The Housing Bubble

Perhaps the FB would be withholding payments on first mortgage to steer the bank into modifying it, while making payments on the second (not expecting that one to get a modification)? This makes no sense to us HBBers, but would make perfect sense to someone desperately (delusionally?) trying to keep their house.

Other reasons could be due to misinformation: Trying to follow the old rule about paying off higher interest debts first? Perhaps the FB in a non-recourse state could be under the impression that the deficiency judgement won’t apply to the primary mortgage, so he tries hard to wipe out the second (erasing or lowering a possible judgement in advance)?

Especially on a bicycle.

For the sake of argument, I tried to put a price on the value of commuting by bike. At minimum, for my case anyways, it’s likely around twenty grand a year. But that’s straightline - many hidden values are priceless.

My job is such that I’ve a decent understanding of where a lot of my coworkers live, and how much they make. The fact that such a large portion drive to work is simply astounding. We’re talking people making around thirty grand and living less than five miles away. Lots of misallocated dollars there, that might be needed later.

The fact that such a large portion drive to work is simply astounding. We’re talking people making around thirty grand and living less than five miles away.

That was a big baffler during my employment days. Especially during the last FT job that I had. That job was in a building that had secure bike parking and a shower.

So, you could get a killer bike workout on the way to the office, park your bike in the bike closet, take a shower, and then be fresh as a daisy at your desk.

2 elementary kids in a good school and great neighbors. All theirs friends are here. This really is a great place, we just can’t buy here.

If I’d had the same set up, I would have kept renting.

Don’t hate on us guys that care about our appearance or want to be free from the ill-effects of a hairy back…

Holy crap. I thought “manscaping” referred to building a large garage or turning the den into a bar/pool room.

Oh, it that was that is? I thought manscaping was when you put in a drip irrigation system, but the hubby did the whole thing himself.

Hairy chests and backs are gross.

There is nothing wrong with fur!

And I prefer pinball machines over pool tables. Trying to get a local route company to sell one now. They won’t budge.

2 cats, 2 dogs (one a Rottweiler) is good enough reason for me to want to buy a house.

Don’t forget to factor in the risk of getting killed on the freeway, and the hit to your cardiovascular system of being stuck in traffic twice a day. This is the bay area, after all.

I used to have a 45 minute commute that gradually shortened to a 30 minute commute as I evolved into a homicidal maniac on the road. I now work from home, and the world is a safer place for it, but there are many out there like me, still on the road, willing to risk a fiery crash to get around one more car.

AmazingRuss,

( And that makes ‘two’ of us! ) Not to mention the weight you gain sitting stuck in traffic vice doing just about anything else?

Probably have a higher chance of dying in a bicycle accident versus car accident.

It’s practically suicide to ride bicycle in my city anywhere other than the park bike paths.

I hear ya, moving bites.

One tactic that might help, however, is to study your locale and note where the major job “nodes” are - usually these are the CBDs (downtown), but airport areas, industrial suburbs, etc. are good too.

Then, to the greatest extent possible, locate one’s self amidst or close to one or more of these nodes. If decent public transit is available - then add proximity to the nearest station to that.

No, it’s no foolproof, but it might help. When making digital maps I got to see exurbia in all its glory - and it was beyond a doubt that those people were willing to commit to awfully long commutes, and they were purposefully limiting themselves to just one mode of transport, and often to just a single road in and out!

That’s too tenuous a link to employment* nowadays. Mobility plans B, C, and even D are called for.

*provided one is buying an expensive house - which basically all houses have become - relatively speaking.

One tactic that might help, however, is to study your locale and note where the major job “nodes” are

That’s a good plan, ej. Unfortunately, this is Seattle, and there’s really no “perfect” place.

There’s the east side - Bellevue, Redmond, etc - where a lot of jobs are (most at Microsoft). I live out here. Housing is generally cheaper out this way, bigger lots, etc. I don’t care to work for any of the big companies out here, so it doesn’t make sense from a commuting point of view, but I like being closer to the mountains, more open space, etc.

Then there’s downtown - the other main location of tech jobs. This is where my job currently is. Lots of cool neighborhoods, but housing is considerably more expensive. When I was looking, there weren’t many options for SFHs for rent for < $2500. Of course, quality of life would be higher as I could walk/bike/take the bus most places, and would have a short commute to work.

There’s really no places in between, due to Lake Washington. Just two floating bridges.

So, I’ll rent, and move as it makes sense. Chances are I’ll move back close to downtown, and close to my job. It’s just a question of how much $$$ I’m willing to trade for getting that time back in my life, and how much smaller a yard + house I’m willing to trade for.

Well, here’s to hoping those Seattle prices come down!

Have heart, I am seeing price action here that I myself somewhat doubted. Prices are falling, it’s just that some people are doing their darnest to obfuscate that.

Long commute has one benefit, audio books.

My commute isn’t bad, just 10 miles. I roughly finish a book in 10/12 days.

Yes, we should not live like we are already miserable!

Landlords do make me angry!

What makes the SF bay area “culture” different is the area is extremely multicultural. Every state, every country in the world is represented. San Francisco by itself is a world of food, music, entertainment, ethnic celebrations, etc.

…But you’d find “culture” anywhere you go- including in the US. Sure- lots of different people from different parts of the world live in San Francisco. But the same is true in Dallas, Houston, Atlanta… even Huntsville AL where there’s actually quite a large Indian population. Additionally, anywhere you go is going to have its own unique character and qualities you won’t find anywhere else but there. That people in SF seem to believe they alone are the seat of culture and the most ethnically diverse city is sort of simplistic if you ask me.

ok.. but there’s lots more attractions besides that. Wikipedia’s pages on SF and the area cover all the reasons why people are willing to pay a premium to live there.

There’s little information about why people leave, or prefer to just visit and then get the hell out. Maybe someone should start a wiki page about that.. a list of reasons why the SF Bay area sux.

-again, I grew up somewhere else so perhaps my views are different. Some people I know in SF can’t fathom living anywhere else. Some don’t even leave San Francisco and consider other parts of the Bay Area to be inferior.

I’d say about 60% of the people I know here have future plans to leave. Mainly because its expensive. We’ve been exploring other metros for about 3 years. Some that we’ve visited like Austin are quite fun. It was a lot younger too.That and a pretty cool house was under $150,000. The same was true in Atlanta. These weren’t perfect cities. But neither is the Bay Area by any means.

I guess whether the Bay Area is “worth it” has more to do about what you actually do in your everyday life. If you’re the life of the party, feel that you must go to art exhibits and eat at 5-star restaurants at all times then yes- maybe the Bay Area is right for you. As for me I’m more than likely going to be at home in the back yard or in the garage tinkering around on stuff. I like a good microbrew or sitting in a brewpub like the next guy. But I did both of those things when I visited my parents last year as the town they live in now have several local microbreweries. Truth be known good food, beer, wine, and art have become almost synonymous with the US metro experience. A lot of medium and small cities now have their own brand of yuppified downtown attractiveness that Bay Area folks hold so dear.

In reality most people living here do like everyone else in the country: They get up, drive to work, get off work, come home, watch TV and get up and do it all over again. Then they might do something like eat out or go wine tasting on Saturday and spend Sunday mowing the lawn. You can do that just about anywhere. The only difference is that you have to pay a fortune for the ‘privilege’ in the Bay Area.

SF was a working class town up to 1970 or so. Prior to that, the average tradesman could buy a house and raise a family without undue strain.
Something happened right around the time they built the Transamerica Pyramid… although I don’t see any reason to blame that building.

Politics were much different after the hippies and the anti-war movement. That might have been the spark. I haven’t given it much thought.

Anyway, those earlier inhabitants (the ones who are left) don’t pay a premium to live there. It’s just plain old home. They’re not there for the amenities.

But most sold property and moved away, and the families who rented instead of buying certainly had to move.. to suburbia.. or to San Jose or wherever.

I can’t envision an inexpensive San Francisco, but who knows.. stuff happens.

The Bay Area became expensive in the 1970s because that was the dawning of the age of the internet software engineer.

But since that ship has already sailed, I think you should expect San Fran to become affordable once again to everyone else.

i know of one strong influence on property prices.

SF has always been tolerant of “outsiders”. Just about everyone was an outsider with the last 50 years or so, so who could complain.

A relatively new group surfaced around the early 70’s, and that was the homosexuals. They did come from all over the country and the world to settle there, and live their lifestyle in the open, pretty much free of the abuse they suffered elsewhere.

Many, if not most, were affluent professionals and they bid up the price of RE in certain neighborhoods. And they put a hell of a lot of money into upgrading and refurbishing old houses, which cost lots of money.

I sold RE around that time and our office had only one “gay” dude who was more or less assigned to that element. Even though this was in a neighborhood far from the action, he made out OK.. no doubt about that.

SF has always been tolerant of “outsiders”. Just about everyone was an outsider with the last 50 years or so, so who could complain.

Wouldn’t you say they are but they aren’t depending on what the “outsider” was?

Are they really “tolerant” of conservatives or devout Christians?

Some thought me a rube if I told them I believed in Jesus and God.

How do you figure that gay people are “affluent professionals”? They have higher rates of drug dependency and depression. Where are the stats showing that gay people have more money than everyone else?

Sure, they may be less likely to have kids, but they’re also less likely to have a stable life partner, and less likely to want to buy a house.

big V.. i didn’t say gays are affluent professionals.

The pioneering ones that moved to SF in the earlier period, who bought and fixed up entire blocks of property south of Market St, had plenty of money to spend. These weren’t bums.. weren’t “gay” hamburger flippers .. although there were plenty of those as well.

Similarly, there was a big wave of Chinese somewhat earlier… but these were not professionals. They were small business people mostly.
And the entire family chipped in, iincluding those still living in China… old-country style.
They mostly purchased property in and around North Beach (next to old Chinatown) at first, but then spread out all over the city.

Result in both cases was significant property price inflation..

..Some thought me a rube..

rio.. Thinking, much less calling someone a rube is not intolerance. Did they burn your house down in broad daylight, and the cops didn’t lift a finger?

It’s a big city like any other. Big cities are diverse and dangerous.

Thinking, much less calling someone a rube is not intolerance. Did they burn your house down in broad daylight, and the cops didn’t lift a finger?

If you want to piddle with semantics fine. Whatever.

However San Francisco is generally not very tolerant or accepting of conservatives, devout Christians or anti-immigration people.

So I would not say San Francisco is any more “tolerant” than Mobile Alabama.

They are just “intolerant” towards different groups.

rio, i do get your point.

but here’s the fact. The liberals are tolerated. SF has a history of accepting whatever comes along.

Conservatives abound in SF… outnumbered these day, for sure, as is reflected in the city government, but they are there along with everyone else. Everyone tolerates everyone else. There are no church burnings or leather bar burnings.

Nobody really gets fired up about anything except money, which obliterates any and all social pettinesss. It’s the great equalizer.

The Bay Area is much more multicultural than other places in the US, and more importantly that in some places the “multiple cultures” actually mix. They are friends, hang out and have diverse social circles. I haven’t found that anywhere else. In CA it isn’t weird to see a table with 2 white people, 2 black people, 2 indian people and 2 latinos hanging out without people giving them crazy and confused looks. If you can find a place like that with decent weather I am there. Preferably with good produce.

and more importantly that in some places the “multiple cultures” actually mix. They are friends, hang out and have diverse social circles.

Yes. I would say that is true. I liked that part too.

“The Bay Area is much more multicultural than other places in the US, and more importantly that in some places the “multiple cultures” actually mix. They are friends, hang out and have diverse social circles. I haven’t found that anywhere else. In CA it isn’t weird to see a table with 2 white people, 2 black people, 2 indian people and 2 latinos hanging out without people giving them crazy and confused looks. If you can find a place like that with decent weather I am there. Preferably with good produce”

… then again my dad’s best friend in North Carolina was Greek and the renters above us was a German man with his Indian wife. Nobody made a big deal about it. People seem to make this great big deal about the “multicultural” aspects of SF. But after having grew up in the Southeast, lived for a few years in NY, and now 10 years in the Bay Area I can definitely say that the exact same problems exist here as anywhere else: Social, political, economic and racial segregation. Simply put, certain ethnic groups live in certain areas as do certain economic demographics. I’d almost say things are worse here than elsewhere simply because people go out of their way to claim they are so open minded and so on and so on but yet reality paints a different picture.

My take is things went to heck in the early 1970’s when the last orchard in Santa Clara county was plowed up for subdivisions. Once there was no longer a steady stream of new houses, the resale prices went through the roof due to inelastic demand caused by a booming job market.

Prop 13 was enacted in 1979 IIRC.

Its a combination of things. Believe it or not the Bay Area has one of the lowest housing densities among US major metros. A lot of anti-growth, smart-growth, green space initiatives were passed in the 70’s too. It makes for rather beautiful landscapes but prohibitively expensive real estate. Just look at the cities if Sydney and Melbourne Australia as well as Vancouver Canada. These too have rampant anti-growth measures that have over time ensured their spots as the most costly cities in the world as we speak- right up there with San Francisco.

Prop 13 has had a measurable affect on the natural cycle of home sales and the transfer of homes from one generation to the next. Instead, older residents are actually incentivised to stay in their homes forever and even in many cases grandfather them to their relatives. They pay a pittance of the actual tax value of their homes and as a result local and state infrastructure suffers from lack of funds. This in turn also puts a limit on the total amount of homes available since older people basically park on what they own. I’m in no way saying to “throw the old people out on the street”. In most other states older residents get a tax cut or a tax cap on their properties. The problem with Prop 13 is that it was for everyone- including businesses, which in turn makes starting a new business difficult given your older competition pays less in property tax.

Lastly, I’ve noticed there is a strong Not In My Backyard sentiment in the Bay Area. I’ve lived on both coasts and seen this before. It seems to be a common thing in wealthy neighborhoods where those that live there are comfortable and see no need to support civic needs. Of course they’ll fight tooth and nail to keep their schools squeaky-clean but when it comes to voting on things like bus stops, telephone poles and new housing they’ll turn it down every single time- just as they do in the town I live in here. NOTHING new ever gets built and therfor this too limits new housing. When and if new housing somehow makes it through all the red tape, local protesting residents and environmental requirements the houses in the end cost a small fortune to compensate.

Again- we are moving away. Perhaps where we’re going will be sprawly- as in the type of places people in the Bay Area poke fun of. But I’ll take sprawly anyday over unaffordable, broke, and crumbling away from lack of taxable income.

Perhaps where we’re going will be sprawly- as in the type of places people in the Bay Area poke fun of.

Have you not seen the south bay? Is that not the most sprawly place ever? It’s and endless suburb!!!

..and as a result local and state infrastructure suffers from lack of funds.

re Prop 13.

Where is this suffering infrastructure of which you speak? Got any examples?

I don’t mean current. I mean pre-bubble, pre-recession.

Prop 13 has been around for over 30 years.

He wants to build equity

I am a firm bubble believer, but he was brought up that you had to buy a house and pay it off etc etc and it’s a way of saving.

And I think he wants me to say buy now or rent forever so he knows whether he can go out and blow our deposit or get a big car loan for his dream car instead - he’s that ” difficult” about it right now.

Anyway, thanks for everyone’s positive feedback - those I will try to use.

You could say we are a casualty of TARP - way back when these blogs started we figured on 2012 being the bottom and I hoped this area would show distress by now, but all the government interventions have screwed it up for us. How does the saying go ? All the best laid plans of mice and men……

Regarding building equity - putting money into a depreciating asset is not a way to build the balance sheet. Save some cash and when housing comes out of the stratosphere (for real - not just based on the constant mantra of the NAR and Wall Street), you’ll be better positioned to actually improve your balance sheet.

Regarding having the independence to make your own adjustments - becoming a slave to the bank and the house is not independence.

And yes, the government has been throwing trillions to keep the values of house prices up. I didn’t see that coming either. BUT - it’s still not an excuse to become a slave to the bank and the house.

Burning money in rent? You’ll be burning money in interest. You don’t just pay principle on a mortgage You’ll pay double the price of the house over the life of the loan due to interest.

You already have a good situation for you and the kids, while the housing situation slowly, but surely reaches sanity again.

Sounds like hubby wants an adventure. He’s focused on the house. Directing him to something that is not so cash intensive is the way to go. I don’t have any suggestions that aren’t kind of dangerous - skydiving, hang-gliding, mountaineering - perhaps geo-caching. Or just triathloning.

“…some guys might even start thinking, “Heck, if I have to “pay” for it, what’s the difference between her and a hooker?” Some guys may act on this,”…..or….er….ah…at least that is what I hear.

How much was this second lien? For a $200K house no mney down 20% second lien…$5K or so? They are fighting over 5K? For a cash offer?

I’m sorry…by $5K I mean that’s 25% of 20K, the difference between offering $195K and $215K. Maybe it should be 4K?

Do NOT try this at home as mikey is quite insane, does not know what he is doing and you could end up with a great big stupid house!

Good job Mikey!

I’ll be surprised if this closes. Most short sales don’t.

Las Vegas Boulevard, but go north of the Strip, you’re in a real hellhole.

It’s called the “Naked City” because in the ’60’s the showgirls who lived in the apartments would sunbathe nude.

Now it’s also called “Murder Alley”

(Etymological factuality not guaranteed)

My theory on why Vegas’ population grows is people lose all their money and get stuck there. Eventually they find work.

So, at any given time, there’s some unhealthy number of desperate people walking around..

It’s more class warfare jargon. “Working class” implies one who works with his hands but gets paid less than his middle class desk job having peers. Blue collar vs white collar. It’s not enough for the working class to hate the rich, let’s get them hating anyone not doing manual labor for peanuts.

The distinction is a college education, IMHO. And also whether you take a shower BEFORE or AFTER work.

White collar - shower in the morning
Blue colar - shower when you get home from work

White collar - shower in the morning
Blue colar - shower when you get home from work

agree, but this isn’t about blue vs white collar.

This is “working class” vs “middle class”

I think the way most people use the terms blue v. white/working v. middle are the same thing. Maybe it would be helpful for you to be specific about what you’re talking about that applies to one division but not the other?

You know Bill’s financial situation?

And that goes for you too. You were born a wage slave and you will die one. Just like the rest of us.

If he works for the gubmint he probably does.

Anyway, I’ll agree that all those who are rich robbed their way to that status if exeter agrees that all union members are thugs.

Don’t involve me in your personal war on CWA. And there is no need to run from your wage slave status.

Amen.

A couple years ago two med-helo’s crashed into each other on approach to Flagstaff Medical. The news papers called them hero’s. I call them f’ups. Seven people died. But for the Grace of God those helos didn’t go down on someone’s house. I don’t even have words for how I feel about this.

Many years ago, I had the privilege of meeting Captain William R. Haas. He’d been an airline captain for many years, and then, on my 15th birthday, his plane was hijacked.

To put it mildly, the hijackers were loose cannons. They shot his copilot. (He lived.) And, if you can recall in the days and months after 9/11, there was fear of hijackers forcing a plane to be flown into a nuclear reactor. That almost happened on Captain Haas’ flight.

The flight eventually landed in Havana. But the hijackers’ dreams of freedom were dashed when the Cuban authorities hauled them off to jail.

Top 10 list….

http://cashmoneylife.com/2010/09/09/most-dangerous-jobs/

They’re correct about fisherman being tops, but are wrong about the reasons. Pissing over the rail is how people fall over and drown.

use the head..

Look up the stats. Last I checked a clerk at a minimart was more likely to be shot than a cop.

Last I checked a clerk at a minimart was more likely to be shot than a cop.

Yeah but how much ratings would a show “MINIMART CLERKS” really get?

“Bad boys, Bad boys, Bad boys… whatcha gonna do when they need a price check?”

I must concede +1 packman

“Bad boys, Bad boys, Bad boys… whatcha gonna do when they need a price check?””

Brilliant! I love it!

Bill Hewlett and David Packard made their fortunes by making quality products and treating their employees fairly. I never heard any complaints from people who worked at HP when they were in charge.

Col. Sanders!

Carli and Hurd totally destroyed, burned and buried the “HP Way” credo.

Bingo! I think the effect on local governments is why the feds are working so hard to prop up housing.

Bingo! I think the effect on local governments is why the feds are working so hard to prop up housing.

Yup, that’s the downside of being a federal republic.

I think the effect on local governments is why the feds are working so hard to prop up housing.

Ehhh. I think the Fed tried to prop up housing prices because A)politics is a popularity contest now, and B), most people - including those in government - were incapable of seeing how fundamentally things were changing.

The blindness in B is a direct result of so many people owing homes and having the house-as-investment mantra drilled into them for decades.

This also explains why the government could simultaneously attempt to keep house prices up while blathering about “affordable housing”

owing homes

“owning homes”

Freudian typo…

We hear a lot about the soundness of the banking sector. How does round after round of foreclosures help that.

Seems to be that helps the banking sector by spreading losses that would be concentrated on them out to the general economy. Yes there is significant overhead in managing the foreclosures themselves, but from a high-level view it appears that overhead cost is way less than the money saved/gained via the bailouts, MBS purchases, etc.

Otherwise how could these entities possibly making billions in profits, with all this new and ever-increasing overhead? They should instead be taking it in the shorts right now, instead of experiencing the huge rebound they did over the past year and a half.

Baby-steps to the bottom!

Think of them as “crash test dummies”.

A few years ago we were referring to them as “moat fillers,” ’round these parts.

Perfect.

Here’s some price discovery for you….

The article is poorly-written as it doesn’t state whether the reduced prices are actual sales prices, or just further wishing prices for houses languishing on the market in San Francisco.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ontheblock/detail?entry_id=72673

i.e. at the actual correct equilibrium point ??

But would we know it if we saw it ?? There are a lot of pressure points at work in the decision to buy a house…Just look at Claire’s situation posted above and she is in one of the most expensive area’s in the country…

Well one difficulty is that there can be multiple (reasonably) stable equilibria.

The bailouts and propping up of markets and incentives allowed for the transfer of non-performing paper/or higher risk paper to different books .Anything that can be done to transfer the junk to taxpayers liability instead of the Bankers and Wall Street middle men, IMHO . Investors are still starting to sue these
Entities for the false marketing of securities . I have said it all along that these loans were the biggest potential fraud and
product liability suits ever and Government intervention was the biggest Obstruction of Justice regarding the normal remedies under the law when the Ponzi-scheme crashed .

Well one difficulty is that there can be multiple (reasonably) stable equilibria.

Not really; all things being equal - e.g. without constantly-changing government/Fed influence. Given a constant set of tax rules, a constant interest rate, etc. - home prices would reach a single equilibrium where supply and demand and price are driven strictly by population changes, which are fairly constant.

However be it as it may - even with these changes there is still only one equilibrium at any given point in time. The problem is that equilibrium point keeps changing over time with every new policy change that affects true housing affordability.

If everyone stayed out, waiting for the bottom, would there ever be a bottom?

If everyone stayed out, waiting for the bottom, would there ever be a bottom?

No. But why would everyone stay out waiting for a bottom?

home prices would reach a single equilibrium where supply and demand and price are driven strictly by population changes, which are fairly constant.

There will always be changes in the desirability of different styles of houses and different neighborhoods, and population changes can occur as businesses open, close, and/or relocate. Just look at Detroit- it wasn’t overbuilt due to a bubble or government programs, it was built to house the many employees that once worked at the Big Three. Those businesses relocated production and lost market share, many people left the area to find new jobs, hence the excess inventory and plummeting prices.

Not all ‘waste’ is caused by government programs. We have ghost towns all over the West, and there are ruins all over the world. Surely these aren’t all the result of central banks
and government programs.

But why would everyone stay out waiting for a bottom?

However IMO while price discovery is ultimately a necessary thing - it’s not really necessary on the way down; where it’s necessary is at the bottom - i.e. at the actual correct equilibrium point.

I guess I’m unclear on what ‘no need for price discovery on the way down’ means. You seem to be saying price discovery is only necessary at the bottom. I think this is a misunderstanding of what ‘discovery’ means.

Of course - there are local pockets that will always be affected by local economies, which in turn are affected by national/global economies. I was intending to refer to national real estate as an average.

Even that of course is affected by non-real-estate-related events, e.g. energy policy affects real estate prices in Texas, military policy affects prices near military bases and large contracting companies, the dot-com boom definitely affected prices in the SF area, etc. However usually these average out across the nation - e.g. in the late 90’s prices went up in SF, but they dropped in other areas as there was a mass migration to the SF area (and then vice versa in 2001-2003, though in relative terms there since prices were going up pretty much everywhere then).

Guess I’m saying that it’s OK for there to be very few buyers, and thus more ambiguity on actual values, until prices actually hit a real long-term-supportable bottom.

There will always be some buyers, even people that know prices have still a ways down to go, and not all of these could be considered “knife-catchers”. Some people are willing to take the price hit in order to have other benefits - e.g. they want to build their own sweat equity, etc. Personally I somewhat fit into this boat. I traded houses in 2006 when I relocated. I could have just sold and rented for a few years, though would have lost the benefit of some of my relocation expenses being paid for, and plus I do like to add my own sweat equity, and I hate some of the headaches of renting. I have seen the value of my house drop, nonetheless. When I bought the house I knew prices would still be falling some, though I did underestimate at the time just how far they would fall (I was aware of a housing bubble, just not quite of the scope).

Am I a knife catcher? Probably some yes, actually - depends on how you define it. I don’t really regret my decision, and I don’t plan to move out anytime soon, so most likely I’ll at least break even or come out ahead financially, and do get some non-financial benefit.

Knife-catchers are really bad for a market. They immediately become candidates for walkaways and short-sales and in the process will get “taken out” as potential buyers. If everybody just waited en-masse for a market-turning catalyst (in this case a far-fetched event requiring employment stability and wage increases), then there would be more potential buyers with the resources and desire to buy when the prices do finally bottom. Knife-catchers assure a long drawn-out market demise for all, they are a net negative.

Good example packman. There are, and always will be, people who need a house no matter what the market is and have the means to buy one and who have other agendas that aren’t about making money from the house. Or are able to take advantage of the long haul.

alpha-sloth,

I loved Carlin as a kid growing up. He was just so refreshing given the legions of booze hound/ rat pack comedians we’d been exposed to from our folk’s generation.

But I think he’s been misunderstood lately. His whole ‘agenda’ was simply to shock people into thinking and actually question things from time to time? I never believed it was his intent to offer solutions?

Much easier to shock than enlighten.

When you have to explain yourself, the whole joke loses momentum.

I saw one of Carlin’s last performances in Vegas before he died .
He was off the charts and people were actually walking out .
Carlin was attacking fat people and the whole human race and he was implying that it was just one big cesspool and destruction and the end of the World would be the best
solution . If you look at some of his last tapes ,he in essence was saying that he wasn’t emotionally attacked to the outcome
of the human race anymore and he had no solution .

==When you have to explain yourself, the whole joke loses momentum.==

Or lacked it to begin with?

Housing Wizard,

I had heard that George had taken this.., dark turn as the years wore on him. And I’m a cynic by nature, I mean this is… a bear blog?

But I really resent when when older ppl take it upon themselves to tell younger mbrs. of society that everything is a foregone conclusion and that their fates are already sealed blah, blah.

And it’s not just George that has taken those kind of liberties, I find myself having to take a second look and re-evaluate all that negativity on a daily basis.

The Fourth Turning.

History runs in cycles and it sucks to be on the down stroke.

This country has gone from landing men on the moon to not even being able to get a new airliner flying. I think they called it the “Dreamliner” on purpose.

So nice not to own.

Rent $894 for suburban apartment, 1400sqft, 3/2. All utilities including air-con included. No rent raise last two years. Plumbing was backing up, had to exert myself… was hard to reach for my cell phone to make the one call to management which resulted in the repair work done 8 hours later.

Dang man. Most of the renter comments here don’t phase me, but that one hits pretty hard. My A/C bill and tax bill alone is equal to your rent, I have to snake the drains once a year because the stupid trees grow into the pipes, and I’m looking at 3 or more improvement/maintenance bills in the next 6 months that are each more than $894.

My old rent + utilities was $750, and I had never bought anything at a Home Depot before I purchased a home. What a change.

“Uie” ( oh, a U-Turn! ) Never saw it spelled before?

Yeah, I think the credito-crunchola had a lot to do w/ it as well. Pricing was all over the board ( and mostly trending downward! ) and lenders actually wanted down payments on the vehicles, which never seemed to bother them before?

Could it just be that ppl are now keeping their CARS ( longer than their -houses- these days? )

“Could it just be that ppl are now keeping their CARS”

Modern cars, even American cars, are very reliable and durable. I’m sure that when people see 30K+ pricetags on very ordinary cars the old (paid off) car starts to look better and better everyday especially when a new car purchase involves a non trivial monthly payment.

Like I’ve said, today’s attitude at many businesses is “you owe us a living.”

And people wonder why your avg employee has a bad attitude?

I make it a point to find and patronize any business that treats me like a customer and not a meal ticket. I’ve also had to leave and find others because they changed. I’m willing to pay for it as much as my budget allows. Because I work hard for my money as well.

That’s why I think that info about houses for sale should be easy to get.

If the agent doesn’t want to call me back, then why not provide an info-tube below the “for sale” sign? I’d be happy to take a flyer from the tube.

Or, if the flyer’s too expensive, then how about making the property easy to find on the agency website? Or in the MLS?

I don’t think that I should have to call some agent to find out how much a house is being offered for.

Agree 100%, but I’d say highway spending and subsidizing energy prices plays a bigger roll.

I’m not so sure a competetive system would cut our energy consumption. You would have company A, B and C visiting the same profitable area to deliver mail. You would likely have areas with virtually no mail delivery or spotty delivery. In the interests of spurring economic developement this may be a trade worth making, complicated though.

It would be easy to determine how much energy delivery of mail to different zip codes costs and add a surcharge, but rural voters would have a fit.

True, most of Alaska would be cut off without the USPS.

True, most of Alaska would be cut off without the USPS.

Not cut off - they’d just have to pay much higher rates. Given the right price someone will deliver mail (or power, water, phone, etc.). Which is what should happen. You choose to live in a rural area - you should pay higher rates for service to that area, for everything.

(This also applies to many suburban areas to a great extent)

exactly right Packman.

Don’t forget highways also exist to bring products into urban areas. They are not a one-way street.

Also urban areas are net importers of energy from the hinterland. Much of the electricity consumed in NY and New England comes from the far north of Quebec, which is rich in hydroelectic power.

Which is what should happen. You choose to live in a rural area - you should pay higher rates for service to that area, for everything.

Your “should” is subjective and many disagree.

Alaskans, Hawaiians and rural dwellers are Americans and should benefit from as well as contribute to being part of the club.

It’s a society thing.

Don’t forget highways also exist to bring products into urban areas. They are not a one-way street.

Also urban areas are net importers of energy from the hinterland. Much of the electricity consumed in NY and New England comes from the far north of Quebec, which is rich in hydroelectic power.

Yes but that’s kind of like saying we could solve a pineapple shortage problem by moving everyone to Hawaii. It doesn’t work that way.

If the population in these urban areas were spread out to suburban/rural areas, it would require a lot more energy generation and a lot more roads/trucks/etc. to get things to them; not less, because now they’d be a lot more spread out.

Many rural areas do not get door-to-door service. They often have to go to the nearest town and check their PO box.

As for utilities, if you live too far away, YOU have to pay for the lines to be run to your house and your water will come from a well that you have to pay to have drilled, or not at all.

I wouldn’t call that “subsidized.”

A few regions are different, but most are this way.

As for being charged on your utility bills for such things, let’s just say… we’re being scammed. But so what else is new?

As for the DMV … the one we have in our town isn’t all that bad. Took my soon to get his learner’s permit, showed up with no appointment and within 30 minutes he had his ID in hand.

I had to get my AZ ID picture taken last year.

Despite the fact that the DMV was too far away to bike to (I rode the bus to and from), the service was prompt and courteous. And I walked out with a new ID for a charge of something like four bucks.

Not a bad deal at all.

not saying that..

just wondering if it provides some indication of what an MBS investor can expect.

Some element of unknown risk doesn’t phase many investors. So, they read the disclaimers and shrug, and buy the stuff anyway.

But almost everyone’s still wondering how many of the loans really are bad. Markets can’t thaw out until the answer appears.

If they can’t do anything usefull
then they could sort chips in a box
black chips to the right white chips to the left. At the end the boxes would be mixed for the next candidate.
They’d still have to show up to work.
It would certainly cut down on fraud.

Nice try, meat. They would just tell you they are color-blind and show a fake doctor’s note.

brail

The reward for physical labor was devalued (literally) when you could no longer get a decent wage for doing it.

yeah, but he didn’t know how to operate it.. has a tennis racket in one hand in the photos. It may have not been turned on (no gyro stabilization).

still, they aren’t very safe if people can fall off by just standing on it.

Ralph Nader would have a field day with something like this, but it’s “green” and nobody much cares.

If he thinks he’s going to get anywhere near me with something made out of popsicle sticks and gauze, he can think again!

Ahh, very true.

I read a book about this not too long ago. Its my understanding that crossers are encouraged to dump any ID before attempting to cross, perhaps because its believed to make rapid repatriation more difficult if caught. I guess, then, I should be asking why the US doesn’t circulate photos of those body bags sitting in refrigerated trucks? If it doesn’t discourage folks from attempting to cross, it might at least encourage them to keep their ID with them so their body might have a shot at making it back to their loved ones should the crossing fail.

I guess, then, I should be asking why the US doesn’t circulate photos of those body bags sitting in refrigerated trucks?

The photographer who took this shot would probably be willing to license it to the appropriate agencies.