The Housing Bubble

there’s plenty of IT jobs out there, but Americans won’t do ‘em, cuz employers want to pay an Indian wage to someone who has American living expenses.

“Jobs Americans Won’t Do” is incomplete: the correct phrase is “Jobs Americans Won’t Do For The Money Employers Are Willing To Pay”. Pick a random American and I guarantee you I can get them to clean out septic tanks for a living… for $250k/yr.

And Franklin Raines took the helm at Fannie Mae.

And Shrub didn’t replace him in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006…

I guess you fell flat on your face again. lmao.

no BS invasions of countries based on lies . . .

Nope, just bombings - some aspirin factory somewhere in Africa, oh and that little country - Serbia, was it?

You’re in love with Shrub. Admit it. You LOVE to pay $4 for a gallon of gas. I know you do. The death Terry Schiavo compels you…… say it…. say it!!!

Regarding “lies”:

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

And hurricane Katrina was bungled by Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco, neither of whom followed the official “Hurricane Evacuation Plan.” They didn’t issue the mandatory evacuation order until it was too late, they didn’t spend the money to repair their levees years before, they let thousands of school busses get swamped with flood water instead of evacuating residents, etc, etc, etc. This was a LOCAL government failure, not a Federal government failure.

See also “Debunking the Myths of Katrina”:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html

And also how the media never apologized or issued corrections for all their Katrina lies:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NTM5NDE0YzhiOTNhZTQxNzlhYTBmYTNhOWNiMDVhYTc

Yeah. The worst national disater in history and local govt’ is responsible?

That’s right. Keep making excuses for your idol.

The people of Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida all have the same Federal government, yet only Louisiana has problems evacuating its citizens for a hurricane.

Never mind the facts, just remain fixated on your boogeyman Bush.

Oh, and you still never addressed all these “lies”:

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

So many were fooled and fooled so many.

He thought he could ” buy low and sell high…”

LOL. Yes, the Greys are the idiots who just bought the (no doubt vastly overpriced) house with the waterfall, pool, and putting green. And they have yet to sell their old one. Classic fools.

My original prediction was 55k but I raised it to 65 K . I think I will stick with the 65K .

Absolutely, never mind the taxes or the insurance. Property is unaffordable and everyone who could get in with a designer loan did already, who is left to buy? NOBODY! Those who have some $’s stashed away know that only stupid would buy now.

Look again, only a third are primary Spanish, a lot more are “other” Indo-European speakers. A real American stew of tired, poor, huddled masses.

YUP…That was the real scarey part….

Well gee, can you think of any particular difference between Germans and the immigrants you see now in Massachusetts?

I am not going to go there.

I’ll go there.

A lot of German immigrants in the 1870 to 1890 were socialists and anarchists. Chicago, for example, had competing revolutionary newspapers printed in German (read up on Haymarket). During WWI there were still communities in the Northern Midwest who were educating their children in German, including in the public schools. The laws to stop this practice were litigated in the Supereme Court in the 1920s, and the supreme court decisions ensuring the right for a (german) family to teach their children in the language of their choice are the basis for the federal recognition of privacy rights that were expanded so dramatically in the late 20th century.

So, to answer you question, those many Massachusetts non-German immigrants are showing much less reluctance to assimilate than German immigrants form the late 19th century demonstrated.

As a final editorial comment, I think this country has benefitted dramatically from the reluctance of those German immigrants to fully assimilate, so do not mistake this to be an anti-German rant.

Max is right. Prop 13 keeps people locked in their homes, reduces supply, and raises prices ALL THE TIME. Also, it is incredibly inequitable, with neighbors paying vastly different amounts. And as far as “poor” seniors go, all the seniors I know are in the best financial shape of their life. There should be lower taxes on all poor people, rather than lower taxes on all seniors. Dragging out the “poor” senior is getting tiring. If you really care about seniors, give them more federal tax breaks on income taxes.

Prop 13 wouldn’t be as bad if it fairly accounted for inflation. 2% a year is joke. That’s one of the reasons CA in such a sorry fiscal state.

Prop 13 only forces people to stay in their homes (reducing supply) during abnormal market conditions

Think about the tax increase cap of 2%. Homes in CA, whether during normal or abnormal times, appreciated significantly faster than 2%, thus forcing people to stay/keep their homes during all times. Not only that, people use all sorts of inheritance techniques to avoid reassesment. Older properties in expensive markets are in very bad shape, because putting a new structure brings the tax man.

Agree that the tax base should probably not be transferred from one generation to the next.

However, I think the 2% cap is fair because people buy based on their incomes. If incomes are going up by more than 2%, there might be an argument there (yes, they have in the past, but that might well be changing). Problem is, we’d have to make sure retirees got an increase in SS or pension benefits to match (or cap tax increases for retirees).

Truth is, I don’t believe in property taxes at all. Just another way for government to control what you “own.” I’d like to see a progressive “flat” income tax, and that’s it. I know there’d have to be some exceptions (”fees” for various things), but we’re taxed too much in too many ways.

MAX;… thus forcing people to stay/keep their homes….

What a friggen novel idea !!!! Thats why it passed…The friggen goverment was taxing people out of their property…

i do not get it. why prop 13 reduces supply? can they just build more to increase supply? what has staying in my old house got to do with building more houses? i thought if there is a demand then somebody will find a way to create more supply, in general. i would like to think that prop 13 will decrease demand but not supply of houses.

Exactly, SCdave! I’d vote for it, again and again (didn’t the first time — too young), and I’m a Gen-X renter.

People, we need to think, think, think before we form opinions on this, not react with emotional “it’s not fair!” rhetoric. It’s very fair. We chide current buyers for buying with toxic ARMs because the payment is unpredictable, yet some here would like to see taxes that swing wildly from one stage of the bubble to the next. Not very wise, IMHO.

Those who are anti-Prop 13 are likely those who haven’t lived in CA very long. Stick around, and you’ll see why it passed. California has a long history of wild, speculative bubbles. Absolutely no way long-time residents and natives should be priced out by idiots with kamikaze financing.

CA renter,

property taxes is not “just another way of government control” - they have been around since this Republic was born. In fact, tariffs and property taxes were the only sources of revenue before the the income tax kicked in. Tariffs on imports were reaching 50%, and property taxes were much much higher than the puny 1.5% we have now. So consider property owners much better off today.

scdave,

you obviously didn’t get the gist of my conversation with CA renter. I said the owners are forced to stay even if that’s not to their advantage (like commuting 100 miles because since 1978 they probably changed their job many times). And they are forced to forget about major structural upgrades, because of the penalty, and live in crappy shacks.

Max,

Just because prop taxes have been around a while does not mean it’s not a way for government to control what you own. It also doesn’t mean we ought to keep them. Prop taxes have existed for hundreds (thousands?) of years, across the globe; but it doesn’t mean we have to like them. It has always been a way to force the wealthiest (land owners) to pay taxes. Easier to tax land than income (in the waaay olden days) when under-the-table/black market income was next to impossible to trace, IMO.

To me, private property ownership means NOBODY can take away what I have. Not the govt, HOAs, etc. Nobody should be thrown off their land once they have bought it (paid it off).

This is where I’m an extreme libertarian.

CA renter> Those who are anti-Prop 13 are likely those who haven’t lived in CA very long. Stick around, and you’ll see why it passed. California has a long history of wild, speculative bubbles. Absolutely no way long-time residents and natives should be priced out by idiots with kamikaze financing.

It is precisely the CA equity-rich and protected by Prop 13 people that are often the speculators. Prop 13 seriously distorted the rent/own ratio and reduced RE market liquidity, trapping sellers in their tax advantage at the cost of other opportunities (see my posts above), and shifting the fiscal burden on the newcomers. The newcomers then become very anti-tax, putting anti-tax pressure on the local governments, that’s why we have all the schools closings now, and billions in local deficits.

I don’t understand it - so people brag they have $1 million in equity, but as soon as comes tax time, they flip-flop and scream “aahh, I’m just a poor senior!”. If you are poor senior sitting on a chest of gold, then sell it, and buy bread. Why should the newcomers, who move this state’s economy be at such a disadvantage?

CA renter,

philosophically, there is a serious problem with the property rights - in that they are not morally absolute. Every property owner, if you trace it back enough, claimed the property that was not his/her to begin with. For example, settles killed natives (and natives might kill somebody else before them), and thus claimed “propety rights”. Of course it is laughable now that settlers’ descendants talk about “absolute property rights”.

Also, no property is an island. As a property owner, you enjoy roads, clean air, infrastructure, security - a lot of it is society-sponsored.

And btw, libertarianism is a known among sociologists “Gen-X disease”, so I’m not impressed. I wouldn’t mind shipping all extreme libertarians to some place where they can actually try their utopia, so they can report back on how it went. I already know the result in advance - the worst ones overtake the whole thing (since there is no socially-contracted government) and take all marbles. The rest hangs themselves.

max;….And you obviously failed to get the gist of mine…

You fail to recognize why #13 passed…People in California were SICK of the tax and spend and we put a stop to it…Why should the cost of schools fall on the backs of real estate ?? Some people don’t have any children…Some people have 5…Where is the equity in that ?? Why should a real estate owner pay a disproportionate share for the cost of our roads ??

Max,

“It is precisely the CA equity-rich and protected by Prop 13 people that are often the speculators.”

Sometimes yes, this time, no. The speculators I’ve seen are the younger (20s and 30s) buyers who originally have no equity/down payment. Many are from other states and countries. The majority of buyers in my old neighborhood (where we sold) are from Latin America — almost all of them. The ‘hood was mixed before, but it became almost entirely Latino during the boom.

“Why should the newcomers, who move this state’s economy be at such a disadvantage?”

Lots of assumptions there. Why do you think the newcomers move this state’s economy? IMHO, and the opinion of all the CA natives I know, this state was a lot nice before all the newcomers got here. It’s been going downhill since the mid-80s.

I guess that’s my point. Why should the native and long-time residents be displaced by the newcomers? Try suggesting that in any other state and see what kind of reaction you’ll get. Only in CA are we supposed to welcome people from everywhere else to lower our quality of life; all the while paying more (prop taxes) to support their added burden (infrastructure, schools, etc.).

See how there might be another perspective here?

Max,

“And btw, libertarianism is a known among sociologists “Gen-X disease”, so I’m not impressed.”

Perhaps Gen-X is tired of all the supposed “freedom” we have. Cameras on every corner, the govt tells us how to raise our children, HOAs tell us what color to paint our homes, we are told what we can say, etc. So many freedoms have been lost in just the past two decades alone. I think that’s why you’re seeing a growing interest in libertarianism.

That being said, I am only a libertarian where personal/privacy rights are concerned. I believe people should be able to defend themselves (2nd amendment) against criminals and the govt, if necessary (talk to someone who lived through WWII for info on this before you jump to conclusions). I think the “war on drugs” is a tragic failure and waste of billions of dollars. People should be free to do what they want as long as they don’t harm other people or their property.

Economically speaking, I am a moderate socialist. I’d like to see taxes based almost entirely on income, with a progressive, “flat” tax (no deductions or loopholes) levied by federal, state and local governments. Yes, I believe in redistribution of wealth because it is NOT hard work or skill which makes one rich, but good networking, social contracts and deal-making skills.

BTW, I enjoy a good debate, and do not intend for you to take anything I say personally. It’s good to have one’s beliefs tested every now and then.

Thanks for giving libertarians a bad name. I work extremely hard for all of my money. I also gave 18% of my gross to charity. Your flat tax, however, is something I would still support, provided you cut all federal spending to 1960 levels. And make it permanent.

I am sorry you have killed your own ability to make money by believing such a pack of lies, but perhaps before you retire you will realize that hard work really can make you well off. Quit watching people like Paris Hilton on TV, and you will finally realize this.

Quit watching people like Paris Hilton on TV, and you will finally realize this.
________________
????? I almost never watch TV. How about you?

BTW, if you think working hard will make you wealthy, why not join all the Latin Americans in the strawberry fields, or dig ditches with them, or trim trees, or clean houses, or do factory work…you get my drift. Latin Americans are the hardest working people I’ve ever met, as a group. They are also some of the poorest.

As for myself, I do make good money, but can still see it for what it is (good contacts, for the most part). The easier my job became, the more money I made.