase in the last 50 years, it has never lead to higher unemployment. But don’t let the facts get in the way of conservative ideology.

And of course Bush has the largest tax cut in history and we end up with the lowest employment and wage growth of any expansion period since the War. But tax cuts spur the Economy, so let’s make them permanent.
Yeah, right.

End of Progressive mocking the Right:-)

Comment by NoVa Sideliner
2008-07-24 09:01:09

And the largest tax cut in history leads to… the largest inflow of funds into the government to date? What? Really? Here are the numbers:

Actual US personal income tax revenue:
2001 Individual income taxes $994.3 billion
2007 Individual income taxes $1,163.5 billion
Source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov budget summary tables PDFs for actual previous year data

An increase in revenue! Go figure! This is generally not hard for (fiscal) conservatives to figure out, but very hard for socialists to comprehend. Of, course, like drunken sailors, the more you give the congress-critters, the more they spend.

Comment by QinQueens
2008-07-24 09:27:45

I don’t have a dog in this fight. However, I’m wondering what those dollars are adjusted for GDP and/or inflation.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by NoVa Sideliner
2008-07-24 09:41:04

No, they are not, though you can dig up from that or similar sources the inflation-adjusted figures and/or the GDP figures. I do recall seeing a chart indicating that the GDP percentage was roughly stable, no matter the tax rate. 8.x? I can’t remember.

 
 
Comment by exeter
2008-07-24 09:32:02

And you chose recessionary year 2001 in an attempt to chearlead more of the same rhetoric? Let me help you with some facts and truth.

2000 Income Tax Revenues 1004.4 billion
2005 Income Tax Revenues 927.2 Billion

So you see, it doesn’t all have to be smoke, mirrors and rhetoric.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by NoVa Sideliner
2008-07-24 09:46:10

Sorry, I picked that year because it was the earliest year that data was in the same formatted set of pages; made it easy to get it out.

You could choose 2000, as you did to show the opposite, though that was also an anomaly partly due to cap gains in the stock market bubble, and the numbers are of course as you state. You could also, though, choose the years earlier than that and get back to the previous statement I was making.

A better tact is to take a chart of ALL the years over some period of time. I’ve seen those, but sadly due to my cubicle life cannot find time to recreate/research one at the moment. Anyone up to it? Socialists would be surprised at how revenue does not plunge with reduced tax rates; conservatives would be surprised that the government still takes about as much percentage of the churning money as ever.

 
Comment by exeter
2008-07-24 09:56:20

2000 and 2005 share one common theme—–>Bubble years. Either both are an anomaly or neither are. Further, if you haven’t graphed all those data sets, adjusted for inflation, how is it that anyone would be surprised at anything? The Laffer “Theory” that asserts lower income taxes increases revenue has been disproven over and over again yet you’re here attempting to sell it, maybe to those who don’t know any better.

Of course I would like to pay less taxes but I’d much rather those who earn big dollars pay their own freight. My total tax burden is 40% of my gross income. Shouldn’t high dollar earners pay 40% of theirs? They don’t. Why not?

 
Comment by NoVa Sideliner
2008-07-24 10:43:35

Your total tax burden is 40%? Income-based taxes, right? And average/total, not marginal? Egads, that’s high. Which state do you live in? Seriously.

Virginia is not so bad. OK, I’m talking a married couple making near $100k combined, $10k knocked of of that for mortgage interest and property tax, $15k knocked off for 401k pretax as well as health insurance.

Anyway, the end result is pretty stable each year: Total income taxes(fed and state)+FICA come out in total to between 19 and 20% of income. That’s not a terrible tax burden. Or maybe I count as a “high dollar earner” and get off easy? (I don’t feel especially rich, mind you. And a few years ago, before we made this much, we paid even LESS in taxes.)

Now if you’re a single guy, renting, in a place like DC/NYC/California, then you’re going to be taxed much higher. But 40%, that’s what I paid in places like Germany. Ouch. You should move. Or buy a house and get married. :-)

 
Comment by VirginiaTechDan
2008-07-24 11:21:45

Anything greater than 0% is tyrannical.

 
Comment by exeter
2008-07-24 11:44:15

28% feds
7.4% state
7.65% SS

We’re already over 43% tax. That doesn’t include 8.25% county sales tax(NY), $10k/yr property tax in VT and NY, etc etc

So you see, owning property and being married doesn’t pay.

Where’s my ginormous tax cut?

 
Comment by exeter
2008-07-24 11:54:37

And of course the fed income tax is marginal.

 
Comment by Bronco
2008-07-24 13:09:15

exeter, you are right that everyone should pay their fair share. that’s why we need a flat tax.

 
Comment by exeter
2008-07-24 14:49:45

Not a bad idea. All income, corporate and capital gains subject to a flat 25%.

 
Comment by San Diego RE Bear
2008-07-24 21:53:05

Part of the increase in tax revenues had to do with AMT, the stealth tax trapping more and more middle-income Americans in its claws. Increased AMT was projected in the so-called tax cut, and getting rid of this albatross will be almost impossible because it does bring in so much income.

Of course, AMT hits people who pay high state income taxes, have “too many” kids, or subsidize their jobs by paying a lot of their employers expenses. In other words nothing that matters to the 5% richest in this country.

 
 
Comment by James
2008-07-24 09:35:08

Nova,

I think running a larger deficit like past several congresses have done, just makes inflation. So, if you have high inflation then revenue goes up.

17% inflation from 2001 to 2007 seems about right.

Anyhow, the government can’t do much about the state of business. We will have to solve this on our own.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2008-07-24 09:05:31

“Except if you look at every minimum wage increase in the last 50 years, it has never lead to higher unemployment.”

One can not measure the opportunity cost of nonexistent jobs which would exist if the government did not artificially prop up the minimum wage above the market clearing level. No worries — illegal immigrant labor easily can fill in the shortage of legitimate labor created by the minimum wage.

Comment by Jon
2008-07-24 09:52:26

An increase in the minimum wage is a shift of resources from the investing/saving class to the consuming class. If the investing class would have used those resources to expand business and employment, then you can expect an increase in the minimum wage to cause a net loss of potential jobs.

On the other hand, if the investing class is using the resources to trade up the prices of existing assets, then you can expect a net increase in jobs as businesses produce more to meet the increase in consumption (as counter-intuitive as that may sound).

The subject is far more complex than it appears, which is why the economic data doesn’t support a net loss of jobs when the minimum wage increases.

Much of the spectacular growth in the U.S. in the ’50’s & ’60’s was the result of labor unions driving up the income of the working class. Businesses revved up to meet the new demand, adding more workers, which drove up incomes in a virtuous cycle, until the expansion began to put real pressure on prices and inflation.

Today, globalization is causing the opposite to happen in the U.S., which both Bush & Clinton tried to hide with a massive expansion in debt.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by dwkunkel
2008-07-24 14:02:14

The minimum wage is just another example of price fixing with all the deleterious effects that implies. I

 
 
 
Comment by James
2008-07-24 09:29:45

I don’t want to get all partisan in this.

Much of the problem is with the Fed playing with capital and making distortions into capital distribution. So, its hard to tell what the effect would be this time.

Tax cuts:
On the one hand the tax cut with out spending cuts means running a larger deficit. That effectively transfers wealth to the rich who lend the money.

So the high debt enviroment plays into the hands of the wealthiest.

Not sure how this effects employment or wealth.

About the minimum wage and effect on employment: it is also an inflationary gesture. Not sure what it helps. If you are making minimum wage you are living at poverty levels.

Further the data on something like minimum wage increases is not clear. If you look at periods of hikes it is often done in points of economic expansion.

There is no point in mocking Bush, clinton or either party on this stuff. I don’t think either guy thinks in terms of macroeconomics or money supply effects.

Anyhow, I think we certainly have a wealth distribution problem in the US. Deflation will probably solve a good bit of that as investors (the wealthy) get burned by massive defaults on debt. The wealthy will also get burned on depostis getting whiped out. More deflation.

Now, if you are this social justice kind of liberal that I think you are; shouldn’t you be busy trying to fight the bail out that is only designed to keep prices high (means our wages are worth less) and keep money flowing to the wealthiest?

Its being led by you Democratic party leaders… Dodd and Frank. You remember them?

The minimum wage is a minor side show.

Comment by edhopper
2008-07-24 12:17:41

I am in fact, very opposed to the housing bailout, both the Dodd/Frank bill and the Fannie/Freddie bailout. There are certainly times of trouble when I think Government needs to help those that suffer. But bailing out stock holders and investors is not a good idea.

My OP was simply a counter to the conservative argument that raising the mw lowers employment, you admit that there is no real data to support this. And as i said, history shows this not to be true.
As for it being a sideshow, maybe to the overall economy, but in these inflationary times it isn’t a sideshow to the folks making minimum wage.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by johnfromia
2008-07-24 09:08:30

Here we have it from the New York Times. Granite countertops are radioactive, for real!

What’s Lurking in Your Countertop?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/garden/24granite.html?_r=1&no_interstitial=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Comment by Incredulous
2008-07-24 10:14:21

I posted stuff about this years ago, and again a few months ago. The granite industry knows about it, but keeps quiet; the public doesn’t care. Having children with three eyes each is a small price to pay for impressing the parents’ equally confirmist white trash neighbors.

By now, people should be laughing at granite countertops and stainless appliances–they’re the ultimate cliche for flipper pretentiousness. Instead, they’re still buying them.

Comment by Moman
2008-07-24 11:29:45

Granite and stainless steel scream 2005. Don’t worry - the trend will change soon once the home improvement business figures out the next fad to separate the yuppies from their money. Doesn’t it seem odd that cabinet styles change every 7-10 years and there is a rush to remodel to fit the new style (on cabinets built to last 20-30 years)?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by aNYCdj
2008-07-24 17:01:49

20-30 years? my moms is from 1961 light honey wood color and stll looks new and modern today

 
 
 
Comment by alta
2008-07-24 10:57:01

I think the radiation problem is exaggerated. There is always a mold problem hidden under new covers and paints. Was the dangerous stuff like lead and formaldehyde soaked materials, which were common during the past decades, really taken out ? What about chemical emissions from pest control treatments, carpets and paints ? I always wondered what kind of dangerous stuff gets into those quick flips. When some flippers get cancer in 20 years, we have a guess.

Comment by srlurker
2008-07-24 13:54:47

I talked to a retired nuclear plant engineer recently; he said the problem with radiation is that geiger counters make those scary ticking sounds, which scares the sheep.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by hindu god
2008-07-24 04:36:36

$6.55 covers a gallon of gas and cup of coffee at mcd’s. so i guess, it is ok.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/23/BAFJ11UH46.DTL&tsp=1

Comment by Asparagus
2008-07-24 06:01:53

Recently, we’d hired some temp labor guys for an office move. Speaking to them, they got $7 an hour. What killed me was that the mbta bus to the temp labor office is $4.50 each way.

Comment by Housing Wizard
2008-07-24 06:36:10

I’m sorry but I don’t think $6.55 a hour is very much in this day
and age if you look at the inflation of food costs. Thats about 50 bucks a day for 8 hours work . I guess the war on poverty is NOT alive and kicking .

Comment by hd74man
2008-07-24 06:53:04

RE: I don’t think $6.55 a hour is very much in this day

Cops here in Mazzland get $43.18 per hour to sit at side road construction sites eating donuts and sipping coffee all day.

You can tell they get some pizzed by the expressions on their faces when they have to step out in the road and raise their arms to direct an occasional 3-car stream of traffic by the work site.

Boston Fire Dept. disability pensioners get $68k per year tax free which allows them to go out and compete in bodybuilder contests.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by peter a
2008-07-24 07:45:42

The illegal day labors here ask for $10hr. You got a good deal.

Comment by NoVa Sideliner
2008-07-24 07:52:46

I have heard second hand that illegals in Northern Virginia who were asking $12 are now down to $10 and will go lower if there are no other prospects that day. Just hearsay, but might be a sign of things turning downwards.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by aqius
2008-07-24 08:48:38

wages surely do matter when you depend on skilled workers. example; when having my pool water line re-tiled, I personally gave each worker (3) a hundred dollar bill after they started the job. (unlikely they were illegals; they were a well-oiled crew, working for an established local pool company, but it never hurts to show yer gratitude in cash).

wanna bet they did an extra-good job? damn skippy!

but the capper was how I thanked AND conversed in fluent espanol after they were done for the day …. they turned about two shades of green realizing “el gringo” savied every word of the convo during the project.

heh heh, no hard feelings on my end. in fact, I threw a couple of jokes back at em’. also kept ‘em well supplied w/ice cold gatorade in the 100 degree heat. and the tile turned well.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by GotRocks
2008-07-24 04:45:05

The dreaded phone call:

1998

Borrower falls 2 months behind on the $100k remaining mortgage balance on his $150k house. Lender calls up borrower threatening foreclosure unless back payments, interest, and penalties are immediately paid.

2008

Borrower falls 2 months behind on the $450K remaining mortgage balance on his (now worth) $250k house. Borrower calls up lender and states that he will no longer make any future payments. Borrower invites lender to foreclose, but informs lender that he will remain in house and maintain it (still without paying mortgage), if the house does not get foreclosed.

The difference…in 1998 the bank could dispose of the house, while easily breaking even. Today the bank is on the hook for something like $200k (if not more) for every house they take back in California (similar in other bubble areas, but maybe a bit less).

Anyone who thinks the banking problem is over, is nuts.

(credit to some newspaper article a couple of months back where the mentioned the second dreaded phone call…FB-to-bank.)

 
Comment by lostcontrol
2008-07-24 04:52:26

So, who wants to be first?

 
Comment by Lucy
2008-07-24 04:55:04

Ford announces losses of $9bn for the second quarter, on truck inventory and lease portfolios? Looks like $9bn is the new $3bn.

Comment by nhz
2008-07-24 06:19:44

yes, just a few other announcements like this and people get used to it. Then it will be time to announce $30bn losses ;-)

 
Comment by mrktMaven FL
2008-07-24 06:38:27

It’s a temporary loss and probably much better than expected and they’ll reduce it by half next quarter.

Comment by In Colorado
2008-07-24 08:44:00

How long until they run out of money?

 
 
 
Comment by ozajh
2008-07-24 04:59:47

June Existing Home Sales numbers are due out from NAR today.

Any predictions?

Comment by combotechie
2008-07-24 05:10:40

I predict NAR says it’s a good time to buy.

Comment by Ann
2008-07-24 05:45:22

Doesn’t matter what they come out with because in two weeks they will have to “adjust” the numbers..

 
Comment by arizonadude
2008-07-24 06:55:16

I love diana olick.She is a hottie w/ a brain.

Comment by hoz
2008-07-24 10:28:41

Huh?

I just thought she was a typical face brought in to fawn over some mope. I don’t think any of the reporters write their own copy. They just read off the screen.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by diogenes (Tampa)
2008-07-24 09:32:11

predict NAR says it’s a good time to buy……..

Sorry. You are wrong. They are saying it is the BEST time to buy.

It’s ALWAYS a good time to buy!

 
 
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2008-07-24 05:27:07

2Q will be the best quarter of any year - even a bad year. These little hiccups lately (mostly slow downs in the rates of impolsion) - those were 2008’s “spring bounce”.

The cold will set in quickly now.

Comment by ozajh
2008-07-24 05:46:32

Ah yes, the Spring Bounce. Let’s see now;

It’s almost summer
And I can almost feel that sweet sunshine
Pourin’ out this heart of mine

Yes it’s almost summer
And I will spend each week day slowly fryin’
I can’t wait, I can’t wait for the summertime

Livin’ and lovin’ life’s so damn easy
When days are sunny and skies are blue-ue
And dancin’ all night, some parties till the daylight
Drink Tequila Sunrise with the morning dew
And you, my lady
I’m makin’ love in the sand while the surf keeps time

I can’t wait, I can’t wait, I can’t wait - summertime

Livin’ and lovin’ life’s so damn easy
When days are sunny and skies are blue
Dancin’ all night, some parties till the daylight
Drink Tequila Sunrise with the morning dew
And you, my lady
We’re makin’ love in the sand while the surf keeps time

I can’t wait, I can’t wait, I can’t wait
I can’t wait, I can’t wait, I can’t wait
I can’t wait, don’t be late
For the summertime

(Sorry if this is obscure. I don’t know whether Billy Thorpe and the Aztecs did any business in the US, but they were pretty big in Oz a while back.)

Comment by CincyDad
2008-07-24 06:04:16

His “Children of the Sun” got a lot of airplay in the early ’80s.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Sleeper
2008-07-24 09:16:49

Ahh. That brings back some memories (as he coughs and waves away the bong smoke) ;-)

 
 
Comment by BubbleViewer
2008-07-24 06:25:34

Paul Kelly and the Messengers are another great Australian band from a ways back that too few people outside Oz have heard about.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2008-07-24 10:39:38

What a beautiful song.

I love it.

Thank you.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ozajh
2008-07-24 20:37:00

If you can find a download, have a listen. The lyrics don’t do the actual song justice.

(Billy Thorpe also once did an amazing version of “Over the Rainbow”. Everybody thought at the time it would be a bit of a joke, ‘cos he was regarded as very much a hard rock singer, but it turned out to be brilliant.)

 
 
 
 
Comment by WT Economist
2008-07-24 05:28:13

Also, the 2Q vacancy rate from the U.S. Census Bureau. That’s a big one.

Check on the number of vacant homes NOT included in the rate. And bear in mind that the Bureau has trouble tracking down new construction, based on my experience working on the 2000 census.

Comment by packman
2008-07-24 05:56:25

Can you clarify what you mean by “tracking down new construction”? Do you mean that often new unsold homes (still owned by the homebuilder) are not reported to the census? Or that new homes can sometimes still show up as vacant even though they’ve been purchased and moved into recently?

Thanks. The home vacancy rate is something I’ve been keeping a very serious eye on, as a way to anticipate the bottom.

Comment by WT Economist
2008-07-24 06:21:28

I mean that when NYC Planning looked over the address list for the 2000 Census, there were plenty of new buildings that the U.S. Census Bureau had not yet figured out were open and occupied, and would not have been included.

So how is the Bureau, with its modest number of employees and directing resources to gearing up for the 2010 census, going to count all the new buildings that are open and NOT occupied?

Their base data is the U.S. Post Office address list. I’ll bet lots of new ghost towns aren’t even on it.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by packman
2008-07-24 06:46:22

That’s interesting. I wonder at what point a new house is registered with the U.S. Post office?

I do know that many new unoccupied houses show up on zillow etc. - though I’m guessing that’s via the MLS or like mechanism.

 
Comment by WT Economist
2008-07-24 06:53:54

Bottom line, if the numbers look bad, they are in reality worse. Permits may have plunged, but housing started in the bubble continues to get finished.

 
Comment by Wheatie
2008-07-24 08:57:54

“So how is the Bureau, with its modest number of employees and directing resources to gearing up for the 2010 census, going to count all the new buildings that are open and NOT occupied?”

I wonder how the Bureau will count the new buildings that are closed and ARE occupied by squatters?

 
Comment by packman
2008-07-24 12:49:31

“Bottom line, if the numbers look bad, they are in reality worse. Permits may have plunged, but housing started in the bubble continues to get finished.”

Not trying to make excuses for the industry but - my thought was the opposite actually. The numbers are indeed worse than what’s shown in the census reports - however relative to previous years (the front side of the bubble) - the numbers were most likely even worse than they are now - right? There are a lot less homes being built now, and a lot less unsold inventory - e.g. Pulte generally had over 20,000 unsold homes (backlog) during the boom - now the number is 8,500 per yesterday’s quarterly report. (Note that the backlog looks like a lot better now though in reality it’s not since a much higher percentage of that backlog was under contract in years past vs. the current backlog which is mostly pure spec.)

At any rate - since there’s less backlog now of unoccupied new homes, it should stand to reason that the census reports are more accurate now than they had been previously. Census would still underreport some, but less so than previously.

At least it seems to me it would be that way.

However if normally a house that’s “unsold but under contract” would be counted in the census, but homes that are “unsold and not under contract” aren’t counted - then you’re right it would be worse now than previously. That’s why I was wondering at what point homes get reported to the postal service - is it:
a. when building starts
b. when building finishes
c. when they go to contract
d. when they close

That would help tell the tale of how off the census numbers would be.

 
 
 
 
Comment by mrktMaven FL
2008-07-24 06:41:58

Whatever number they manufacture will be much better than expected.

 
 
Comment by auger-inn
2008-07-24 05:08:27

Here is a 7 min. clip from R. Paul explaining the vote and terms of the GSE bill that was passed yesterday.

http://news.goldseek.com/RonPaul/1216926862.php

Comment by VirginiaTechDan
2008-07-24 06:59:10

Reporting all CC transactions to the IRS… wow, time to move to cash only.

Comment by bluprint
2008-07-24 07:57:22

Especially if you want to buy gold (or similar) for long term storage of wealth.

They WILL come knocking one day…and they will have the support of the vast majority of people who cheer the Treasury on as they knock over those wicked “hoarders” causing the value of the dollar to drop.

Comment by jim
2008-07-24 20:03:09

Thats why i sold all my gold for beer money. I got the empties to prove it.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by oxide
2008-07-24 07:59:50

Can somebody offer detail on this (can’t watch the streaming video)? Why would a CC transaction be reported, and what difference does it make to us?

[I understand the value of cash only tho...]

Comment by VirginiaTechDan
2008-07-24 11:35:41

It was part of the F&F bailout that all credit card transactions are now required to be reported to the IRS.

This is a problem if you care about privacy. Now the IRS can look at your credit card history and say… gee you spent “150K” this year, but you only reported 100K of income….

Never mind the fact that you bought stuff on your card for friends and family and never counted it as “income” because it wasn’t “income”.

Now the government will know the buying patterns of the vast majority of society and can use that information against us.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by SDGreg
2008-07-24 07:04:13

Also wrapped into the bill were provisions to increase the Federal debt ceiling by $800B and a provision that requires credit card companies to report all credit card transactions to the IRS.

 
Comment by mrktMaven FL
2008-07-24 07:24:02

C’mon. You know Big Brother is doing it all to save and protect us. There are no special interests.

Comment by reuven avram
2008-07-24 08:13:27

Why couldn’t they have added in a provision to force mortgage companies to report all “stated incomes” to the IRS?

Comment by SDGreg
2008-07-24 08:59:07

“Why couldn’t they have added in a provision to force mortgage companies to report all “stated incomes” to the IRS?”

Would (m)any members of Congress would be on that list?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Reuven Avram
2008-07-24 09:20:13

Actually, I’m sure most members of Congress would understate their incomes!

I’d like the Strawberry pickers to have to pay income tax on their “stated incomes” or go to jail. (Or at least not be eligible for any sort of bailout)

 
 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2008-07-24 07:36:03

Ron Paul got my vote a long time ago. He is surrounded by power hungry, greedy buffoons, that ultimately do give one damn about our Countries future.

 
 
Comment by ozajh
2008-07-24 05:11:11

Speaking of the NAR (gag, choke), I wonder what triggered this effort from Yun;

http://www.realtor.org/research/commentary_seasonal_sales

Actually it’s not a bad baaaaaasic primer on seasonal adjustment and annualisation. But surely any adult businessperson knows this stuff already.

 
Comment by QinQueens
2008-07-24 05:21:31

Hello Ben and all.
I’m trying to log into the forum, but it wont accept my login from the blog.
I also tried sending a password reminder to myself, but both my login and password are not recognized. Do I need to register on the forum in addition to registering here?

Thanks to anyone whom can help.

Comment by Blue Skye
2008-07-24 06:01:37

I think you must register on the forum to login.

Comment by WT Economist
2008-07-24 06:27:37

Re-register using the same name and password, as if you were doing it for the first time. That worked for me.

Comment by eastcoaster
2008-07-24 10:21:47

I missed all the hoopla about hiding email address on the forum, but mine is not being hidden. I took Ben’s advice and just made a new, random one up but I’m curious how others have been successful at hiding theirs, but not me…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2008-07-24 10:44:32

eastcoaster,

I just took a look at your name and your email is not showing up.

 
Comment by eastcoaster
2008-07-24 11:59:27

Thanks. Weird.

 
Comment by hip in zilker
2008-07-24 14:03:51

I changed to a fake email address. But I wonder, is it possible that when you check the “hide email address from public” it hides it from others, but not from yourself?

 
Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2008-07-24 19:24:38

You are correct zip.

Ben mentioned that on the forum about email. You will see your email when signed in, however no one else can see it if you selected hidden from public.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Leighsong
2008-07-24 05:29:46

Chicago Sun Times

Lenders not required to take part in Housing Rescue bill
CONGRESS | Lenders not required to take part in rescue plan awaiting Bush OK

July 24, 2008
BY SANDRA GUY sguy@suntimes.com

Chicagoans desperate to save their homes will need luck to get help from the Housing Rescue bill that the U.S. House passed Wednesday and President Bush is expected to sign, experts say.

“Lenders are not required to participate, so any help would be on a case-by-case basis,” said Gail Parson, foreclosure-prevention campaign director for the Chicago-based National Training and Information Center. NTIC acts as a resource center for community organizing groups nationwide… (Cont’d)

There’s the fracking bailout. The article continues on to note how much here and how much there for downpayments, insurance and credits of different sorts.

Most telling:

“”Keep afloat mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at a potential $25 billion cost to taxpayers.”"

I call fluff!

Morning All,
Leigh

Comment by auger-inn
2008-07-24 07:32:41

I have a post that’ll probably show up later but I wanted to emphasize that the gov’t is desparately trying to spin this as a 25 Billion dollar assist to Fannie/Freddie but the 800 Billion raising of the debt ceiling is a clue to the size of what they really expect and indicates it is going to become a nationalization project.

Here is an excerpt from a JS mineset article, note that the numbers are VERY conservative.

“We all know the Fannie and Freddie bailouts will be over $500 million. They have $5 trillion of paper and loans and if only 1% is bad, that is $50 billion. In our opinion, a very large percentage of their $5 trillion of paper is suspect. According a to a research firm that picked apart the Fannie Mae financial reports at the end of 2007, they estimate that interest only, Alt A and sub prime equal about 25% of Fannie’s loans. If we assume that Freddie Mac is similar, (historically their portfolios have looked somewhat similar). How can it be less than 10% bad paper?”

Comment by James
2008-07-24 15:15:45

Lets see here…. 25% of alt A and other crapola… that is 1.25T dollars. Now if the recovery on the paper is say 50% its 0.625T or a mere 625 billion dollars.

The real question is how many dollars do you throw at FRE/FNM, plus the FDIC, the FHA and the Fed before you go no mas.

I’m thinking we will be 100B in the hole before we cry uncle.

I’m saying these are all connected.

Then the pension fund whipeouts will begin; though these were assured with the boomer retirement.

Anyhow, the Fed has been throwing money into the whirling blades of death for a while. I guess the congress critters would like a turn.

Figure China, Japan and Saudi will also throw some money into the whirlwind as well. Figure another 100B.

Then it will all blend together into some kind of horrible experience that we will look back on and laugh about.

Hey, Ben do remember when the country went bankrupt?

 
 
Comment by David
2008-07-24 09:08:19

the US government’s solution to every problem. Lend the failing institution some money to keep them alive a little bit longer and hope the problem goes away.

 
 
Comment by mikey
2008-07-24 05:42:09

We can all be thankful we didn’t buy an Option Arm McMansion, a zero down Hummer and that HELOC sponsored family trip to southern Spain in the EZ Credit haydays of 2005.

Ooops WAIT !…My bad…The Full Faith and Credit of the US Taxpayers is ABOUT to ASSUME ALL those PAYMENTS… in one form or other :)

Comment by Ann
2008-07-24 05:47:23

LOL..Mikey..sadly..10 people I know come to mind who fit perfectly into your scenerio..of course they are “real estate investors.” “mortgage brokers” or “realtors.”…..

 
Comment by michael
2008-07-24 05:49:32

dont’t forget the heloc wedding.

Comment by aNYCdj
2008-07-24 06:06:09

Yeah the last few years have really been stupid.

I never met so many B&G who hated to pay people in my life $5K for flowers OK, $1500 for godiva chocolates as wedding favors..OK…but to actaully pay a dj, photographer video….uh can you cut us a break we are really over our budget.

Comment by WT Economist
2008-07-24 06:32:48

We paid the DJ back in 1986. The wedding reception was in an American Legion hall. The food was a homey buffet. The priority — as many friends and family members as possible.

That is no longer the priority in the U.S. of A.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by aNYCdj
2008-07-24 06:46:54

WT:

Those are usually the best kind, friendly party animals…and you make me feel like i am part of your family, and not the hired help…it really makes this a fun business.

Maybe we will get back to what is important…no more $1000 ice scupltures and then have the bride looking for a $400 dj on Craigslist!

 
Comment by packman
2008-07-24 07:09:09

Well of course *you* would say that, aNYCdj! :)

Seriously - agree 100%. We had a pretty big wedding and scrimped big-time on decorations and such and even food - we did have a good DJ though. My one really big regret was not hiring a professional videographer - we had a friend do it who - let’s say got a little juiced up before the wedding. There were a lot of memorable moments that are fading over time in our heads, that I wish we had on tape. (e.g. my wife’s sister forgot my wedding ring, and at the altar had to give my wife *her* wedding ring to use - barely fit on my pinky finger!

 
Comment by takingbets
2008-07-24 10:36:36

“The wedding reception was in an American Legion hall. The food was a homey buffet. The priority — as many friends and family members as possible.”

that is the samething we did, we got married in vegas and then had a reception at the local legion hall a couple of weeks later. my mom and her sisters cooked all the food and did a buffet. that was in 1985, boy how times have changed.

 
 
Comment by sfbubblebuyer
2008-07-24 13:22:10

Quit jacking up the prices on wedding services and maybe people with quit bitching about paying for services at their weddings.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by aNYCdj
2008-07-24 17:08:53

Boy are you CLUELESS tell that to a lawyer and see what response you get.

The fact is weddings a LABOR (time) intensive events…..far more labor going into a wedding then a high school reunion.

Seriously i spend double the time on a wedding then if your wife throwing you a surprise 50th birthday party, shouldn’t i be paid for my time too?

 
 
 
 
Comment by reuven avram
2008-07-24 08:16:47

Basically, the government is going to make all those $750K homes bought by Strawberry pickers affordable…by devaluing the dollar so that $750K is now $150K.

It will be paid for by the few percentage of Americans who have actually saved money and have $750K in the bank.

 
 
Comment by cynicalgirl
2008-07-24 06:12:39

Cramer says buy a home now…

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25818021

Does anyone even listen to this clown any more?

Comment by arizonadude
2008-07-24 06:58:02

He is a puppet for cnbc.He should be off the air spending the millions he has.

Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2008-07-24 10:47:32

Does he really have those millions or by following his own advice is now broke? :)

 
 
Comment by diogenes (Tampa)
2008-07-24 09:46:23

Does anyone even listen to this clown any more?
Fools……..whose money has not yet parted from them.
He will help correct that.

 
 
Comment by mikey
2008-07-24 06:26:52

I occassionally peek at the Craigslist RE to see what people are trying to unload here in Wisconsin and found this gem .

$154900 Reduced 15K 5 Acres Hores and Hunting OK (Menomonee Falls, WI
http://milwaukee.craigslist.org/rfs/767716507.html

Uncertain if this genius owner lost his “W” or his “R” somewhere after the 5 acres bit but if theres ANY TRUTH in advertising, this place sounds ideal for a young hot blooded, unmarried survivalist without any interesting hobbies :)

It is well known that my attempts at spelling, diction and 2 fingered typing leaves a lot to be desired but I would at least TRY to get the selling HEADLINE pounded out …correctly :)

Comment by NoVa Sideliner
2008-07-24 08:03:09

Hey, he definitely got you to look at his ad, right? That’s good marketing — though I suspect it was inadvertent.

 
Comment by essessemm
2008-07-24 08:13:39

I don’t understand. Are they just selling a 5-acre lot here? How does the price compare to other lots?

This isn’t in the middle of nowhere as Menomonee Falls isn’t that large and is fairly close to Milwaukee, Waukesha, etc.

Comment by essessemm
2008-07-24 08:15:32

Oh, sorry. You where just making light of “Hores”

 
 
 
Comment by nhz
2008-07-24 06:27:41

hold on there, the sky isn’t falling for the US because the tourists (those from the Euro zone with their fat wallets) are coming! The Dutch travel agencies report that travel to the US is up 49% from previous year, due to low prices. At the same time, travel to China from Netherlands declined a whopping 40% (thanks to all the unfavorable China stories served by our TV news on an almost daily basis).

However, I doubt if tourists that are attracted by low accomodation prices and fire sales in US shops are the ones you can make money on … But who knows, maybe they can be lured into buying some (additional) FL real estate. Maybe this is a good time for Fannie and Freddie to start offering loans for foreigners who buy in the US?

Comment by taxmeupthebooty
2008-07-24 07:05:22

a year ago I used to shudder at you socialized housing stories- tomorrow it’s here

Comment by nhz
2008-07-24 07:11:42

sure, I think the US is learning from the Netherlands how they can make things even worse then they are now.

 
 
 
Comment by hoz
2008-07-24 06:50:16

Shoe Pavilion Files Bankruptcy, Closing At Least 43 Stores
Sherman Oaks, CA-based footwear retailer, Shoe Pavilion, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection July 16, 2008. As of March 29, 2008, the off-price shoes and accessories retailer operated a chain of 113 stores in Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Texas and New Mexico. The company listed $60 million in assets and $25 million to $27 million in liabilities.

In its bankruptcy filing, Shoe Pavilion said 43 underperforming stores would “need to be closed in an expeditious manner.” An additional 28 stores are likely to close unless landlords cooperate with rent breaks, said the retailer. Shoe Pavilion said store closing liquidation sales would start soon and likely be complete by the end of November.

Mervyn’s on the Brink of Bankruptcy
The Wall Street Journal reported today that vendors have halted shipments and key lenders have pulled financing from the Mervyn’s department store chain. With back-to-school inventory on the line, the issue could force the retailer into bankruptcy. Mervyn’s currently operates 177 stores in seven states — most of them are located in California.

Private Equity giants Sun Capital Partners and Cerberus Capital Management acquired Mervyn’s from Target in 2004 for $1.2 billion — only $400 million of that was financed with equity. At the time, the retailer operated 257 stores in 13 states. Earlier this year, Mervyn’s completed a $430 million sale-leaseback deal with Macerich.

Comment by mgnyc99
2008-07-24 07:44:59

cerberus will liquidate the inventory and sell off any tangible assets and real estate involved with the deal

that is what they do best-
they must have smelled blood back in 2004

 
Comment by Kim
2008-07-24 08:03:30

Just last night I was thinking I should expect to see Christmas trees up in the retailers by Labor Day. They’re going to need all the time they can get to come remotely close to a profitable season.

Comment by wolfgirl
2008-07-24 09:59:25

I just hope the stores wait until after Labor DAy to put out the Christmas decorations. Otherwise where will they put the Halloween stuff?

Comment by Carlos Cisco
2008-07-24 15:41:36

Michael’s is getting Christmas merchandise shipped in starting next week. Mgmt source.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by ET-Chicago
2008-07-24 08:07:01

The Wall Street Journal reported today that vendors have halted shipments and key lenders have pulled financing from the Mervyn’s department store chain.

Mervyn’s has been on the ropes for a while. My company used to do work for them; they’ve been in a serious downward slide for at least a year.

If they can’t even make it to Back-To-School Sale time, they’re in dire straits.

Comment by WT Economist
2008-07-24 08:18:33

Gonna be some big job losses after Christmas. Lots of lenders/vendors will keep a business alive till then, hoping to get some money out of the holiday.

I remember January 2001 in NYC. Over 200,000 jobs disappeared.

Comment by WT Economist
2008-07-24 08:19:32

I meant January 1991.

In 2001, the big job losses came in October, as you may recall.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2008-07-24 08:51:36

I remember in the 80’s when Mervyn’s was the retail steamroller. Kohl’s beat them at their own game.

 
 
Comment by janna
2008-07-24 11:14:30

I think the reason people could live on one income was because there was less competition for that job. When women entered the job market, they increased the supply of workers and decreased the cost of labor. Now it takes two incomes to provide what one income provided, because the labor supply is doubled.

I’m a woman, I’m glad I can work and make my own choices, but I can’t deny that essentially doubling the supply may result in a halving of the price.

Comment by hoz
2008-07-24 11:50:01

Janna,

You raise a good question. Did women enter the work market drive down wages or did women enter the market to get additional funds?

Either way it is lowering the standard of living.

Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 12:38:17

“Did women enter the work market drive down wages or did women enter the market to get additional funds?”

Both. The increased number of women entering the workforce in the second half of the 20th century most definitely had an adverse impact on wages. And the consensus of most economic sociologists is that they did so out of economic necessity, while radically changing social norms made it more socially acceptable for them do so.

To go off on a bit of a tangent… this created an artificial increase in GDP, as an increased number of dual-income middle class households began paying for domestic labor (child care, cleaning, laundry, etc). In a household with a housewife, those chores were not considered economic activity; however, when it is paid labor, it is included in GDP data. At the same time, a large portion of this new domestic labor was performed by illegal immigrants off-the-books, so that obfuscates things somewhat. But even if that labor was absorbed by the underground economy, it increased the velocity of money, so it probably had a positive impact on GDP in the end, even if it was an indirect mechanism.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by hoz
2008-07-24 13:45:55

I absolutely agree with you about the artificial increase in GDP. Of course, President Eisenhower was a ‘war president’ that never got us into a war. In fact neither Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan or Bush 1 call themselves ‘war president’.

I’m going to Brazil.

 
Comment by Sagesse
2008-07-24 15:15:38

Be sure to learn your ten pages of pronunciation rules. Latin won’t help.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by ljaycox
2008-07-24 07:19:47

I cannot but imagine that the financial stresses associated with this bust is wrecking marriages in record numbers in some proportion related to these massive increases in forclosure and bankruptcy. Is anyone following the divorce filings in these heavily affected states?

Comment by mrktMaven FL
2008-07-24 07:39:56

A friend of mine is planning to do the grand walk away. They haven’t paid the mortgage in 5 months. Sadly, she is going to leave her little boy behind until she lands on her feet. I remember the dinner where they tried to convince us ‘It was a good time to buy.’

Comment by NotInMontana
2008-07-24 08:51:33

What?? Where is she leaving him behind - in the house she’s leaving? And why?

Comment by mrktMaven FL
2008-07-24 11:16:36

Her husband will probably move in with his mom; iows, her son will live with grandma for a couple months.

She had a mini break-down a couple weeks ago and had to check herself into a clinic. Payment shock can be extremely overwhelming when you’re stretched to the limit. All she wants now is a completely new start — new job, new place, new life, and so on.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by eastcoaster
2008-07-24 08:55:20

Leaving the little boy behind is shameful. Find a tiny apartment to rent and sort it all out, but don’t leave your poor kid behind.

Comment by wolfgirl
2008-07-24 10:03:23

After my grandfater died during the Great Depression, my grandmother spread out her children among relatives. Everyone was emotionally damaged in some way. I think my mother came out the best since she got to grow up with a female cousin her age.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2008-07-24 10:54:56

My grandparents left my mom and uncle with their relatives for a couple of years during the depression. My mom and uncle turned out okay, because the relatives they stayed with made them part of the family immediately. My mom to this day felt this was a vaction for her and her brother. When my grandparents got established in CA they were able to bring my mom and uncle here to CA.

 
Comment by Housing Wizard
2008-07-24 19:33:47

These stories are the bad part of the housing bust . When I think about all the evil that was cause by the greed and unthinking actions of the maker-makers and money-changers.
No wonder Jesus got mad at the money-changers .

Nobody thinks about how must damage mania busts are . The very concept of finding a greater fool to buy your house is a strange concept to begin with . Can’t markets be normal instead of people getting behind a concept of finding a fool to buy something in which the value isn’t there really . I know ,I know ,
this sort of dog eat dog has been going on since the dawn of man ,but it’s sick . It’s a attitude of I get ahead at the expense of another human and who cares as long as I get mine. I got nothing against self-interest ,but play by the rules damn it and have a little pride in your actions . I don’t know who I’m talking to …Sorry ,lecture ending . I’m sorry ,this really got to me about the kid being left behind .

 
Comment by deogee
2008-07-24 20:38:27

“…Sorry ,lecture ending . I’m sorry ,this really got to me about the kid being left behind ”

I’ll second that emotion–and no need to be sorry for the rant. The rant was great and it reached the ears that were intended to hear.

 
 
 
 
Comment by hwy50ina49dodge
2008-07-24 07:40:02

Known as the “Housing Three Step” ;-)

(First moves are backwards):

Step 1: Foreclosure
2nd Step: Bankruptcy
3rd Step: Divorce

Comment by diogenes (Tampa)
2008-07-24 09:52:28

Hey hwy50,
that actually works either direction.
I like it.

Divorce, Bankruptcy, Foreclosure, or the other way.

 
 
Comment by combotechie
2008-07-24 07:46:38

What doesn’t kill a marriage will make it stronger.

Comment by Olympiagal
2008-07-24 08:13:07

I must now ask: Are you married? Or are you just an alien of some sort, here on a day-trip?

(just kidding, combo. I know you’re not here on a day-trip. I’ve seen your posts for a year now. So it must be an EXTENDED vacation.)

Comment by combotechie
2008-07-24 08:41:21

Yep, married for 42 years. I decided long ago to keep the same wife I started out with.

And thinking like that does make me sort of an alien.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by catspit1
2008-07-24 10:00:02

I have the Bubble to thank for helping my ex make the transition out of my life, so there really is a silver lining to every cloud. I should send Greenspan flowers really…

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by WT Economist
2008-07-24 07:21:06

The Census Bureau data for 2Q is out, and holy moley.

The headline is that the rental vacancy rate of 10.0% and the homeowner vacancy rate of of 2.8% are down slightly from 10.1% and 2.8% in 1Q, though the latter is the highest 2Q rate in data going back to 1960 (the rate had never exceeded 2.0% until 2006).

The reality is ugly, based on inventory changes from 2Q07 to 2Q08.

Vacant units are only part of the vacancy rate if they are counted as “for rent” or “for sale.” If they are for rent or for sale, they are counted as for rent. The number of for-rent vacant units is up 277,000 from 2Q 07 to 2Q 08. The number of for-sale vacant units is up 132,000.

HOWEVER, the number of vacant units “held off market is up by 452,000!

The number of vacant units vacant for “other reasons” is up by 277,000.

And then umber of “seasonally” vacant units is up by 448,000.

Overall, the number of occupied housing units is up by 887,000 year-over-year, while the number of vacant units is up 1,256,000 to 18,643,000. Of those vacant units, 13,864,000 are described as vacant “year round” (as opposed to seasonal second home) housing.

Note that the overall inventory is up by 2.1 million — a big year by historical standards. The construction slowdown has yet to work its way into slower inventory growth.

Comment by QinQueens
2008-07-24 07:36:26

2 words:
Woo and Hoo

 
 
Comment by hoz
2008-07-24 07:22:32

US bank rally

Published: July 23 2008 20:04 | Last updated: July 23 2008 20:04

How do you turn a $12.2bn loss into a 22 per cent gain? When Washington Mutual and Wachovia reported dreadful results on Tuesday, their shares soared. The sector as a whole is up 6 per cent this week.

Any number of reasons are put forward for this most counter-intuitive of rallies: short covering, impending mergers, oil prices dropping. Another is that old favourite: the boil has been lanced. A Bloomberg report that John Paulson, the hedge fund manager who made an estimated $3.7bn for himself last year by betting against the subprime bubble, may establish a fund to invest in the scarred banking sector fuels hope that writedowns are largely complete. If true, even the most demoralised banking executive must see the humour in the arch short-seller now considering helping the sector get back on its feet.

The banks – distressed and already highly geared – are a natural target for hedge fund and private equity capital. Apart from the scope for repair, bank stocks are also an option on sector consolidation. Convertible shares can be used to hedge exposure.

Still, it’s a brave soul who calls yet another turning point. Warburg Pincus piled into MBIA, the monoline insurer, in December and has watched the stock fall by four-fifths since then. A group led by TPG ploughed $7bn into WaMu in April at $8.75 per share. Even after this week’s bounce, the stock now trades at less than $6. As for the billions poured into Wall Street by sovereign wealth funds, it’s lucky they are long-term investors.

If Mr Paulson’s fund turns out to be real, it would be comforting that someone who knows a thing or two about US banking’s balance sheet may see some light ahead. The report suggests any such fund will not open for business until December. Much could happen before then.”

LEX FT

in entirety since Lex is subscription.

Comment by vozworth
2008-07-24 13:06:55

thanks Hoz, good stuff.

bailed on my other play yesterday as well, PTRY..it was a stimulus package, oil price relief, takover kinda thingy.

I’ve got some other medium term ideas brewing, but Im not ready to announce… you gotta be in it to win it.

I sure have enjoyed your stuff over the last year. Keeps me on my toes.

Comment by hoz
2008-07-24 13:57:00

I hope whatever you are brewing tastes better than the stuff I drank last night. How do you brew ideas? Hops, a leather whip? Single malt ideas - double distilled, aged 20 years and sold to the Japanese for a radio. Oops that the Fax machine.

 
 
 
Comment by hoz
2008-07-24 07:24:42

“In our comment yesterday (below), we noted that the preliminary work we’ve completed on our credit conditions index puts roughly 8% of all FDIC insured institutions in the stressed category as of Q1 2008 and roughly that same number headed in that direction. That 8% of all US banks translates into over 700 institutions as of Q1 2008. At the end of March, the FDIC had 90 institutions on its troubled institution list. …”
Institutional Risk Analytics

 
Comment by WT Economist
2008-07-24 07:27:07

If just the additional units “held off market” were counted as part of the homeowner vacancy rate, it would be 3.3%, well above the 2.9% in 1Q 2008 now counted as the highest ever.

This doesn’t even count the occupied housing units for sale.

Not to mention all the soon to be unoccupied units occupied by people who can’t make their inflated payments.

And the increase in the number of renter occupied units (455K) exceeded that for owner occupied units (just 432,000 over a year).

 
Comment by hoz
2008-07-24 07:32:46

“… Questions I can’t get off my mind: Why wasn’t IndyMac Bank, whose problems were well known in the financial community, not on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s list of troubled institutions until shortly before its failure this month?

And if IndyMac - one of the three largest institutions ever seized by the FDIC - didn’t make this list, could it be understating problems in the banking system?

Each quarter, the FDIC discloses how many banks and thrifts are on its problem list. It does not name which institutions make the list because if it did, depositors would yank out their money and they would almost surely fail….”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/23/BU9A11TUKC.DTL

 
Comment by dimedropped (Orlando)
2008-07-24 07:39:39

For whom the bell tolls. It is really rolling now. Damn this is scary.

When things went haywire back in the day I had faith that the people upstairs had a handle on it. Now that I am on the top floor I see clearly that there is no one upstairs who knows any more than I do and apparently some, a lot less.

Anyone else want off this thing?

Comment by combotechie
2008-07-24 08:17:45

“Anyone else want off this thing?”

Not me, this is going to be a real E-ticket ride. Relax and enjoy.

Plus, at the end of the ride there will be a pot of gold waiting for those with the cash.

Comment by Tutto Incognito
2008-07-24 11:33:52

Combo man,
I know you have lived a long time and been married for 42, which is years more than my entire life, but why can’t you imagine that this could be something completely new, even for you?

Comment by combotechie
2008-07-24 12:16:38

History doesn’t repeat exactly, but it sure does rhyme.

This whole mess reminds me of the Seventies. Then we had gas lines, rising prices - plus Watergate. The country was doomed and everyone knew it. The best days of the U.S. were far behind us; It was Japan that was going to rule the world’s economy.

The stock market hit a low in the fourth quarter of 1974, in the darkest of days. That was one of maybe two or three lifetime opportunities one is offered to buy shares of excellent companies at very cheap prices. I’m betting another of these opportunities is soon to be at hand.

Those well prepared with knowledge and cash will buy on the cheap from those with neither as another round of dark days presents itself, IMHO.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Wizard
2008-07-24 20:00:15

I also have been through the days your talking about .I remember when we all thought we were doomed with the Cuban crisis in the 60’s and you can’t forget fallout shelter,
right ?

I think the thing that bothers me the most about this current crisis is I don’t get a feeling of politics being on the side of team “America .”

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by walt
2008-07-24 07:43:09

“I think we are very near to the end of the housing downturn,” Yun said.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080724/home_sales.html

Blah, Blah, Blah wake me up when houses are three times income.

 
Comment by DeepInTheHeartOf
2008-07-24 07:46:50

I’m happy.

The sale of my house closed last Friday. I am now house-less.

I’ve been meaning to make a detailed post about it, but have not had the time.

I wound up taking $5K to closing.

And still I am happy.

Comment by hd74man
2008-07-24 08:05:24

RE: And still I am happy.

No happiness today in this household…

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/07/24/the_anguish_of_foreclosure

 
Comment by ET-Chicago
2008-07-24 08:09:09

Congratulations, you’re out!

Must be a relief.

Comment by lostcontrol
2008-07-24 09:54:57

Does this sound like “Matrix”?
lol

Comment by DeepInTheHeartOf
2008-07-24 13:32:49

It kind of feels that way.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Kim
2008-07-24 08:09:29

Congatulations on being “home-free”!

 
Comment by diogenes (Tampa)
2008-07-24 09:58:09

Bu.. Bu.. Ba …But, your are losing out on all the ‘appreciation’. you’ll just be throwing your money away on rent, and worst of all, if you want to buy a house next year………..you’ll be priced out of the market. Just ask any Realtor ™.

I’m really sorry that you didn’t take the advice of the NAR. They will tell You that you have handled your finances poorly.

 
Comment by hip in zilker
2008-07-24 11:06:04

Congratulations. Looking forward to seeing the detailed post.

Comment by DeepInTheHeartOf
2008-07-24 13:33:59

Can’t remember if your handle refers to Austin — Going to spend a day this weekend with the kids in Zilker Park.

Comment by hip in zilker
2008-07-24 14:27:01

It does. I live near the park. Are you going on Saturday or Sunday? I’ll probably be there for a while Saturday. We could meet and greet and take a photo for Ouro’s bucket.

Hopefully our “aftermath of Dolly rain” will have the park and pool a little refreshed after this tough drought.

If you go to the park from Lamar direction on Barton Springs Rd. note the signage for the condo complexes. It’s obscene — breaks my heart. They don’t advertise their tree-replacing stacks of boxes, they advertise the park and the pool - which are not theirs to sell.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by bizarroworld
2008-07-24 07:47:14

Existing home sales fall 2.6 percent in June, more than double the expected amount

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080724/home_sales.html

The National Association of Realtors reported that sales dropped by 2.6 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.86 million units. That was more than double the decline that had been expected and left sales 15.5 percent below where they were a year ago.

And then this gem:
“I think we are very near to the end of the housing downturn,” Yun said.

 
Comment by SDGreg
2008-07-24 07:49:32

Taunton woman commits suicide as home foreclosed:

http://tinyurl.com/5pbhuz

“A 53-year-old wife and mother fatally shot herself soon after faxing a letter to her mortgage company saying that by the time they foreclosed on her house that day, she would be dead.”

Comment by reuven avram
2008-07-24 08:19:08

Wow! That must have left a mess that will cost thousands to clean up! I hope the bank manages to collect from her estate for the clean-up costs.

 
Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 08:26:19

We need to see more useless, insolvent Boomers take this route. If 40-50 million Boomers took their own life, that should resolve the social security and medicare problem.

Comment by In Colorado
2008-07-24 08:55:26

Most likely the poor woman was suffering from clinical depression. No schemer worth his salt would take his own life of something as trivial as a foreclosure.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2008-07-24 09:08:34

As much as I think that people need to pay the consequences for their actions, I would never wish for anyone to fall into a level of despair that would lead them to take their own lives.

 
Comment by cougar91
2008-07-24 11:07:39

I am not sure if you are serious but if you are, that’s damn cold. :-(

Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 11:58:41

I’m dead serious. We’ve got tens of millions of Boomers with absolutely no retirement savings who would otherwise be a drain on society for the next 25-40 years. If they don’t start offing themselves en masse, we’re looking at major budget shortfalls.

It was my hope the bird flu would provide the necessary culling of the herd (not just in the US, but especially in Asia), but if that never strikes we’re going to need a backup plan. I don’t have confidence that the granite countertops emitting radon gas will be effective enough, so popularizing suicide among the most narcissistic generation ever would seem to be our best hope for curtailing future entitlement spending.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Sagesse
2008-07-24 15:03:46

I hope you have a living will with a ‘do not rescussitate’ provision, and have told every family member that you do not wish to linger if illness strikes, and that you will not cling to bodily life, and will not agree to life lengthening treatment whatsoever, and that you will not whine if your grandmother goes at the age of 73, or whatever. Otherwise, what you say is not credible.

All posts which, like yours, fault some ‘previous generation’ or other abstract ‘boomer part of society’ for ‘bad management’ or indulgence or narcissism or ’sense of entitlement’ indicate this:

You yourself feel entitled. Your sense of entitlement includes that you should have had a ‘better’ previous generation than you had, or have. (Then ‘you’ could have a better life - is that not the attitude?)

This attitude does not speak of maturity to me, and neither does it display any understanding of history. Please do not assume that I am what is summarily generalized as a boomer.

 
Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 15:28:25

“I hope you have a living will with a ‘do not rescussitate’ provision, and have told every family member that you do not wish to linger if illness strikes, and that you will not cling to bodily life, and will not agree to life lengthening treatment whatsoever, and that you will not whine if your grandmother goes at the age of 73, or whatever. Otherwise, what you say is not credible.”

Check, check, check, check, check.

“You yourself feel entitled. Your sense of entitlement includes that you should have had a ‘better’ previous generation than you had, or have. (Then ‘you’ could have a better life - is that not the attitude?)”

Not at all.

“This attitude does not speak of maturity to me, and neither does it display any understanding of history. Please do not assume that I am what is summarily generalized as a boomer.”

I honestly don’t give a rat’s ass about your opinion of my “maturity.” As for understanding of history, the Boomers have saved less despite greater disposable income than any preceding generation in pretty much all of human history. They have wantonly supported political leaders who have run up a nearly unimaginable budget deficit over the past 25 years (approaching $70T, including entitlements). I’m not interested in subsidizing their fiscal irresponsibility with 70%+ taxes.

I speak three languages, am in the process of earning a PhD, and have a Brazilian passport in addition to my US one. If circumstances require, I can relocate to any number of countries and pursue naturalization (wife has a MA, fluent in French, etc) and ultimately renounce my US citizenship within 3-5 years, thereby severing any future tax obligations. Pretty much everyone that we know with marketable skills has figured out a contingency plan or two if taxes get outrageous. We’re not going to support the fat, stupid, and lazy.

Simply put, if there’s any justice in this world, then Boomers who acted fiscally irresponsible should lie in trailer park, eating dogfood, receiving substandard healthcare and have to work a part-time job as a WalMart greeter for beer and cable tv money. And in 30-40 years, those of my generation who acted similarly foolishly deserve the same fate.

And I find myself in that position, I would kill myself out of total and utter embarrassment.

 
Comment by auger-inn
2008-07-24 18:49:31

Hey Walt, Did you know the last defense authorization bill contained language to tax all assets of folks (I think at 35%, not sure) leaving the country (renouncing citizenship)? How’s that for a good-bye kiss?

 
Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 22:52:14

I saw that. I’m pretty sure that someone will sue and get a court to overturn that little legislation as unconstitutional. My understanding is that type of tax has been discussed since the Cold War and Congress never implemented it because it was provided for by the 16th Amendment and didn’t involve the transfer of wealth from one individual to another (ie, estate/gift tax). I’m fairly optimistic that it will be long gone well before I’d consider abandoning the US.

And BTW, that’s just a fallback plan. I hope that I can remain a US citizen my entire life. But if necessary, I’ll seek to legally avoid an unjust tax burden by establishing citizenship in another country. The key to that being an option is to cultivate the skills, language proficiency, and education (earning graduate degrees are critical) that would entice a foreign government to grant my wife and me residency and ultimately citizenship.

 
 
 
 
Comment by jag
2008-07-24 09:11:10

They’d filed bankruptcy three times. A couple with a grown son living with them.

Why THIS financial problem “triggered” the suicide is hard to see. They bought the home with about 10k down on $250k purchase.

Somehow, were I the police in this instance, I’d look really hard at the suicide note and other details.

Comment by catspit1
2008-07-24 10:03:21

Planning wise, the poor dear wasn’t the sharpest pencil in the box. She instructed hubby to use the life insurance money to pay off the house.

Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 10:12:16

LOL. Wow. Sorry, that’s just so pathetic that it’s really damn funny.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Housing Wizard
2008-07-24 10:20:08

She said she did it so the family could take the insurance money and take care of the house . Insurance companies usually deny insurance claims if the person takes their own life ,so it looks like she didn’t read her policy . Does cause one to wonder is someone else actually killed her .But it is sad that some people do not realize that there is life after financial set-backs . How about all those rich cats that killed themselves after the stock market crash of 1929.

I know a guy who just found out hes going blind quickly and will have to give up driving and many things of course ,but hes taking this blow very well . He said, “Just one more thing to deal with ,isn’t that life,”
and he laughed .

Comment by bluprint
2008-07-24 11:09:51

How about all those rich cats that killed themselves after the stock market crash of 1929.

I had the same thought when this was first posted the other day. Is this a sign of the impending bottom, when we start seeing bodies on the way down?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 12:03:45

We haven’t reached a bottom until people want to kill themselves, but can’t afford for the co-pay for the barbiturates.

 
 
Comment by Moman
2008-07-24 11:39:42

Most life insurance policies do cover suicides, it’s called the suicide clause, and it generally doesn’t become effective until 2 years after the policy initiation date. This keeps people from buying policies for monetary gain, but protects families from stuff like this.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by incredulous
2008-07-24 10:28:08

They had a 24-yr old son working living at home who couldn’t afford to move out due to insane housing prices, yet they couldn’t grasp how housing prices could/should fall in order for the younger generation to afford them. I know many families in this same situation, grown children who can’t afford to move out, yet they can’t fathom why housing prices at this level aren’t sustainable/justifiable.
rant off-

 
 
 
Comment by Bobby Mac
2008-07-24 08:05:18

just received this email from a realtard…….

Hello

If you are a first time home buyer, you are thinking of buying your new home this year, and you need help with down payment, I strongly recommend we get started right away.

Congress passed a new housing bill and President Bush will be signing it soon. In the bill, FHA (Federal Housing Administration) would BAR/ prohibit seller provided down payment starting this October. Programs like Ameridream and Nehemiah, which allow the seller to gift the buyer with 3% for down payment, will disappear, making first time home ownership almost impossible for many people.

This is very bad news! I work with many first time buyers, and if it were not for these down payment programs, many people would not have been able to afford buying their first home.

You need to get preapproved immediately if you want to take advantage of down payment assistance. We need to find you a home ASAP and close on that purchase before October 1. Please send me an email and let me know that you are ready, so I can refer you to a reputable lender that works with these assistance programs.

Comment by Kim
2008-07-24 08:11:49

What a laugh riot. And technically the Senate hasn’t passed the bill yet.

Comment by reuven avram
2008-07-24 08:22:29

Not that it will do much good, but you should send a copy of this letter to the state’s Attorney General’s office, claiming that a state-licensed professional is distributing incorrect information, and is deceptively advertising.

Comment by San Diego RE Bear
2008-07-24 22:25:24

And then reply to the realtor who you reported it to and how it is illegal.

I agree it probably wouldn’t make any authority look into it, but it may cause a realwhore a bad night’s sleep. :D

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 08:13:39

“Programs like Ameridream and Nehemiah, which allow the seller to gift the buyer with 3% for down payment, will disappear, making first time home ownership almost impossible for many people.”

LOL… if that were true, then prices should plummet after October.

Aside from state workers (in CA, we’re going to start paying them what they’re worth next month!), is there a lazier, less capable group of workers than realtards?

Comment by SDGreg
2008-07-24 08:22:38

“LOL… if that were true, then prices should plummet after October.”

And they won’t plummet after October anyway?

Buy now or have no down payment forever?

Is there any tactic that is beneath them, ever?

 
Comment by hd74man
2008-07-24 09:41:32

RE: And thinking like that does make me sort of an alien.

No you’re normal.

85% of divorce actions are initiated by the woman.

So much for better or worse.

 
Comment by sfv_hopeful
2008-07-24 15:12:57

“is there a lazier, less capable group of workers than realtards?”

Give me a week and I might come up with one, although I wouldn’t recommend you hold your breath.

 
 
 
Comment by hwy50ina49dodge
2008-07-24 08:18:31

“…administration came under fire from Congress for taking only 466 Iraqi refugees since the war began.”

#152 on the Cheney-Shrub Legacy list: “Sorry, the lifeboat is full”

U.S. to give thousands of Iraqis visas:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL2491496220080724

I guess Halliburton has run out of green paint needed to expand the Baghdad “Green Zone”?

 
Comment by takingbets
2008-07-24 08:25:39

Why we tolerate bailouts

The Fannie-Freddie rescue draws only muted criticism, as Americans long for a return to the boom years.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/24/news/bailouts_long.view.fortune/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote

i think people are shouting to deaf ears.

Comment by Housing Wizard
2008-07-24 10:52:27

Funny ,some of the Wall Street talking heads on TV were asking the question about when are the Hedge Funds going to get to go to the
Fed Discount Window . So, I was thinking after I heard that …..oh my God ,don’t tell that’s next .

Comment by hoz
2008-07-24 13:32:31

The Federal Reserve can give moneys to anyone.

Comment by Housing Wizard
2008-07-24 14:42:53

But the point is hoz it’s never been done ,especially without a establishing of regulations or reserve requirements for those entities .

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by hoz
2008-07-24 16:02:29

The regs are posted and reserves are posted. I cited the link from the Minneapolis Fed a few weeks ago.

 
Comment by Housing Wizard
2008-07-24 17:24:30

Hoz, I should say there would be a need for tighter requirements and reserves . But ,just curious ,are you in favor of Hedge Funds being able to go to the discount window ,if you happen to be around and feel like answering that ?

 
 
Comment by neuromance
2008-07-24 16:50:20

As long as the politicians keep getting re-elected, and as long as the industry lobbyists keep paying them, they’ll keep handing out money without consequence.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Ria Rhodes
2008-07-24 08:27:40

“Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the Realtors, said that the housing rescue bill should play a major role in helping the housing market to rebound. He said an especially significant feature is a tax break worth up to $7,500 for first-time home buyers who purchase between April 9 of this year and July 1, 2009.”

Read after inhaling helium:

OK Mr.Yun, I’ll rush out and commit to a legal commitment to repay, with interest, hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house in a real estate market where prices are falling - just because I must have that $7,500 tax break.

Comment by exeter
2008-07-24 08:45:08

ShangHai HongKong EggFooYung, (fun)Yun’s propaganda is never dun

Comment by bluprint
2008-07-24 10:43:47

dude, that is freaking hilarious.

Comment by exeter
2008-07-24 11:32:33

Watching too many Disney videos with your children will do that. ;)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2008-07-24 09:25:13

B.F.D. - they give ya $7,500 for buying some crapshack.

Have at it knifecatchers - in more than a few localities the various levels of gov’t will take that back many times over in form of increased property taxes and income taxes over your lifetime.

 
Comment by stewie
2008-07-24 13:34:48

Read the fine print about that “tax break”. Its not a break at all. It has to be paid back over 15 years. Its a 15/yr interest free loan. Still, better than what you’ld get from Vinny’s Payday Loan Shop/Kneecap Rejuvenation Spa.

 
 
Comment by reuven avram
2008-07-24 08:33:29

Over the past few months, I’ve written many letters to my local Rep. Anna Eshoo.

Among the points I’ve made:

1. Why the Frank-Dodd Housing Bailout Bill is Bad for America
2. If you must support a Bailout, make sure that certain categories of people are excluded: Licensed R-E agents, insurance brokers, people with more than one mortgage, anyone who lied on a mortgage application.
3. If you must support Frank-Dodd, put in something to help “true victims” for example, savers! Eliminate income tax on dividend interest in any FDIC-insured bank account or CD.
4. …help the “true victims,” renters: Criminalize renting properties that are under foreclosure. Make it the law, punishable by jail, to notify tenants if the mortgage on a property being rented is behind.

etc.

So what legislation did Anna Eshoo introduce?

THIS:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06209:

She wants to make it a crime to broadcast television advertisements too loud.

I’ve also pointed out to her that careful savers, with nothing to do with the bubble, with an example portfolio of 50% in a broad-market US stock fund and 50% in a broad market bond fund have lost over 12% of their money in the past year. A frugal person with $1,000,000 in savings last year now now has only $880,000, thanks in large part to efforts to keep the housing market propped up. I asked Anna Eshoo why she seemingly doesn’t care if careful savers drop dead. The answer: Her stock form letter about how Anna cares deeply about “housing” and will do everything she can to Maintain Our Property Values. (If your letter has the word “mortgage” in it, this is the answer you get, even if your letter says “Spinach Watermelon Mortgage Cunt Helicopter” and nothing else)

Comment by Incredulous
2008-07-24 10:46:03

Reuven, yours is the funniest posting I’ve seen in days!

Comment by Housing Wizard
2008-07-24 10:57:10

Get rid of all of them ,it’s a stacked deck .

 
 
Comment by bluprint
2008-07-24 10:49:49

“Spinach Watermelon Mortgage Cunt Helicopter”

lmfao

 
 
Comment by exeter
2008-07-24 08:54:50

Based on my own observations and anecdotal evidence suggests that rents are going *up*. What’s with this trend? It’s hard to believe there are that many FB’ers pushing rental inventory down.

Comments?

Comment by Bub Diddley
2008-07-24 10:14:37

The soaring home “values” (ha ha) of recent years drove up property taxes. Now, times are tuff, places are getting foreclosed, and those tax dollars are going MIA. As muni revenue slips, property taxes are going up further. Higher taxes for landlords. This gets passed on to renters. I think this is one factor.

It’s going to take a few years to play out. With the crazy high home prices many paid, they can’t afford to rent out their attempted flip and make the nut. Meanwhile, many areas are overbuilt with condos, which will ultimately add to rental vacancies. (Just in my neighborhood there are maybe 20 new house/condo/duplex/apartment vacancies that sprung up like weeds during the boom.) First they will sit unsold, then turn to high-end rentals, and then eventually low-end rentals. (Then eventually section 8 housing in a decade or so.) But this will take awhile.

In the meantime, inflation is biting everybody. Landlords will raise rent, but can do so only so much in the face of ballooning numbers of vacancies and increased unemployment and layoffs. Just like selling prices, many of these rental prices are wishful thinking on the part of landlords and property owners. I think we’re still in the denial stage.

 
Comment by desidude
2008-07-24 12:12:32

i renewed for my 4th year with my owner, for the same rent as before.
No increase since 2005. I’m in Toaks, ventura county

 
Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 12:40:27

My rent just increased about 2.75% for the first time since August 2006. We’ve been living in the same place for three years now on a month-to-month.

 
 
Comment by SaladSD
2008-07-24 08:56:08

Breaking News!!! Granite counters are Radioactive! Ah, poor, poor McMansion owners, just can’t get a break:

http://tinyurl.com/6pjnlc

 
Comment by Homoaner
2008-07-24 08:58:06

The New York Times has an article about a hidden risk of your chi-chi granite countertops: radon and radiation!

“As the popularity of granite countertops has grown in the last decade
— demand for them has increased tenfold, according to the Marble
Institute of America, a trade group representing granite fabricators
— so have the types of granite available. For example, one source,
Graniteland (graniteland.com) offers more than 900 kinds of granite
from 63 countries. And with increased sales volume and variety, there
have been more reports of “hot” or potentially hazardous countertops,
particularly among the more exotic and striated varieties from Brazil
and Namibia.

“It’s not that all granite is dangerous,” said Stanley Liebert, the
quality assurance director at CMT Laboratories in Clifton Park, N.Y.,
who took radiation measurements at Dr. Sugarman’s house. “But I’ve
seen a few that might heat up your Cheerios a little.”

Research scientists at Rice University in Houston and at the New York
State Department of Health are currently conducting studies of
granite widely used in kitchen counters. William J. Llope, a
professor of physics at Rice, said his preliminary results show that
of the 55 samples he has collected from nearby fabricators and
wholesalers, all of which emit radiation at higher-than-background
levels, a handful have tested at levels 100 times or more above
background.

Personal injury lawyers are already advertising on the Web for
clients who think they may have been injured by countertops.

– “What’s Lurking In Your Countertop?” by Kate Murphy, New York Times, July 24, 2008

Comment by dimedropped (Orlando)
2008-07-24 09:10:27

Next new thing in home decor….lead countertops…comes with lead lined apron for Mama…..vasectomy???….not me just gonna slice and dice each night and cozy up to the counter top.

Comment by combotechie
2008-07-24 09:50:22

A vasectomy means never having to say you’re sorry.

Comment by edgewaterjohn
2008-07-24 10:16:51

LMAO!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by dimedropped (Orlando)
2008-07-24 11:19:58

also you never have to say….OOOOPS!

 
 
 
 
Comment by Sleeper
2008-07-24 10:05:22

LOL. Now you dont need undercabinet lighting. Your counters glow in the dark ;-)

 
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2008-07-24 10:21:53

Uh oh!

Lotsa expectant yuppie mommies are gonna tummy up to some granite tonight. After taking steps to ensure junior will have the best schools, the best friends, and the best opportunities - they can’t really afford to take chances messin’ with the big “R” - can they?

They better rip out that granite… or better yet…sell that place altogether (into a declining market).

 
 
Comment by bizarroworld
2008-07-24 09:57:01

Pimco: $1 trillion housing losses seen
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080724/usa_pimco_gross.html

A major problem the housing market now faces, Gross wrote, is that 30-year fixed mortgage rates are now higher than when the Federal Reserve began to cut the funds rate in September 2007.

Once factoring in both the total costs of buying a home and the fact that U.S. house prices, which peaked in 2006, are still falling, “it is obvious that homes are not the bargains that starving realtors claim they might be,” Gross wrote.

 
Comment by calex
2008-07-24 10:06:37

From the Cali thread,

Comment by mrincomestream
2008-07-24 01:17:52
Yea, I know….we’ve disagreed on this before…but go do the numbers 300k for example that’s a 10,500 downpayment… if the seller pays points to buy down the rate and assists with closing the payment is $1750 + roughly another 450 for taxes and Insurance….that’s gardner and security guard + wife money here…that will soak up a lot of inventory quickly…compound that with the fact that FHA allows for money to be put on the app that doesn’t have to be documented…puhleesseee…you won’t get half the depreciation in prices that you should….if the Senate signs off the bottom will come quickly…

Do some research on what it takes to qualify for a FHA loan before you laugh…and don’t even get me started on the land banking that HUD will do with the remainder of the excess inventory…and now the States will have a grant to landbank as well LOL

You need to do a weekend topic on that….

I am not in the business so I admit you do know more than me, but..
Gardener or Security Guard + wife money ~ 30 bucks per hour MAX and I doubt they have 10 grand for down payment. Plus consider car payment, credit cards, kids and not a chance they can afford a 300,000 house. 200,000 is what they are looking for and can afford, anything more than that and they are lying on the application and will lose it to foreclosure later anyway. Thats why they bought in the IE and not the OC. Pre 2001 you could find houses in the IE under 200,000 no problem. I think when you start making loan broker type money you forget what the everyday people really make for a living. Your average everyday family (most people) with 2 office jobs makes 90,000.

I don’t know what a land bank is, but I would assume that would be the states buy the home from the bank then resale or section 8 the house. Or possibly just bulldose the ones they buy. I don’t see that happening unless they buy entire neighborhoods. Last I heard section 8 had a 3 year waiting list, so maybe all these land bank homes will turn into section 8 housing.

I say, prices will continue to go down no matter what they do.

 
Comment by Ria Rhodes
2008-07-24 10:10:00

Granite countertops + excessive cellphone use + fast food diets = premature visits to oncologist/cardiologist.

As for the mobile yak yak generation:

I wish granite and cellphone radiation was enough to thin their hoards as their preoccupation with that plastic communication device pressed to their ears is a real menace to those of us in their paths (look out!), or to those of us seeking solitude from their all encompassing yakkery. OK, that’s a bit harsh, but you get the point (~:

 
Comment by lostcontrol
2008-07-24 10:10:06

My, mother, 78 years old and living in Sacramento, CA has decided to unplug from the “Matrix”. She is discontinuing the local Newspaper and Cable TV service.

In her opinion, she is cutting costs. Upon notification to her service providers of her decision, they were willing to cut the monthly cost and/or give her #months free. She refused, but noticed her leveraging power. They wanted the income stream, like hotel rooms in LV or filling seats on Airlines.

She purchased “rabbit ears for the TV”.

I advised her that her fav programs (C-SPANN 1,2 &3) were on the internet. Since she is a supported of her local library (former English teacher offering her time to students there), that she use their computer and internet as opposed to buying same.

Hech, she is one smart cookie.

This is the future, NOW!

Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 10:15:59

I’m going to be terminating our “land line” later this month. The only calls we get on it nowadays are from telemarketers and wrong numbers. Anybody who we want to talk to know that the best way to get ahold of us is by cellphone or email. Why spend $20/month on a totally superfluous utility?

Comment by Reuven Avram
2008-07-24 10:26:02

911

Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 10:41:44

My cell connects with the local 911 dispatcher. The two times that I’ve had to call 911 in my life were both on a cellphone and the call was routed correctly without any delay.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Moman
2008-07-24 11:48:19

I cut the land line in 2000 and have only used a cell phone since then. I cannot imagine paying for a land line for any reason. I would have higher utility to spend the $30/month on beer.

 
Comment by wolfgirl
2008-07-24 13:16:15

WE dropped our land line several years ago. We get internet access from the cable company. When we dropped the landline, we were still watching cable but finally realized that there was very little on tv than we actually watched. We do watch some online but mainly like science fiction and horror. So we have a lot of movies.

Comment by calex
2008-07-24 14:20:07

Dropped the landline and decided since my neighbor could see my wireless internet we decided to share just 1 internet connection and 1 bill.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by InMontana
2008-07-24 14:20:57

I get broadband from phone or I’d do the same thing. To do it with cable would mean signing up for their digital package (again) which is over 100.

If I could figure out how to get broad band withoutlandline tel, cable or satellite I’d be a happy camper.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by InMontana
2008-07-24 14:18:42

Rabbit ears won’t work when it all goes digital next year, at least not on my old TV from 1992. That keeps me on basic cable for now.

Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 15:03:48

You can get a coupon from the government that pretty much covers the cost of converter box. Limit (2) per household, IIRC.

Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 15:06:07

Here’s the link:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/dtvcoupon/

Coupons are for $40/E. Looks like Best Buy sells the converter boxes for $60/E, so figure $20 net per TV. Not too bad. Beats the hell out of paying for a new TV.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by takingbets
2008-07-24 11:00:51

All types of mortgages see rate increases

Supporters said the legislation, which also seeks to address a rising tide of mortgage foreclosures, should help arrest the worst slump in housing in a generation. President Bush has promised to sign it.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, predicted that the legislation would have an immediate impact in helping to bring mortgage rates back down as investors become more assured that the federal government will step in if necessary to prevent a meltdown at Fannie and Freddie.

“The big rise in rates reflected the financial problems at Fannie and Freddie. We should see those rates come back down, but if they stay up, that would be a real problem for the housing industry,” Zandi said.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080724/mortgage_rates.html?.v=2

 
Comment by MEaston
2008-07-24 11:12:38

Hedge funds ie gamblers/manipulators will now have direct access to your savings account. Will they be able to influence a bank to give one of their gambling arms huge loans with no collateral. My guess is yes.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=andzW.Pv3DjY&refer=home

 
Comment by takingbets
2008-07-24 11:14:59

High Anxiety: Americans’ Top Financial Fears Revealed

Consumers are anxious about savings. Some 58 percent are somewhat or very worried because they have nothing saved for retirement and can’t afford to save — the figure was 70 percent among people age 31 to 50. More than one-third are worried because they have nothing saved for college.

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/moneyhappy/95501

70% of the people polled do not have any savings!!!!!!!! how does the government expect to turn THIS crisis around?

Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 11:46:37

Over on the Sac Bee, I’ve been following the commentary on the story about state workers getting paid only minimum wage until the budget impasse is resolved. In actuality, it would just be a delay of a paycheck by a month or two, at the most. It seems that every other comment is from a state worker who claims that they’ll be unable to afford food for their family the day after their direct deposit doesn’t hit.

I’ve restrained myself from posting, but don’t any of these people have any reserve fund available? If you are a California state worker, it shouldn’t be a total shock that every few years there’s a disruption in your paycheck in late summer. These people don’t even have a SINGLE MONTH’S worth of savings, or even enough available credit to cover basic living expenses for the very short-term?

I just don’t get it.

Comment by Homoaner
2008-07-24 14:02:08

I recently looked at state and federal job postings in California and for the most part was shocked at how low the pay was. I thought California was a high-expense and thus higher-income state. But most of the positions I looked at (both degreed professional and blue-collar) paid less than they do in Minnesota. $31K/yr for scientists. $13/hr office administrator. $17/hr electrical contractor. WTF?

Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 14:53:14

The benefits (especially retirement) more than make up for the low base pay, which has a guaranteed COLA that’s usually outpaces official inflation. Also, most state jobs are based in Sacramento (where I’ve lived for 6 years), which costs about the same as Minneapolis/St Paul (where my wife is from and where we’ve looked at moving to for a while). Generally, most agencies provide a cost-of-living adjustment for positions based in the Bay Area or LA.

In addition, in CA state government, generally everybody starts at the low-end of the salary scale regardless of private sector experience. So it’s really hard for anyone much older than 30 or 35 to make the switch. But again, the retirement benefits make those positions very attractive.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by manfre
2008-07-24 22:37:59

I used to work for state of CA. The medical benefits are good, but, if you don’t have major health problems, any basic medical plan from an employer will suffice. The pension is good, but, for most of the rank and file, you pay 5% into it.

If you are one of the better protected classes such as firefighters or police officers, you get 50% more pension money for same time. That is where the true gravy is.

Also, there are other gov jobs in other states, counties, and cities outside of CA that are better paying like the city of Phoenix (worked there too at one time), the state of NC (never worked there), or the fed government (was offered job there but didn’t accept, I would have normally, but, happened to have an even better opportunity).

 
 
 
 
Comment by combotechie
2008-07-24 11:57:28

“70% of the people polled do not have any savings!!!!!!! how does the government expect to turn THIS crisis around?”

For a start, the government could remove incentives for early retirement and increase incentives for working past sixty-five.

Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 12:00:48

You mean not everyone is entitled to a retirement at age 50?

 
Comment by waiting_in_la
2008-07-24 12:07:47

I thought saving was so old school. Aren’t you supposed to max out your credit lines now?

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2008-07-24 14:22:30

Falling home prices have already increased incentives to work past age 65.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2008-07-24 14:11:27

“70% of the people polled do not have any savings!!!!!!!! how does the government expect to turn THIS crisis around?”

This makes me wonder where $25 bn (or whatever the bailout tab turns out to be) is supposed to come from?

 
 
Comment by QueensDude
2008-07-24 12:13:15

Does anyone know what happened to http://nychousingbubble.blogspot.com?
It seems to have been purged from the Internet, which is too bad, because
it was a superb resource for those of in NYC who try to keep abreast of
the RE madness and impending meltdown here.

Comment by walt526
2008-07-24 15:08:16

The SEC declared that they were too pessimistic on the financial sector and purged the site to allow WaMu and Wachovia to recover this week. The webmaster is being held in Guantanamo as an enemy combatant.

Comment by San Diego RE Bear
2008-07-24 22:38:17

Dang, what are they going to go to Ben? :( Tie him to a granite counter until his brain melts and he starts screaming “Now’s a GREAT time to buy or sell a house!” :D

 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2008-07-24 14:14:55

Good for the richest!

Richest Americans See Their Income Share Grow
By Jesse Drucker, The Wall Street Journal
Last update: 12:33 a.m. EDT July 23, 2008

In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation’s adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data.

 
Comment by hoz
2008-07-24 14:39:37

“…WAMU CDS closed yesterday at the 760/780 level which was the widest level of the day. I am not a maven of the mechanics of credit derivative trading but apparently they are so dire that they are trading on a points up front basis rather than spread.

The gentleman who fed me this quote said that the current points up front level would roughly equate to a spread of about 900. So it is over 100 wider on the day….”

John Jansen

A points up front basis means X points before the spread (in WAMUS case 14 pts upfront plus spread of 500 for 19pts total, yesterday it was 10 pts upfront plus 760 for 17.60 spread.) The bond market is screaming insolvent.

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post

  • The Housing Bubble Blog