The Housing Bubble

That was then. This is now.

“Now the Fed announced, before the election, that the plan to save us is a housing bubble.”

The plan is working, as seen by home price “improvements” all across the land. We’re saved!

Nov. 27, 2012, 10:34 a.m. EST
City-by-city look at U.S. house prices
By Ruth Mantell, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Here’s a city-by-city breakdown of the S&P/Case-Shiller 20-city composite, which showed a 0.3% increase in home prices in September, not seasonally adjusted.

Prices rose in 13 of 20 cities in September, but the overall level remained about one-third below a 2006 peak. Full story: U.S. housing ‘in midst of’ recovery: Case-Shiller.

Atlanta: Prices rose 0.3% in September but remain below levels in 2000. However, on an annual basis, prices inched up 0.1%, reversing more than two years of annual declines.

Boston: Prices decreased 0.6% in September, with an annual gain of 1.9%.

Charlotte, N.C.: Prices decreased 0.3%, and increased 3.5% over the past 12 months.

Chicago: Prices decreased 0.6% in September and are down 1.5% over the past year, making this city one of two with negative annual results.

Cleveland: Prices decreased 0.9% in September, the worst among cities tracked by Case-Shiller. However, prices are up 1.4% from a year ago.

Dallas: Prices rose 0.2% in September and were up 4.4% from a year earlier.

Denver: Prices rose 0.4% in September. They’re up 6.7% in the past year.

Detroit: Prices remain below 2000 levels in the city but increased 0.7% in September and are up 7.6% from a year ago.

Las Vegas: Prices here remain below 2000 levels, but they rose 1.4% in September and were up 3.8% from year-earlier month.

Los Angeles: Prices rose 1% in September and are up 4% from a year ago.

Miami: Prices rose 0.1% in September and are up 7.4% from a year earlier.

Minneapolis: Prices rose 1.1% in September and are up 8.8% from the prior year.

New York: Prices ticked down 0.1% in September, and are down 2.3% from the prior year, making this city one of two with an annual decline.

Phoenix: Prices here rose 1.1% in September, and are up 20.4% from the prior year, the largest annual gain among the 20 cities.

Portland: Prices rose 0.2% in September; they’re up 3.7% from a year prior.

San Diego: Prices rose 1.4% in September and are up 4.1% from September 2011.

San Francisco: Prices rose 0.5% in September and are up 7.5% from a year before.

Seattle: Prices increased 0.3% and are up 4.8% in the past year.

Tampa: Prices were flat here in September and were up 5.9% from a year prior.

Washington: Prices were also flat in Washington and were up 3.2% from a year earlier.
…

“So why do we have taxes? To keep up the illusion? To prevent the majority from accumulating enough wealth to be self reliant?”

Why not just abolish taxes entirely, and openly acknowledge that the fiat money printing press technology is what keeps the system afloat?

Why not just abolish taxes entirely, and openly acknowledge that the fiat money printing press technology is what keeps the system afloat?

Because the sheeple don’t know that fiats are not backed by gold?

Ben Jones wrote: “So why do we have taxes? To keep up the illusion? To prevent the majority from accumulating enough wealth to be self reliant?”

CITB wrote: “Why not just abolish taxes entirely, and openly acknowledge that the fiat money printing press technology is what keeps the system afloat?”

Currency is a logical construct. Be it gold coins or slips of paper. It retains its value due to its scarcity, and the willingness of others to accept it in order to purchase something from them.

The Fed is the fountain of currency. Those closer to it typically are able to gather more currency than those farther away, typically.

The printing press allows those connected to the Fed - its favored sector(s) and those working in it - to enrich themselves. If they’re disciplined about it, and give up just enough so that they avoid popular unrest, they can keep it up for a long time.

Think of this - some guy working in the currency printing office helping himself to a 100,000 here and there a few times a year. Won’t have much impact on the economy at large, although it might drive up prices locally. In wealthier areas, one notices everything is more expensive because the wealthy are willing to part with more money.

Now, if the Fed and those near the Fed’s fountain stay disciplined, the party can continue for some time. The Fed officials live in a bit of an echo chamber. Economics is not an exact science by a longshot.

As long as they keep access to excess currency among a tightly connected and controlled circle, the party should be able to continue. However, the one time inflation really played a significant role was in the late 70s, early 80s. And it was the only time in memory that half of the Senate was swept out (but 91% of the House was retained):

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

As I’m looking at that opensecrets chart, it does show an increasing turnover in the House and Senate in recent elections. That’s a positive development. Here’s a list of the incumbents who were defeated this time:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/11/election-incumbents-defeated-148708.html

I’d like to see a clear breakdown of the rates. But anyway, I’m thinking taxes remain because of historical tradition, and to help maintain the scarcity of the currency, and to force people to gather sufficient amounts of it so that they can pay the US government, which further cements the acceptance of the currency among the general public.

So Ben, I guess my question is:
With what do you replace the Fed? How do we standardize and regulate our currency from State to State domestically and vis a vis the IMF internationally? And how do we structure our banking system so one bank doesn’t end up with a monopoly like…the Fed?

And what of free markets? After all, the bankers who “own” the Fed earned that money fair and square over generations of hard work. Are you suggesting we just confiscate their business? Wouldn’t that be communism?

You’ve obviously given this more thought than most; what do you think should be done?

taxes remain because of historical tradition, and to help maintain the scarcity of the currency, and to force people to gather sufficient amounts of it so that they can pay the US government

The last one is the key. If you must pay your taxes in dollars, then you must get dollars in order to pay. That makes a currency, a currency.

I’m a bit confused as well. This system was built over the last 30 years and will not be fixed overnight.

And it all began with deregulation during Reagan’s admin and was mostly a product of the Repubs, ALTHOUGH the Dems are not blameless. But it was almost ALWAYS a Repub initiative that resulted in less and less oversight of the FIRE sectors and less and less recourse for J6P.

I too saw what happened at the Repub convention when Ron Paul had enough votes to be nominated and the Repubs changed the rules right in front of our eyes, on national TV, to prevent his nomination. The “people” were screwed.

eco, I’m pretty sure you voted for the people who allow these Fed ‘bail-outs’ to continue. That’s what I was referring to. I don’t hear much talk from Democrats to audit the central bank. Talk about deregulation!

Actually, I didn’t vote this year.

And you’re right, we’re not hearing much from Dems for a Fed audit.

They can use their bailout proceeds to help fund a propaganda campaign next election season against the 47 percent of the electorate who only take from the rest of us.

from the rest of us.

What do you mean, ‘You people?’

That looks like a punctuation fail. Should be (I think):

What do you mean, ‘You people’?

The real free sh#t army.

You may ask yourself, how do I work this?
You may ask yourself, where is that large automobile?
You may tell yourself, this is not my beautiful house
You may tell yourself, this is not my beautiful wife
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again, after the money’s gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground

Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means…

This isn’t about a “business” relationship or success in business. It is a housing community that decided to go it’s own way and now has to deal with the financial consequences. This is socialism gone wrong, as these people want a government bailout from their own mistakes…

Capitalism says the market determines what the allocation and cost of capital is. Capitalism and the market says these people can’t afford to live there, so they should move… Socialism says they can continue to live there by redistributing capital from taxpayers to rebuild the community. Who’s right?

Here’s a hint… the market is right, but government won’t let markets determine much of anything these days.

you don’t understand the difference between liberalism and socialism.

As per the Merriam-Webster dictionary…

liberalism: a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)

socialism:any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Turns out both tend to rely on government, one for social equality and one for economics. I understand the terms quite well, and the Democratic party is rife with both socialists and liberals.

Words mean exactly what you want them to mean, eh? Definitions be damned.

Got it.

the Democratic party is rife with both socialists and liberals.

It is rife with liberals, and there are some socialists, I guess.

But at least you admit that they mean different things.

Baby steps!

But at least you admit that they mean different things.

They both rely on intrusive government to further their agenda.

They both rely on intrusive government to further their agenda.

So do “conservatives”, especially those of the religious stripe, as well as neocons. They just have different agendas.

So do “conservatives”, especially those of the religious stripe, as well as neocons. They just have different agendas.

We all have our chosen enemies in life… I don’t agree with the Fundies or the Neocons, but I despise to my core the “limousine liberal” socialists and their agenda of weakness and entitlement for the masses.

It wasn’t limousine liberals that wanted to give Wall St trillions of dollars for failure.

It wasn’t limousine liberals that wanted to give Wall St trillions of dollars for failure.

You are correct. They would rather give it to the poor, the minorities, the illegals, etc. Neither the crony-capitalists that Alpha-sloth derides nor the limousine liberals who love to tax and redistribute are right…

Here’s the latest progressive movement from liberal politicians in MA: minorities from poor neighborhoods in MA who have to rely upon bus transit have longer commute times than white, suburb-dwelling commuters who drive or take commuter trains.

This seems “unfair” to liberals and as such, research is underway to come up with a spending plan on transportation development that is more “fair” to poor minorities. Don’t bother to address the fact that tax receipts from those poor neighborhoods dramatically lag the wealthy suburbs, where many of the tax-dollars, aka transportation dollars come from.

Actually it was:

It wasn’t limousine liberals that wanted to give Wall St trillions of dollars for failure.

If you remember the bail out bill received about 170 democratic votes in the house and around 90 republican votes and the biggest limousine liberal Nancy was one of them.

Part of it was the way it was structured even though it was a loan it was counted as an expenditure for Bush II but when it was paid back it was counted as income. Thus, in a sense overstating the Bush deficit by 700 billion and understating the Obama deficit by 700 billion. However, since they both defended wall street from the consequences of the masters of the universe actions, they both deserve to be relegated to ash bin of history.

My other post has posted but this is from the NYT on October 3, 2008:

The final tally in the House was 263 to 171, with 91 Republicans joining 172 Democrats in favor. That was a wider bipartisan majority than vote-counters in both parties had expected, completing a remarkable turnabout from Monday, when the House defeated an earlier version of the bill by 228 to 205.

Has not posted, I meant to say. But the point is it was limousine liberals that wanted to give Wall St trillions of dollars for failure, there were not enough Republicans to pass this bill and a greater percentage voted against it. However, since they were the free enterprise party they deserve most of the blame since they acted against their professed ideology. For the same reason I hold the democrats more responsible for NAFTA, WTO since they should have protected labor. However, it is just a shell game, the agenda of the PTB gets passed no matter who is in “power” only the justification for supporting the agenda changes.

Who pays half? Certainly not the wealthy.

The maximum EITC is about $5,800, which is granted to those Lucky Duckies earning the sweet spot income of about $17,000.

And who have umpteen children.

The program is riddled with fraud…so much so that the IRS doesn’t even track it anymore. It’s a great illustration of how the .01%ers and the ruling class can buy the influence of the underclass. Meanwile…the middle class and wage earners foot the bill and become the “forgotten man”.

Long live the status quo!

Exactly, it is the Roman democracy all over again.

And who have umpteen children

Actually, a quick perusal of IRS Pub. 596 tells us that the benefit maximizes at three children. The “sweet spot” income to get the maximum EITC of $5,751 (for 2011 tax filers) is $12,750 to $16,700 for single or head of household, and $12,750 to $21,800 for married filing jointly.

The amount of SNAP (food stamp) benefits is based on household size up to ten individuals regardless of age.

to get the maximum EITC of $5,751 (for 2011 tax filers) is $12,750 to $16,700 for single or head of household,

Are you sure that isn’t “single and head of household? I don’t think you get a check for $5,751 for being a single minimum wage earner without kids.

Correct. The $5,751 EITC is for single, head of household, or qualifying widow(er) tax filers with three children.

The “sweet spot” income for single with no children tax filers to get the maximum EITC of $464 is $6,100 to $7,600, with a phase out to $0 at the magnificent annual income of $13,650.

“The “sweet spot” income for single with no children tax filers to get the maximum EITC of $464″

thank bill clinton for this one…buddy of mine in his mid twenties able bodied and in great shape got his check sometime ago…he actually called me to ask if it was “legit”.

i said hell yeah…party on wayne!

he smokes alot of weed.

FDR, LBJ, Clinton, and now Obama all directly responsible for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfGLB8LO1aM

Transcript here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2009/10/08/detroit_s_model_citizens_line_up_for_money_from_obama_s_stash

It was bi-partisan

As were all the the trade treaties, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, et cetera that eviscerated America’s manufacturing base and middle class workforce.

But per some HBB posters, the blame lies 100% with labor unions.

“blame lies”

Truer words were never spoken.

Part? Like us, it’s the MAIN reason.

Mortgage interest relief at source, or MIRAS, was a scheme introduced in the United Kingdom by Chancellor of the Exchequer Roy Jenkins in 1969 [1] in a bid to encourage home ownership; it allowed borrowers tax relief for interest payments on their mortgage.

In the 1983 Budget Geoffrey Howe raised the tax allowance from £25,000 to £30,000; unmarried couples with joint mortgages could pool their allowances to £60,000 and this remained unchanged until in the 1988 Budget, when Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson ended the option to pool allowances (a provision that had been known as Multiple Mortgage Tax Relief) from August 1988, a decision he later publicly expressed regret at not having implemented with effect from the time of the budget, as it is generally accepted that the rush to beat the deadline from the time of the Budget up until it was ended fueled a sharp increase in house prices.[2]

MIRAS was completely abolished in April 2000 by then Chancellor of the Exchequer (now retired Prime Minister) Gordon Brown who argued it had become a middle class perk.

Receiving MIRAS was one of the justifications given by mortgage advisers when selling endowment mortgages.[citation needed]

With house prices slumping and the British economy going into recession, there are many[who?] arguing for the return of some kind of similar scheme to help those in negative equity and encourage a revival in the housing market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_interest_relief_at_source

The reason we are in the crapper (as you so eloquently put it ) is we fell for the “We can all get rich selling houses and services to each other; we don’t need no jobs that mean real work, that’s for third world people”

Op-Ed Contributors
Illogical Housing Aid
By YONAH FREEMARK and LAWRENCE J. VALE
Published: October 30, 2012

THE tax deduction for mortgage interest may not quite be the “third rail” of politics that Social Security is, but politicians on both sides have long been afraid to touch it. So when Mitt Romney recently floated the idea of capping this deduction, Democrats pounced.

Here, after all, was Mr. Romney arguing to cut a long-favored tax benefit for middle-class homeowners — in the midst of a soft housing market, no less — so as to make up lost revenue from his proposed tax cuts that, critics say, disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

But while Mr. Romney’s tax proposal over all may not be fair or sensible — or even mathematically logical — Democrats shouldn’t be so quick to attack any change to the mortgage interest deduction. In doing that, they’re depriving themselves of a potentially powerful tool for progressive governance, one that could greatly increase funding for affordable housing. In truth, the mortgage interest tax deduction benefits the rich far more than middle-income families. A 2012 study by the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that of federal tax expenditures for homeowners, more than half goes to households with annual incomes above $100,000, about twice the United States median.

Upper-income Americans take advantage of these policies to help them buy million-dollar homes, but there are relatively few federal housing dollars for extremely low-income families — and even fewer for those in the next tier up, who earn between $20,000 and $50,000 a year. Rather than preserve the mortgage-interest deduction as it is now, progressive politicians would do better to redirect the benefits we currently provide to America’s wealthiest homeowners to supporting housing for struggling and moderate-income families.
…

I agree that it is unlikely that the MID goes away.

However, it could be altered in a way that takes the benefit away from the wealthy.

And if they don’t index the caps to inflation, over time, that MID will benefit fewer and fewer people…a glide path to getting rid of it altogether.

We can hope.

“And if they don’t index the caps to inflation, over time, that MID will benefit fewer and fewer people…a glide path to getting rid of it altogether.”

I’m quite pessimistic, as I have seen little evidence that economists who work in high places have openly acknowledged the huge drain on America’s societal wealth thanks to so much money poured down the real estate rat hole.

Rather than acknowledge the hugely expensive, cumulative mass of federal housing policy mistakes which led up to the housing bubble debacle, policy makers are busying themselves with measures to reinflate the bubble.

I am not Mormon but the deductions for charity are really what makes the MID work for me.

“True, except for those who also tithe 10% to their church. The MID is significant for them even at the median income.”

Perhaps Uncle Sam could carve out a special MID exemption for those who choose to tithe?

When I first started working, charitable deductions were a separate line on the 1040A. You didn’t even have to itemize to claim them…

“…charitable deductions were a separate line on the 1040A.”

Makes great sense to me. Why commingle charitable contributions with real estate subsidies?

I think they needed to be commingled with all other deductions and compared to a standard deduction to reduce their value as deductions relative to people who don’t make any charitable deductions. Similarly to how we can reduce their value further now by capping deductions.

I incorporated, and now book a good chunk of my income as capital gains.

One of the perks of self-employment.

Uh … how do you book earned income (the kind you invoice for) as capital gains?

Thank you AmazingRuss for what I’ve been trying to tell people here for some time.

Self incorporation is the number one loophole for reducing personal taxes.

If 70% of you pay goes to taxes is it worth going to punch a timeclock?

Maybe some folks can live happily on public assistance, but I have yet to meet anyone without a job who isn’t struggling and constantly on the edge, economically. I guess if you have a trust fund then not working is an option.

NOT WORKING has never been an option for me or anyone in my family.

OK. What mechanism would the Fed use to direct newly created money into private contractor defense spending? They support housing by buying mortgage backed bonds. What is the equivalent for the Pentagon?

“What is the equivalent for the Pentagon?”

War Bonds?

Six to go for us, too.

I believe once they start high school in one district, you can move to another and they will let them finish school in the original school district.

That thought has crossed my mind. Don’t know if I want him making that commute every day to high school, though.

Depends on where Martin’s office is. It’s a one-hour drive from The Mall in Columbia to Dulles Airport… without traffic.

How many DOZENS of times in the last 100 years have the Chinese and Russian currency been worth exactly ZERO.

Not a great track record.

How many DOZENS of times in the last 100 years have the Chinese and Russian currency been worth exactly ZERO.

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance…

In point of fact, I would argue that the only reason the US has lasted as long as it has as with the dollar as global reserve currency, is due to the economic and political upheaval of WWII throughout the rest of the world.

But if you can convert the currency into gold, the world will accept it. Besides how many times have the Greeks stiffed their creditors? They can find people to buy their bonds.

True - but a US dollar from 1901 still has value and can be used as legal currency to buy goods and services (greatly diminished due to inflation but still legal).

Go try that with Russian, Chinese, British, German, Mexican, etc. currency. You would be laughed out of the bank.

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance…

Where did all the gold ads go? Before the election you couldn’t turn on the radio without hearing one…

True - but a US dollar from 1901 still has value and can be used as legal currency to buy goods and services (greatly diminished due to inflation but still legal).

Yea, like 99% diminished.

People say Europe being bombed flat was great for ours.

Yep. Not so much for theirs or the world as a whole, though.

It does seem that humans prefer to improve their position relative to others over an even larger general improvement that does not improve their relative position. Otherwise I would think the 1% would choose a different path than attempting to enslave the rest of the population.

Yep. Not so much for theirs or the world as a whole, though.

So Sandy will improve the economy for everyone except those who got wiped out.

Eliminating competition by outright destruction can definitely benefit a monopoly survivor.

So Sandy will improve the economy for everyone except those who got wiped out.

No, it will only improve the economy for those who benefit from the loss of those houses and infrastructure. For everyone else it’s a loss. We just happened to be in the small group who benefited from WWII. Although I can also see how if a disaster also eliminates a system that was reducing the efficiency of a large number of people, that could skew the math upwards for everyone a bit.

No, it will only improve the economy for those who benefit from the loss of those houses and infrastructure. For everyone else it’s a loss. We just happened to be in the small group who benefited from WWII

Not sure I follow that. By your logic, only those manufacturing things directly needed by those bombed flat would have seen a benefit (”those who benefit from the loss of those houses and infrastructure”), “For everyone else it’s a loss”.

But our whole country was doing well, not just the steel mills and necessities makers.

I didn’t say only those who manufacture things directly needed by those bombed. I said much more generally “those who benefit from the loss of those houses and infrastructure”. For us that included our whole country.

I know two people who are in the process of buying a car because theirs was wrecked in the hurricane.

I’ve read estimates that up to 250,000 vehicles were destroyed.

250,000 X $20,000 = 1,000,000 X $5,000 = $5 bn.

Does that seem like a reasonable estimate of automobile replacement costs?

How does the broken window fallacy square with the US supposedly having such a golden age after WW2 because the rest of the world was bombed flat?

“How does the broken window fallacy square with the US supposedly having such a golden age after WW2 because the rest of the world was bombed flat?”

It doesn’t. Those are competing explanations.

Many economists apparently favor the conventional “broken window stimulus” argument over the less obvious “rest of the world bombed flat” explanation.

World War II Ended the Great Depression?
by RICHARD W. FULMER

In his 2008 book, The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008, Paul Krugman writes: “The Great Depression in the United States was brought to an end by a massive deficit-financed public works program, known as World War II.”
…

But would we have ever been able to pay the money back but for the elimination of our competitors? Sorry Mr. Krugman, we are more like post WW I Britain who was broke due to the costs of the war.

the rest of the world was bombed flat

FWIW, the US wasn’t alone in escaping bombardment. Latin America was also untouched, yet they did not rise to industrial powerhouse status.

“Latin America was also untouched, yet they did not rise to industrial powerhouse status.”

Were they in on the Marshall Plan, whereby the U.S. rebuilt its trade partners’ economies, earning itself a debt of gratitude in the process?

The U.S. already had the capacity so there was not much of a void for them to fill. Also, they really were not much different from Europe since they did not the physical capital to create the factories at the end of the war.

Of course, there is two types of capital: physical and human. The countries most devastated by the war Japan and Germany had the human capital to recover. Two very intelligent groups. While Japan may suffer somewhat due to a lack of immigration, today, someday they will get it right and support their women enough that they are willing to reproduce and Japan will be back on top. Dilute your human capital and you may never recover. See Rome and Greece.

If America had been ruled by oligarchs, who paid their workers very little, and offered no social safety nets, would America have done just as well after WW2?

http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/germany-to-ban-sex-with-animals-report/story-fnddckzi-1226524544281

Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think PW needs to revised his canned response to be “prices resumed falling in Oct/Nov.”

And then he can revise the unprovable statement again next month to be Nov/Dec.

Prices are falling. Even in your beloved “Bay area”.

Get over it.

Again…any source to your claim?

want ten degrees and the best drive in America, drive to Sedona.”

Have you driven the Catalina HWY from Tucson up Mnt lemon ? You will get 30 degrees and some of the best views over S. AZ.

The Tucson area is great but as a former Vermonter I do relate more to Flagstaff. I will have to try your drive. But red rocks, a stream and pine trees is hard to beat.

‘it was so overpriced’

Less so every day.

BTW, they say Phoenix leads the country in prices. The other day I posted info that showed 108,000 vacant houses in greater Phoenix, 50,000 vacant lots,and building permits higher than new home sales.

“…108,000 vacant houses in greater Phoenix, 50,000 vacant lots…”

I assume those are somehow kept ‘off the market.’ Is there any indication of at what point they will become available to households who just want a place to live in, not an investment home?

‘were sold to Fannie Mae’

Now I’m confused as to who are ‘the bastards’. Are people who take out house loans today bad people because the GSE’s back them? Or HUD? Or is it the people who sell their houses, or make a commission? Or is it the government or central bank?

This is all sounding very 2008, assuming the role of a victim. If you think we’re headed into inflation, do something about it. If you think houses are going up, buy 3 or 4. But you can’t expect to have 15% returns, with zero inflation on a risk free bond, because it’s never been that way and it never will be.

If you are healthy, free and can work, what more do you want? Make the most of it I say.

In this case, it’s the too-big-to-fail banks.

“If you think we’re headed into inflation, do something about it.”

Well pimps. Step right up.

It’s irrelevant to me. I moved away from Florida when I was 1 year old, and never looked back.

It’s very relevant if you look at national Shadow Inventory statistics and believe that a proportionate share are in your backyard.

Only if you’re all willing to ignore the 25 MILLION excess empty housing units in the US today.

Not where I live, they don’t.

You will NOT be hired if you are not “Latino”.

No, I do not mean an entryway, I mean a large room with some furniture and maybe some other stuff that looks neat but nobody uses because people who live there and visit there end up inhabiting some other larger and better situated room located somewhere else in the McMansion.

Yeah people dump of their coats and stuff in this room but you don’t need a large furnished room for this, all you need is an entryway.

Receiving rooms are a throwback to a time when the visitor was let in by a butler and the visitor had to wait for the Man of the Estate to finish whatever he was working on to go receive the visitor. Monticello’s receiving room is (still) famously dressed out as a museum, so the visitor could presumably learn some natural history while waiting for ol’ Tom.

Most McMansions have a hybrid Foyer. Large enough to sit and take off boots, not big enough or enclosed enough to be a real room.

So that’s what I’ve seen in a few houses. Right beside the front door/entry way; a smallish room that kinda looked like a living room. But those same houses had living rooms. So those were receiving rooms. Given a choice, I’d much rather have a gift wrapping room than a receiving room.

The Parlor was also where you had your funerals.

Even the rugged, individualist, boot-strapping, tea-party supporting, conservative capitalist understands that no man is an island

Not the ones I meet. Even in low tax Colorado they clamor to have the public schools shut down because they are a waste of money, even though we have one of the lowest per student spending budgets in the nation (~6000).

Speaking of which, I assume most here have heard the theory that ideally we progress from dependence to independence to interdependence for maximum efficiency. I think it was the “7 habits” guy that talked a lot about it?

Anyway, if that’s true, what happens when people have been at the interdependence state for long enough that they are no longer capable of surviving at the independence state?

Even in low tax Colorado they clamor to have the public schools shut down because they are a waste of money

They are a waste of money, between Unions and Administration and government regulation… and many public school systems are broken beyond repair. Having said that, you need an alternative. What do they say when asked what the alternative should be to public education?

BTW, a recent job posting in a MA school system: Director of Special Education. Reports to the Director of Education. Works with the Principals and Vice-Principals of Schools in the system. Pays $128k-$138k salary.

So, here’s a public school system administration where you have a six-figure director reporting to another six-figure director, working with six-figure administrators. To what purpose? To “Administrate and Manage” special education for a school system…. so the taxpayers are on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars and not one child has been educated yet.

BTW, special education is mandated by the Federal government and many states, so local communities have little to no control in determining whether this fits their budget or needs. Also, how much additional money do parents of special needs children in public systems spend to educate their child? That’s right, not a single dollar more than the same taxpayers who have no children at all…

BTW, special education is mandated by the Federal government and many states, so local communities have little to no control in determining whether this fits their budget or needs.

And as a bonus it helps to allow the blue states to look down their noses at the red states for spending more Federal money than they contribute to the national budget. So it’s a win-win.

They are a waste of money, between Unions and Administration and government regulation… and many public school systems are broken beyond repair.

FWIW, our non union Parochial school spends more per student than our local public schools do. And the Parochial school gets to cherry pick its students. No special needs, no ESL, no kids from lower income households. Just smiling, well adjusted, upper middle class Catholic kids who get dropped off by mom in her Lexus SUV.

Anyway, I think you missed my point. We spend less per year to educated kids in our local public schools (where the union is so weak that new hires for the past few years don’t get pensions) than the local private schools do. And with decent results too. Our administrators are few and not as extravagantly paid as elsewhere. Our district superintendent is paid about 180K. This is a district with 15,000+ students.

In other words, or district runs a tight ship, exceeds the CSAP testing results mandated by Denver, has an IB program at one high school and strong AP programs in the others. All while per pupil spending dropped almost 20% during the past few years to $6000.

But this isn’t good enough for the local “Don’t Tread on Me” crowd. Nothing short of closing all the schools and expecting everyone to home school their kids is acceptable.

Also, how much additional money do parents of special needs children in public systems spend to educate their child?

Re-quoted, without comment.

Nothing short of closing all the schools and expecting everyone to home school their kids is acceptable.

As I said, I think a viable alternative needs to be offered, and mass home schooling isn’t it.

Re-quoted, without comment.

From each according to one’s ability, to each according to one’s needs…

How many families of special needs students do you know pay for private specialists instead of just throwing their child into the public system where they are mandated by the Federal government to provide the necessary resources to care and educate them? Or were you naive enough to think that this kind of gaming of the system isn’t done? I guess it isn’t fair that some are learning disabled and others aren’t… why should parents have to pay more? Just let society pick up the tab…

As I said, I think a viable alternative needs to be offered, and mass home schooling isn’t it.

I would have thought that you’d love our system: low property taxes, average teacher pay is around 40K, no pensions for new hires.

I mean, we’re doing everything here that conservatives ask form, namely: make do with a lot less and graduate literate kids. But it’s not good enough for our local “conservatives” that we spend only 6K per student.

Loveland high school needed a new pool. It was paid for 100% via fund raising, which took over 10 years.

But it isn’t good enough. No matter how much is cut, it isn’t good enough. During the 8 years my three kids attended the public high school I could see the physical deterioration of the facility get worse. But it isn’t good enough for the locals, no siree. Spending could drop to 3000 per student and it would still be too much.

I fully agree that spending 15K or more, as is done in some places, is insanely excessive. But after seeing what the local district accomplishes with one of the lowest budgets in the country, I would disagree with the notion that public schools can’t work.

Here’s one family that doesn’t intend to pay for a private specialist, but is forcing their local school district to provide one at public expense:
Appeal denied
Northport student gets own teacher to overcome autism

A long-standing case in which the parents of an autistic child sued the Northport Public School district for allegedly providing an inadequate education has ended with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit — the last step before the U.S. Supreme Court — upholding the decision of the lower court.

I would have thought that you’d love our system: low property taxes, average teacher pay is around 40K, no pensions for new hires.

Actually, I was going to say, it sounds like your public school system is well-managed in-so-much as they are getting the job done while keeping costs down… which in general is how private industry does things.

For what it’s worth, the only schools I see making expensive renovations are Universities, and we know where they get their money… the college loan bubble. Even my children’s parochial school is looking a little run-down these days. Sign of the economic times.

Too bad most just think all it takes is raising taxes to fix most problems. Perfect example: politicians in the state of MA are giving government staffers a 3% increase in pay while tax receipts are down YoY. I wonder how they think the state will pay for the increase compensation? I’m sure I’ll be seeing another fee soon. Or maybe the State Treasurer’s plan to force Amazon to collect sales tax in the state of MA will pay for staffer’s raises. Either way, I’ll end up paying more.

“But after seeing what the local district accomplishes with one of the lowest budgets in the country, I would disagree with the notion that public schools can’t work.”

This seems to be a common problem. People see public schools that are failing and assume that the theory behind public education is a bad one. Or capatalism or government or whatever. Bad examples don’t prove a failed system. Right now it seems like the US is rife with corruption, making everything system like a failed system.

BTW, when I said that a viable alternative should be offered, I was referring to the conservatives in your neck of the woods who just say “close the public schools”. Home schooling isn’t viable because in many households both parents work.

Privatization of schools makes sense to me, but I already send my children to private school while paying taxes that support the public school, so my opinion is a bit biased…

People see public schools that are failing and assume that the theory behind public education is a bad one.

I can show you example after example in MA of public high schools where spending has increased 100% in the last ten years, while graduation rates or math and verbal test scores on standardized tests like the SAT have been flat or are declining. And this is in a state where supposedly we have the highest scoring schools in the nation.

It is a broken system, but people are too scared or too entrenched in the status quo to do anything about it.

How many families of special needs students do you know pay for private specialists instead of just throwing their child into the public system where they are mandated by the Federal government to provide the necessary resources to care and educate them? Or were you naive enough to think that this kind of gaming of the system isn’t done? I guess it isn’t fair that some are learning disabled and others aren’t… why should parents have to pay more? Just let society pick up the tab…

That’s the breaks, is that what you’re saying? If a person has a special needs kid, they should have to personally pick up the entire tab? Sorry folks, you lost in the child lottery and now you’re gonna pay.

It should provide some ‘consolation’ to know that once these kids turn 18, they are either on their own or their parents become wholly responsible for them.

Privatization of schools makes sense to me

If they are shackled with the same requirements as public schools are (special ed, ESl, etc.), they will have the same problems and cost a lot more.

I’m sure you like the private schools where your kids go. I loved the parochial school where my kids went as well. But I know that privatizing the public schools won’t produce the same result.

Sorry folks, you lost in the child lottery and now you’re gonna pay.

This goes to my theory that “Life isn’t fair.” Let me know when you find evidence to the contrary…

“Well, as counterpoint to that, certain neighborhoods in Boston are havens for University students in off-campus housing.”

Bad choice of examples to make your point, as University communities clearly have a disproportionately high share of temporary residents. Statisticians call this a ‘confounding factor.’

Anything you can do from your house, you can do from India much cheaper. I’ll admit that my work with Indians suggest that most of them aren’t good at what you are doing. But for how long?

We tend to be better at the cutting-edge stuff, not to mention real problem-solving and creativity. They tend to be ok if they have lots of direction (i.e. not Agile) and it is old tech stack (Java, PHP, etc.).

Comes down to productivity at the margin… for Fortune 500 businesses I can see it makes sense because of the overall cost-savings and lack of talented individuals to impact the overall performance of the business. Not so much with startups and smal to mid-size companies. Their, individual performance and productivity is key.

The thing about the Indians who are “good enough”, they tend to emigrate to California.

The thing about the Indians who are “good enough”, they tend to emigrate to California.

The model I’ve seen work well is core architecture and development done in the US and QC done in India off-hours from US development. Gives you a 24h dev/test cycle without interfering with build quality.

I’ve also seen offshore development teams that augment US-based development, especially in sustaining engineering. Fixing bugs on existing code makes for rote work, but can help mentor off-shore development resources on the code-base without negatively impacting code quality.

Pure development offshore tends to be sub-par. Fine for proof-of-concepts and prototypes and such, or solving simple problems in well-known tech stacks, but severely lacking in anything cutting edge.

Heck, look at NoSQL development… if you want Mongo or Cassandra expertise, you won’t find it in India… and you’ll pay a premium for it here. I’ve seen positions to $150k in Boston for NoSQL. That’s not to say they won’t build that as it becomes more mainstream, but it seems we’re always pushing forward while they’re playing catch-up.

I’d say that the QC/QA and bug fixing work done overseas isn’t all that great either.

Been there, got the scars.

Been there, got the scars.

Yeah, those scars can run deep too. It isn’t easy… but then again, if it was easy everyone would do it.

“That rather sucks sugar out of the broad economy IMO, concentrating it in the center.”

Sounds rather like taxation, no?

They should already be horrified. 2% growth with 10% borrowing isn’t going to end well for any of us.

Grover may have been brilliant or blind.

He said he’d force his adherents to take a no-tax-raise pledge. That’s very easy. No politician likes to raise taxes.

But… he never said anything about spending. And all politicians, Democrat or Republican, love to spend. And they’ll happily deficit-spend, which is the best way to do it from their perspective.

Until of course… the currency loses its credibility.

“But the currency can’t lose its credibility!” Sure it can. It’s happened in the past to other nations. Again, if the Fed stays disciplined with its printing press, it can enrich its cronies and keep prices relatively stable for the rest. But that’s an “IF” it can maintain discipline. Right now, it’s flexing its muscle, seeing what it can and can’t get away with. And why. But the fact that a currency can lose credibility if it goes Zimbabwe or Weimar is not in doubt.

Grover may have been brilliant or blind.

I assume brilliant, for better or worse. But as soon as the politicians think that the majority of their constituents want them to break the pledge, they will. I think we’re very close.

What will be more difficult is for a new R challenger to survive the primaries without taking the pledge in the first place. If that happens then he’ll be truly irrelevant.

FAIL.

You didn’t read the article from zerohedge or look at the graphic provided by the Pennsylvania department of Public Welfare and quoted in the article.

This was for Pennsylvania, not Mississippi [FAIL 1]. The incomes in question were $29k and $69k [FAIL 2]. The quote and graphic come from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, not a newspaper publisher [FAIL 3]

Sorry, the Zerohedge links I occasionally post tend to get caught in the spam filter. Just google the following:

When Work Is Punished: The Tragedy Of America’s Welfare State

That’s the title of the article…

Everybody who opposes gibs-me-dat is a racist.

So what do you propose for those whose jobs have been offshored and they now have to be satisfied with lucky ducky wages?

Why would they be satisfied with their reduced lot in life? I was laid off in 2003, after training my offshore replacement. I spent two years at crappy jobs and took a 50% pay cut. Meanwhile, I sold my condo, sold my luxury car for something much cheaper, and moved in with my parents. It took until 2008 for me to surpass my 2002 income. Today I’m at 150% of my 2002 income and still not satisfied, hence the startup.

It’s hard for me to have any sympathy for someone who laments their lot in life when they live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, with almost unlimited opportunities to better themselves. Unemployed? Move to North Dakota… they can’t find enough people to work in the oil and gas fields. Need an education and can’t afford it? Join the military… they still need new recruits, even as they are shifting more experienced personnel out. When you’re done, you’ll get the GI Bill. Want to retrain careers? Take classes at a community college… they are still relatively affordable.