The Housing Bubble

She was doing rehab! She was just trying to get back to being a productive citizen. One step at a time.

“She was just trying to get back to being a productive citizen.”

Imagine the market value of the act she performed while still disabled. The MSM should be lauding her efforts to get back on her feet, instead of destroying her reputation.

Sorry, Bear.

Didn’t recognize your name hijacker until he/she/it made such a terrible grammar mistake.

“Imagine the market value of the act she performed while still disabled. The MSM should be lauding her efforts to get back on her feet”

My question is, was this one of the 5 Million Private-Sector Jobs added Over Last 30 Months?

Oct 4, 2012 … Obama Noted That The Economy Added 5 Million Private-Sector Jobs Over Last 30 Months …

No, thanks. I find you boring when you are being purposefully dense.

“…way in…”

Dang Freudian slip is showing again…

“I find you boring when you are being purposefully dense.”

And I in turn find it difficult to discern whether you are being purposefully or accidentally dense.

But thanks for waying in.

No, I think this is the real CIBT. Some are the real McCoy, some are the hijacked version. Don’t look for grammar mistakes, look for tone. This one is an amused snark on journalism in general, not a personal attack.

What I don’t understand is that Ben would know if the e-mail address does not match the screen name. I don’t want to put more work on Ben but any person that hijacks a screen name should be outed. If it does match than the person should not be able to claim that someone else is writing his posts.

Don’t you suppose he would speak out if someone were using his screen name?

“Don’t you suppose he would speak out if someone were using his screen name?”

There you go with that common sense again.

Good point. I have not had time to read all the posts so I thought there was an objection.

I was wondering that too, Ben. The other possibility is that P-bear goes into cranky moods.

So, what do the rest of us learn from this exchange, oxide and polly?

And about who?

Oxide observes subtle differences between posts.
Oxide forms a hypothesis.
Evidence is provided to discount hypothesis.
Oxide changes hypothesis to fit the new evidence.

Just another day in the life the scientific method.

Huge failure rate, by the way. Did you know that only 0.5% of patents make it from patent to the commercial shelf? And that’s only the approved patents. Think of all the failures that don’t make it to application stage.

“Oxide changes hypothesis to fit the new evidence.”

lmao… we know.

Perhaps you’re having moments of lucid honesty with yourself today?

Now that is FUNNY!

We’ve posted several discussions about this in the recent past few days. The Banksters don’t have any bad debt. The Federal Reserve took all that bad debt and exchanged it for cash.
The Fed needs to unload the houses.
And why would they? They can simply have them bulldozed, thereby creating housing shortages and keeping up prices of existing housing.
the job of the Federal reserve is the keep the Banksters rich, while robbing the American working class. It’s what they do. It’s All that they do.
they just keep coming. They won’t stop. They absolutely will not stop until we are all dead! (new plan 85 billion a month in new money to the banksters……forever).

“And why would they? They can simply have them bulldozed, thereby creating housing shortages and keeping up prices of existing housing.”

I’m sensing a jobs recovery! Time to build!

Of course, the stupidity is like that of justifying war as an economic necessity. Destroying assets, even by letting them decay, is NEVER a good economic policy. Prices of houses will eventually resettle after all the foreclosures were bought up by real homeowners. The FED is not allowing this to happen to prevent house prices declining further.
The main objective: Protect the Big 10 banks, and most particularly, Goldman-Sachs.

And I found pot of gold this morning!

And all you do is post misrepresentations? Bad choice.

Here is an e-mail I just received a few minutes ago from Foreclosure Radar:

November 2012 California foreclosure inventory—the total of Preforeclosures, properties in foreclosure that are Scheduled for Sale, and Bank Owned properties (REO)—fell 7.6 percent from the prior month and is down 31.8 percent compared to last year. While the November decline in inventory is not an unusual event, the significant decline in foreclosure inventory over the past year has contributed to what some are calling an “inventory crisis” of total homes for sale.

The November foreclosure inventory shortage is partially due to the jump in California Foreclosure Cancellations. Cancellations were up 4.7 percent from the prior month, up 69.9 percent in the past two months and up 34.7 percent compared to last year. In taking a closer look at the reason for cancellations, it did not appear the majority were due to statutory time frames or filing errors, but were more likely due to short sales or successful loan modifications.

November 2012 California Notices of Default were down 19.9 percent from the prior month and down 51.5 percent compared to last year. November 2012 California Foreclosure Sales were down 14.8 percent from the prior month and down 30.3 percent compared to last year.

Don’t forget to post your NAR news release.

Pimpster,

Can we not agree that some judicious buyer somewhere in this vast country might just possibly come out ahead in the housing game? (As to whether Jingle is among them, I hold no opinion.)

I know it goes against the mantra, but there ARE a few folks who have made their fortune in real estate over the years — despite the teeming masses who have not. Personally, I appreciate these informational postings if for no other reason than they offer insight into the mindset of the industry and the direction of its propaganda campaign.

Market fundamentals notwithstanding, there is always money to be made on the downside, neh?

Can we not agree

The pimp is not well versed in subtleties or anything that might fall into grey areas.

Can we not agree that some judicious buyer somewhere in this vast country might just possibly come out ahead in the housing game?

Not at current inflated asking prices. I know you know this.

but there ARE a few folks who have made their fortune in real estate over the years

Not on a SFR. Ever. You know this too.

Market fundamentals notwithstanding, there is always money to be made on the downside, neh?

Alena…. you’ll have to explain how money is “made” by paying a massively inflated amount(and doubling amount via losses due to financing) for what is always a depreciating asset while prices are falling.

I’m all for a reasoned post. Proceed.

Take the market in whole or in part, and short it.

And I am personally acquainted with annoyingly wealthy individuals who began their careers with money they got from mortgaging their primary residence.

And I am personally acquainted with annoyingly wealthy individuals who began their careers with money they got from mortgaging their primary residence.

*Annoyingly* wealthy. I love your turn of the phrase!

Alena,

That’s not reasonable answer. And your suggestion of HELOC’s is outlandish. HELOC’s in part are what got us here. And “here” is a dangerous place for anyone buying a house. The risks are tremendous.

Please.

“The risks are tremendous….”
This much is true.

Please what?

BTW…. Let me correct myself. The risks associated with buying are tremendous at current inflated asking prices of resale housing.

Please stop ignoring a generation’s worth of the obvious.

My sister went to medical school on a HELOC, (1980’s) so did my ex.(1960’s) They’ve both long-since paid it back along with two sets of college tuition for their kids. Three (if you count one of the kids) very lucrative practices came out of those two loans.

A neighbor (up here in fact,) took out a mortgage (2005) on his cruddy little family home to develop and market a patent he’d been grated. Sold the rights to to CostCo and they put his invention in all their stores. Built a warehouse business park with the profits and residuals. They went from broke to pulling in $5M in about two years time.

Longtime artist friend mortgaged his house (and his mother’s, and several of his friends’,including mine,) to make his first feature film. It won the Toronto film festival that got him a three picture deal with Sony.(I still see it on HBO from time to time.) He’s done fine by it too– and still rents his house. Case in point, luck has a lot to do with it, but so does timing, focus, talent, and a house-rich grandma.

Most importantly, the homes borrowed against as collateral were either mostly paid off, or completely without a mortgage to begin with. THAT could be your sticking point, eh, Pimp?

“My sister went to medical school on a HELOC”

Paying an inflated price for a rapidly depreciating asset isn’t a prerequisite to attend the university.

Fannie and freddie. Go look.

Fannie/Freddie keep data on vacancy rates? Show me.

Go look.

I did. They don’t show vacancy data, only total count of loans.

Then go look again.

Post the link…if you have one.

Go look liar.

And the average rent is under $750/month.

It is cheaper than buying. That is why housing demand is at 16 year lows and falling.

There are none so dishonest as you.

Agree on $200K being within reach for people making $50K. Or is HBB still stuck in the halcyon days when houses cost 2.5x income?

Houses used to cost 2.5x income because
1. It was only at that ratio could buyers save 20% down.
2. Interest rates were higher, and only at that income was overall PITI manageable.
3. Investment banks were not allowed to use their commercial bank reserves to fund their risky investment activities (ie. Glass-Steagall was in place).
4. LL’s were not under as much pressure to raise rents to chase profits; therefore that driver of demand did not exist.

So until we go back to the days of 20% down, 7-9% interest rates, Glass-Steagall is reinstated, and rents stay reasonable, don’t expect houses to cost 2.5x income.

Rents in Sacramento run about $1.00/SF on average. So a 1500 SF house rents for between $1200 to $1800/mon.

Simple facts.

Zestimates are “simple facts”?

Carry on with your misrepresentations you liar.

“don’t expect houses to cost 2.5x income.”

Is that because you develop bid estimates to build or;

Because you’re entire life is predicated on the fact that you made a tragic financial error from which you know you’ll never recover.

We all know what the truth is Oxy.

There is a lot going on in such a small space.

Paying half your takehome pay on a mortgage does not work “all day long”.

Comparing your how much a month to a rental value that you make up for your own place is a fallacy.

What do you figure in for depreciation? $200 or $300 a month just to keep the place fresh?

Is insurance on a $200K shack only $40 a month?

Then there is the mania. Maximum leverage brings maximum risk or gain. Prices have plummeted over the past few years to 2002 levels. So, was there a mania? What was it; that prices always go up more than carry costs, risk free? Is that mania still alive? You are cerrtainly not factoring the risk of losing $50K or $100K (or even $20K) into how much a month. Are you under 30 years old? If not what are you thinking committing to a 30 year indenturement? If you are under 30, then we have some other questions.

“Agree on $200K being within reach for people making $50K. Or is HBB still stuck in the halcyon days when houses cost 2.5x income?”

Toss in two children and the stay at home mom, and this formula would be stretched near the breaking point especially as the kids start going to k1-12 school.

Blue Skye is right.

If you only look at monthly cash outlays that are absolutely required to stay in the house, of course buying beats renting.

But if you do nothing to a house but live in it, in 10 yrs it should be worth less in relatively terms (even if its nominal value is higher due to inflation, a bubble, an uptick in a particular area due to gentrification).

The average homeowner is a dumb poors who rarely updates anything or uses cheap low-end HomeDepot crap if they do. They rarely care for the floors (often throwing down cheap carpeting) and often have various hideous shades of paint. When they do paint, they do it themselves and paint right over flaws in the wall, previous coats of paint, etc. They don’t replace things that wear out–garage door openers, hinges, faucets, energy-sucking appliances, the roof, etc.

For owning to pencil out, it’s NOT about the montly outlay, it’s about what the location really adds to your life, how the stability of living in one place allows you to arrange your possessions and routines, and etc.

America has this sick psychology where owning is better simply… because. People who “own” (via a mortgage) a crapshack in Sacramento or Bakersfield or Gilroy or Modesto or Stockton or some other godforsaken place actually think they’ve beaten the system. This is why the whole real estate complex in this country got sick in the first place. No emphasis on quality… new construction from last 20 yrs is generally pitiful. Only “i own, i own, i own”. Stupid.

A $200k house on a $50k salary is insane. Maybe it might work in this artificially low interest rate environment, but not likely. Poor oxide drank the Kool-Aid and has lost her mind. Sad to see.

Answers for you Blue:

NOTE: I have posted all of this before, in one form or another.

Paying half your takehome pay on a mortgage does not work “all day long”.

Why not? Compared to what? Some halcyon days “in the past” when jobs were still onshore, and unions pretected employees, and 7% ROI was considered acceptable? Nowadays, Paying half the take-home IS feasible…. if you give up Applebees, JCPenney, and health insurance. Or take in roommates. Giving up discretionary purchaes of quality of life to pay market price for necessities. HBB has posted lots of articles that this is precisely what people are doing. They will give everything up before the mortgage (or rent) because you need a place to live.

Comparing your how much a month to a rental value that you make up for your own place is a fallacy.

Show me where I “made up” a rental value. The rent for my old 3-bed townhouse cost $X/month. Shall I show you my lease? As HBB is so fond of advising, I tried to chase cheaper rent, but according to Apartment Finder, I WAS the cheap rent. Does Apartment Finder fabricate rents too? My rental complex was full, so I guess not.

The PITI on my current 3/2 SFH is $X-500/month. Shall I show you my closing documents? Nor did I ever pretend to use a rental Zestimate on my current SFH for comparison. Instead, I used the real rental value for a lesser property. Conservatism is on my side.

What do you figure in for depreciation? $200 or $300 a month just to keep the place fresh?

Please distinguish between deterioration and depreciation. All dwellings deteriorate. My dwelling has not depreciated at all. Anyway, even you $300/month figure keeps me below the $500 I’m saving on PITI. And the cost of deterioration on a fixed-payment house is cancelled out by rising rents, AND by knowing that I should (statistically) have 20 years of rent-free housing at the back end of my life. Yeah, I actually looked beyond the next quarter.

Is insurance on a $200K shack only $40 a month?

Based on the figure I pay (shall I show you my policy?), $40/month for a $200 shack is right in line. But note that policies only cover house value, not the land value, so it’s a bit skewed. However, it’s VERY cheap compared to rental insurance.

Prices have plummeted over the past few years to 2002 levels. So, was there a mania?

Yes. I bought at a lull in the mania. Factoring in inflation, I bought at 2002 levels.

You are certainly not factoring the risk of losing $50K or $100K (or even $20K) into how much a month.

Tell me what the “risk” is. If my house drops $Y K in value, are the Men In Black going to bust in and demand $Y K in cash then and there? Of course not. The only risk is if there is preciptous drop in price, AND that price drop puts me underwater, AND if I am forced to suddenly sell. The probability of all three happening at the same time was low enough that the advantages of buying overcame that risk. And by the way, every month that I contribute to equity, that precitous price drop which puts me underwater needs to increase, and the risk is even lower.

Are you under 30 years old? If you are under 30, then we have some other questions.

No, but why should age matter in this case? There are 25-year-olds better positioned than 50-year olds. Need to look at individual situation.

If not what are you thinking committing to a 30 year indenturement?

Show me how this is a 30-year indenturement. If I don’t want to honor the entire 30-year contract, I am free to sell the house, pay off the balance, and get out out from under the contract. I could do this after one month or 359 months. In fact, if the house is worth more than the mortgage, it would take less time than getting out from under a 1-year rental lease.

If, for some reason, I cant’ honor the contract (can’t make payments), AND the house is not worth less than the mortgage, then that becomes the scenario where I would be underwater and suddenly want/need to sell. I covered that above.

I live in a house which is less than 1.5 times my income and after funding my retirement fund etc , I do not have a lot left over. I do like to travel though. I think you can do four times your income but you will have to be frugal.

A $200k will run you $2k per month in Texas if you include taxes, insurance, and loan payment.

“So until we go back to the days of 20% down, 7-9% interest rates, Glass-Steagall is reinstated, and rents stay reasonable, don’t expect houses to cost 2.5x income.”

You wish. In the 60s you could get a mortgage at 3%. You had to put 20% down, which meant you were financing something like 2x income maximum. This was considered prudent by those who had lived through a Great Depression. You’ve only experienced a Great Expansion.

The Credit Expansion is over.

“They will give everything up before the mortgage (or rent) because you need a place to live.”

OK Oxy, I was answering jingle, but I hear what you are saying. We all have different priorities. You need a 3/2 more than you need anything. You are single. When I had a 2x income mortgage, I had four little kids and a stay at home wife, then just the kids. It was tight but was my choice. Different priorities. Oh and the house was only a 3/1 (converting the LR into a bedroom doesn’t make it a four bedroom house).

I live on the other side now. My housing expenses are less than 5% of my takehome and I have more space (to myself) than I did when the kids and I were crammed into a house together. I do this in the shadow of people who could not conceive of giving up their $300K mortgage. They think I’m crazy and I think they are crazy.

I’m experiencing freedom and I won’t give it up.

“My dwelling has not depreciated at all.”

Ya know…. You can keep repeating this lie and running when confronted with it but it doesn’t change the fact that your shack has depreciated substantially since the day you grossly overpaid for it.

Carry on.

You need a 3/2 more than you need anything.

Well technically I needed to get away from increasing rents and shared walls more than anything. That means buying, and buying an SFH with yard. It didn’t have to be a 3/2, but I couldn’t find any 1/1 SFH with a yard. BTW you’d be hard pressed to find a 3/1 these days. Almost everyone has carved out at least half an additional bath.

There seems to be quite a bit of willful ignorance in this thread.

Say you’re a Washington hack banking $5,000 monthly after taxes. A strong bet.

Then let’s say you’re paying $2000 monthly in rent for a decent one-bedroom. Or the same $2000 for a mortgage payment.

I don’t know about anyone else here, but I could VERY EASILY cover all the rest of my monthly bills, and fully fund an IRA, with that remaining $3000.

Oxide can easily afford to put 50% of her take-home on her mortgage. She has more than enough left over to put $150 faucets in her bathrooms.

“A $200k will run you $2k per month in Texas if you include taxes, insurance, and loan payment.”

Back in the days of 6% interest rates I used $800/month per $100k for PITI. Not precise, but a good napkin figure.

“…then just the kids.”

Wow, wife leaves her kids too? Sorry if I’m opening an old wound, but it’s difficult to imagine a woman leaving children that she carried inside her.

“I live on the other side now. My housing expenses are less than 5% of my takehome and I have more space (to myself) than I did when the kids and I were crammed into a house together.”

Our place is paid-off too, and good thing because my two teenagers are expensive these days; one has just started to drive. I couldn’t pull-it-off with a mortgage payment thrown in there.

nd the average rent is under $750/month

Speak up if you paying less than $750 month and you live in a major metropolitan area. I would still be a renter if rents were that low.

rms, sometimes the most unexpected things happen.

Speak up if you paid “under $200k” and you live in a major metropolitan area. I would still be a buyer if prices were that low.

See how that works?

There seems to be quite a bit of willful ignorance in this thread.

Then let’s say you’re paying $2000 monthly in rent for a decent one-bedroom. Or the same $2000 for a mortgage payment.

And it seems like you’re part of the problem.

Buying at current price per square foot is double the cost of renting the same square foot.

Is it? Always? According to whom?

Where do you come up with the 2X figure? I could see that as being a generally true statement in places like NJ, NY, CA, DC, MA, WA and OR - and maybe even Texas where property taxes are so outrageous.

But what about places such as IN, OH, PA, TN, SD, UT, OK?

I’m not so sure your 2X notion would hold water there.

For example, there are $50K houses (3/2) in flyover (1200 sq ft), where renting a 2/2 in the same local costs $750 a month (for 900 sq ft).

Such a house with a 15-year mortgage might cost $400 monthly, with property taxes included as part of that $400.

What then?

Yes, you have to pay water and trash, so maybe that’s closer to $475/mo.

Still. What then?

Here in Locaville a small house will cost you 50 - 60K, could be 25-30K if it is distressed and needs repairs. The rent will be $600-650 if it is a 2 BR, around 750 if it is a 3 BR. It will probably have 1 bath. Taxes will be 500 -600 and insurance around 350.

I would be curious to see the algebra to indicate how owning is 2X renting here.

I suspect for PW flyover country simply does not exist. Why bother with data that doesn’t fit your hypothesis?

“rms, sometimes the most unexpected things happen.”

Sorry about being too inquisitive, and thanks for the follow-up. I guess I’ve lived a sheltered life.

Many a Victorian was converted to apartments during the depression. Some of the larger houses will be similarly converted.

+1 In the book, “Ten Lost Years” mom also became a concierge.

Is there a duck pond on the grounds of the White House?

And you’re a liar. You seem to miss that point.

Let’s wait to talk it over again in a couple of years when the investors who snapped up those bargain-basement deals at under $400K are all trying to offload at the same time…

That is what you said 3 years ago.
In the meantime, I have generated $36,000 in cash flow, paid down $90,000 in debt and my properties are projected to increase in value by $170,000/year, according to the Sacramento Bee.

See you in a couple more years……

“…my properties are projected to increase in value by $170,000/year, according to the Sacramento Bee.”

I certainly wouldn’t argue with an authoritative source like the Sacramento Bee about whether California real state will keep going up!

lol… according to the Sacramento Bee. SCHWEET~

“I have generated $36,000 in cash flow, paid down $90,000 in debt…”

Unpossible.

“There is no hidden inventory in these foothills.”

Check it out- Pinocchio is a comedian!

Because they all need a place to live.

But wasn’t that the case before as well?

How about because they think the market will “recover” and they will get “what they need” for the place next year.

So, Blue Skye, if that’s a possibility, doesn’t it mean that AT THE MOMENT (which could change if people cease to believe in a “recovery”) there are less willing non-bank sellers at today’s prices than normal times?

If you believe the news articles, then isn’t it also possible that demand AT THE MOMENT (which could change if people don’t want to buy any more) is more than sufficient to absorb the supply of homes on the market?

Econ 101 starts to come into play here…simple law of supply and demand, with willing buyers and willing sellers…

As a follow-up, if those things are true, isn’t the way to avoid prices going up either:
1. To get the banks to release any supply they do have (which in some markets is large, in others, small); and
2. To build more homes where such bank supply is not all that significant?

I think the most effective way to avoid prices going up involves:

Increase people’s basic cost of surviving by encouraging the banks to speculate in commodities.

Reduce household formation.

Slash jobs and wages through globalization.

Raise taxes and cut bennies.

Misallocate the national resources to impractical green projects and at the same time bomb the crap out of other countries. Turn our homeland into a bankrupt armed camp.

Oh and the ever popular; subsidize college costs.

We are doing as much as possible along these lines. Be patient. Your mileage may vary. Watch out for AT THE MOMENT head fakes.

With due respect, seeing the housing bubble was an obvious overshoot of trendlines, with prices being out of whack on a cyclical basis.

Most of what you state above are parts of longer-term secular trends (household formations, globalization, subsidizing college, etc.) that didn’t stop the housing bubble from forming in the first place.

What makes you think these same secular trends will have a dampening effect on housing this time?

“With due respect”? LOL!

Liars like you don’t know what respect is.

“…this time?”

Demographics.

ahansen, it will take a while for the demographic issues to impact housing in the US.

it will take a while for the demographic issues to impact housing in the US.
It’s happening in my neighborhood now. Houses being offloaded by estates or people who had to move into nursing homes are the most reasonably priced, and all in middling condition. Previous owners had lived in them 30-50 years up to now. Demographic issues are gradual, and probably vary a great deal from place to place.

Ummm, the Baby Boomers are all retiring and downsizing to condos, rentals, moving in with pre-existing households, leaving their houses to their kids who will either sell or put them on the market at whatever price sells…? The industry’s mistake was thinking that the Boomer’s demand for housing and retirement income from real estate “investments” was a norm that would continue with the following (and less populous) generations.

It’s here and now Rental. The boom is over for good and surplus housing is the norm for the next 30 years until we’re gone.

Alena…. Thank you for thinking and being honest about housing.

“all retiring and downsizing to condos, rentals, moving in with pre-existing households”

Really?

My parents live in a single family home. My wife’s parent’s live in a single family home. My wife’s grandmother lived in a single family home until the day she died at age 93.

They must not have gotten the memo that all of them should have been downsizing, buying condos, moving in with relatives…

Yes Alena, and Rental; if it were due respect, you wouldn’t bait your elders. Econ 101? We’re 40 years past that sterile classroom. We think a $hitstorm is on its way and your head is sticking up.

So Rental Pimps geriatric crew will get taken from the run down house to the crematory and still end up empty with no buyers.

Your level of denial is quite impressive Rental Pimp.

My wife’s grandmother lived in a single family home until the day she died at age 93.
You are emphasizing an exception rather than the rule. Unless granny happened to be rich enough to hire 24/7 personal health aides to live with her when she developed the need for such expensive levels of personal attention. (A great many elders do seem to get into fixes like that, it is the way we tend to wind up. Most modern elders don’t have the good grace to get eaten by bears or crushed in landslides.) However at the point I describe it is no longer a single family home but a single resident home health care facility.
I once knew a delightful centenarian who was trying to do as you described. She lived alone in a nice SFH in a small town in NW lower Michigan, very high-rent district. Family had set up a personal alarm system she was supposed to carry with her at all times. She didn’t happen to have the alarm with her when her pulse rate suddenly and permanently dropped to 20, and she dropped to the floor, too weak to get around. She was conscious but just barely. Phone was just out of reach. Family had hired an assistant to check on her regularly, next regular visit was about 14 hours later when granny was found on the floor.
She survived, just barely, and recovered after getting a pacemaker. Family forced her into an expensive elder care facility/nursing home 5 miles away, and that’s where she passed away, aged 102. I didn’t know the family well, so never got to ask them why they simply didn’t hire round-the-clock care for granny at her SFH. I expect the elder facility was cheaper & safer in their minds, but I am just guessing on that.
Consider the entire population & not just personal anecdotes like mine.

Bait my elders? Really? Everyone is squawking about banks restricting supply and they are completely missing the point that there are massive amounts of “normal” sellers missing from the market. Why are they not selling?

If there were a massive wave of retirees selling, wouldn’t they be in the market? After all, many of them bought far before the bubble.

As of the 2010 Census, the homeownership rate for those over 75 was 79%.
This is up from 72% in 1990.

Far and away the most common situation for retired folks is to stay living in their home. Yes, as people get to their 80’s, 90’s, I’m certain that percentage shrinks. My wife’s grandmother living in her home to her 90’s IS the exception. My parents (in their late 60’s) living in a home they own is not the exception.

The first wave of boomers just turned 67 (2012-1945).

As I said in my original comment about demographics–we have a little ways to go before that has an impact.

geriatric crew will get taken from the run down house to the crematory and still end up empty with no buyers.
That is like what my Uncle Ed did to himself in ‘72, living alone in a run down farm house his grandfather had put up a century before. It was falling to pieces. Elderly aunt Ella was sharing it with him, but happened to be off staying with someone else for a few days. Ed was too lazy / poor / improvident to lay in a good enough supply of firewood to keep the cast iron stove going as it had been designed to do. So he was burnt whatever he could find, like asphalt shingles, even though nephew Richard warned him against it.
The whole thing went up in smoke one winter’s night, cremated Ed with it. Little or nothing of him was distinguishable. The ruins were still there when I took Mom up for a visit in ‘77. The concrete front steps & a metal hand railing were visible through the weeds. About 1982 the site was bulldozed for a business to be built there. Excavation turned up a human hip joint, probably all that was left of Ed, although it could just as well have been Indian remains of many decades earlier, that still happens regularly in that part of Michigan.
Most likely few Baby Boomers will wind up like Uncle Ed, unless another perverse social epidemic breaks out.

the most common situation for retired folks is to stay living in their home.
Only unless and until they are no longer able to, then they’re out of there. You are ignoring what is left of their life cycle.

Rental Pimp can read the data but can’t be honest about it.

Why is that Rental Pimp?

“Only unless and until they are no longer able to, then they’re out of there. You are ignoring what is left of their life cycle.”

No I’m not.

I’m saying that on average that happens later than people seem to want to believe. It doesn’t happen in folks’ mid-late 60’s, where the front wave of boomers are today.

It happens in their mid 70’s or later, where the front wave of boomers will be 10+ years from now.

At THAT point demographic effects will take hold on housing…just not yet.

Wrong again. Downsizing occurs first, existing downsized housing second.

Knock off your lying.

Pimp,

You’re welcome. Go and do likewise.

Blue,
I AM my elder and I’m not baiting anyone. We Boomers have known since grade school that we were a demographic bulge, and the repercussions of our numbers have been obvious throughout our lives. Now that we’re retiring, those pensions and benefits we always knew we wouldn’t get are being phased out, just like they said they would back in the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s. A few of us listened instead of doing the 80-90’s rah-rah USA boosterism, and planned accordingly.

Those in their early seventies are indeed beginning to close it down and consolidate assets, which will only lead to more housing on the market and less money with which to buy it as we use those assets to support ourselves in our dotage rather than give it to our (fewer) kids and grandkids.

lol… “pimp”.

No matter which way you want to dice it and slice it, joe, you are among those people.

“Don’t let the bastards get you, join ‘em instead” doesn’t wash. An empty philosophy if there ever was one.

For the next 40 years, the joke will be on people such as myself. People like you will be the victors. Go ahead. Bask in your victories.

But you know what? While creating license to steal may be the name of the game in metro Washington, the same will never be true in many areas of the country.

We’re a different people than you.

MacBeth, I agree with most of what you say. I also spent a few months between jobs working at a small-ish law firm. I saw how “the system” is rigged against average people. However, what I also saw is that the average person, even well-educated and hard working, does not “get it”. If they did not understand that they were being screwed, I was not going to explain it to them (although I did consider it).

I would also note that I am not “from DC” and I still look at DC with an outsider perspective. I never want to be “from DC”, which is very different from when I lived/worked in NYC.

When I walk from the metro to the office, I pass about a dozen huge cranes building new 8-10 story office buildings. This area between the convention center and the WH is growing like crazy. And it’s fueled by both the government AND the Kochtopus. The “boot strapping” “job creators” lost the presidency, but managed to shift the debate just enough their way for now… America will continue to get hollowed out.

These boot strappers are happy to work their a**es off for, say, 100k. Not all the while seeing that a brand new biglaw associate with no experience makes 2x that after bonus.”

These boot strappers will move away from big law, like to China.

Most high tech is going in that direction. Of course they will have a different kind of Big law over there.

I agree with Joe. Those are more or less my thoughts but he expressed much better.

As for Joe himself - don’t hate the player, hate the game.

It appears you are still trying to excuse your own behavior.

It also must mean that, in your mind’s eye, I am an imbecile.

See, I am aware of what is going on, but refuse to participate in the hollowing out of America.

That game simply is not good enough for me, no matter the monetary reward. I want more for myself, and for others.

Not everyone is a willing participant of Screw Thy Neighbor. You may believe otherwise, being that you make big bank operating in the circles you do.

As I said, we are a different people.

MacBeth, what do you see as the solution(s) to the problem?

Who did you support in the ‘12 elections (any candidates for any position)?

As you say, I think there is perhaps another generation or two before things truly fall apart. You said 40 yrs, above. I would say at least 20, but the specific time frmae is not as important as the direction we are headed overall.

One other thing I’m not clear on is: In your opinion, how does one refuse to participate in the system? If you work, invest, own a house, etc. you are in some way supporting the system. Kochtopus and Romney types are supported through our daily activities and they siphon that money off slowly but surely.

As I’ve been saying all along, joe.

As for McBeth, ignore him.

As you say, I think there is perhaps another generation or two before things truly fall apart. You said 40 yrs, above. I would say at least 20
None of us can say s/he knows the day or the hour. Things might fall apart a few months after Iran sends cruise missiles loaded with dirty bombs into the Saudi giant oil fields. The USA might be saved by a giant solid gold asteroid taking out DC during a joint session of Congress. Or many other things in between.
how does one refuse to participate in the system? If you work, invest, own a house, etc. you are in some way supporting the system. True. However, some ways of participation do more damage than other ways. We can all exercise some positive influence, if only by being a bad example

“In your opinion, how does one refuse to participate in the system?”

One can minimize the participation. Live frugally, buy stuff second hand, keep income and thus taxes low. Keep money in local banks. Don’t have a balance on the CC. Grow a garden and cook your own food. Special occasions - dine at local restaurant. Repair the car rather than buy new.

+1 loca

Diogenes,

Well said and I totally agree with all of it. If some of the teachers have their own protection, any perps would be dead long before they have the chance to do so much damage.

Lip

LOL!

We can’t even keep the teachers from farking the students, now you want to get rid of their unions, cut their pensions, and give them guns?

But if the teachers are concealed carry, wouldn’t the nut-job know that too? The nut-job will just make the teachers the first “target.” Even without a uniform, I’m pretty sure that a nut-job could tell which ones were the teacher targets and which ones were the little kids.

An assault rifle could hose down a room full of kids even before an armed teacher in the next room could get there. And that assumes that the armed teacher can bust into the room and take out the nut-job with one well-aimed shot before she is shot herself. Or is the armed teacher also supposed to have a fully loaded assault rifle, so she can also hose down the room too, just to make sure she took out the nut-job AND any remaining kids the nut-job may have missed?

And you didn’t answer my original point about the NRA welcoming death threats: If the NRA is so sold on the hypothesis that concealed carry will prevent these types of assaults, then why don’t they prove it by putting their own damn bodies on the line, instead of using 6-year olds to do their dirty work for them.

“But if the teachers are concealed carry, wouldn’t the nut-job know that too? The nut-job will just make the teachers the first “target.””

So we circle right back to the progressive answer to violence:

1. Signs
2. 911
3. Bans
4. Begging for you life before being shot to death.

It’s cool if that’s what you’re in to, but don’t force me or others to live like that.

I just got back from heating up my coffee in the teacher’s lounge, where we all had a grim laugh about the folks advocating that we be armed.

Most of us buy things like pencils and lined paper out of our own pockets because the schools are strapped for cash and our supplies budgets are dry.

I can see it now: hmmmm, should I buy erasers and rulers or bullets?

“The REAL solution is concealed-carry by teachers and adminstrators on ALL campuses.”

Dang, one more workshop to attend. Seriously, that’s asking for trouble. What happens when just one kid gets hit by a teacher’s stray bullet? I’m sure your point is that if it were widely known that teachers had guns, then no one would cause trouble at the school. Unfortunately, the school is still a place where mass terror can be induced, and that is the ultimate goal of many a school shooter. It would deter some, and have no effect on others.

What happens when one kid grabs the gun off a teacher who is trying to pull two tussling kids apart? People advocating arming teachers are idiots. Advocate for mental health services instead. The REAL root of these shootings are crazy, crazy people. They need to be identified and locked up BEFORE they commit a crime. You virtually have to pray the crazy person will commit a crime with witnesses to get them into jail before you can start forcing mental health care on them to try and get them sane enough to deal with other humans. But it costs way more to do that than pound chests and posture about ‘banning guns’ or ‘arming teachers’ which is what both sides of the gun debate tend to do.

“They need to be identified and locked up BEFORE they commit a crime.”

We’ll all be in the slammer. Are you nuts?

‘I prefer to say…’

However you want to characterize it. My point is the problem is a lot deeper than one mentally ill person.

I prefer to say we have a sick, immoral media, business and political elite ??

Ya think ?? Did you ever catch Jeff Beck’s act on FOX ?? Or how about Ted Nugen ??

They could not defend themselves, and no one was there with a GUN to defend them.
the government makes sure that people in schools and government buildings are defenseless.
Now, all the LEFT talks about is more “security” measures and “lockdowns” and more fences and prison-like environments.
Let teachers keep guns on their persons and this kind of thing won’t happen. On university campuses, everyone with a conceal permit should be allowed to carry on campus.
A criminal might get off a few rounds before he was summarily killed. end of problem.

Dave have you started drinking already today? Jeff Beck played guitar for the Yardbirds. Glenn Beck was on Fox. And it’s Ted Nugent with a T.

“Did you ever catch Jeff Beck’s act on FOX ??”

No, but he’s one helluva guitarist, big fan of his music back in the day.

‘Did you ever catch Jeff Beck’s act on FOX ?? Or how about Ted Nugent’

Beck is good example of what I’m talking about. Always going on about Jesus, then switching to the evil Muslims. How does he reconcile that? I did hear he got a $100 million contract for the next five years. I suppose this is today’s entertainment.

Another really rich guy is Rush Limbaugh. I heard him laughing it up about torture a few months ago. Any doubt he’s really an entertainer? Nugent; why anybody would listen to this guy is beyond me. But if you watch a little of his TV appearances, it’s clearly for shock value, like Jerry Springer.

If this is entertainment, what does that say about the people listening or watching?

Who is Ted Nugen?

Did he do Dog scratch fever?

Then there is the sicko’s mother, who decided it was a good idea to have her mentally ill son learn how to shoot accurately.

His mother was the worst prepper ever!

She was supposed to be preparing for when society collapsed…she didn’t even make it that far.

If this is entertainment, what does that say about the people listening or watching ??

Exactly Ben…And many that are watching are not even being entertained….They are “true believers”…

Exactly Ben.

And the even bigger question, why is this being promoted at all?

Rhetorical question. There’s an old news saying; “If it bleeds, it leads”. Bottom line: sensationalism sells.

But the effect is to divide people and people divided cannot stand up to the real threats in the world, the most common being tyranny by the PTB, whoever and whatever they are for the times.

The Rahm anti-violence strategy: to yell “STOP! or I’ll yell STOP again”

In Vermont, you do not even need a permit to conceal carry. The last murder in the state was done by a serial killer from Alaska. Very little trouble caused by guns and many crimes are prevented by an armed population.

Did anyone else pick up the irony of “Arizona, where shootings are rare.” ?

Correlation does not equal causality. How do we know it was the concealed carry that prevents the gun crimes in Vermont? Maybe it’s because the citizens are peaceful ex-hippies and libruls who got fat from too many visits to Ben and Jerry’s?

Actually, he said “where shootings are ‘rear’”, which adds another whole layer of irony to the statement.

I’ve finally gotten used to the term tea bagger. I’ve come to understand that it’s because all the people calling them that just want to lick their balls: in other words, be the tea bagee. I’ll accept that all the tea bagees out there really crave licking conservative testicles.

“Shutup, let me lick your testicles and spend your money!” - new mantra of the democratic party

Mathguy , what money? They spend all their money on guns , things and adult movies…

More like an openly armed society is a very polite society.

Yes, the principal and school head shrink confronted and tried to stop the assailant. Others hid. The school nurse is one, as I recall, who hid under a desk, called 911 and then locked herself in a closet.

“Say what? I heard on the news this morning that the school principal and other staff attempted to subdue the gunman.”

She did, and a 27 year old teacher hid her students in a closet, told the gunman her kids were in gym and when some of them ran out of the closet she dove in front in an effort to save them. Unfortunately she did not save them or herself.

Yet another teacher cradled one of her autistic students in her arms in an effort to save him, again niether one survived. The parents of the autistic child praised her for not only being a great teacher and trying to save their child but also took comfort that their child was being held by someone they loved at the time of their death.

Unparalleled courage and heroism if you ask me.

The school nurse hid for four hours, nothing she could have done.

The school nurse hid for four hours, nothing she could have done.
————————

If you ever find yourself in one of these situations, I suggest you get in Palistinian mode and start throwing things at the shooter.

Not only is it a distraction, but if you got strike zone game, you can make that iphone do some damage.

unless, that is,

you throw like a girl.

“who hid under a desk, called 911 and then locked herself in a closet”

Then she saved more lives than all the others put together. The gunman stopped shooting kids and committed suicide when he heard the sirens of the police arriving.

unless, that is,

you throw like a girl.

Homophobic and sexist. Why am I not surprised?

“…throw like a girl…”
Is that the opposite of running amok and shooting little children like a guy?

Unparalleled courage and heroism if you ask me.

Who would have thought that union goons had it in them?

Thank you, Colorado.

It isn’t about guns….Its about the type of guns

Really? Then why has no one in the media addressed the fact that the assault weapons ban of ‘94 is still in place in CT, MA, NY, NJ, and CA?

That the system worked because the killer tried to purchase weapons from a local gun store and was refused when he wouldn’t submit to a background check?

That the killer had two handguns with a number of 10 round magazines that would have killed just as many children had he used those instead of the AR15?

The killer was a psychopath and everyone around him knew it… but the anger (and now death threats) center on the guns and not the mental illness or those who were aware of it.

Why is Deval Patrick, the Governor of MA, pushing a limit on the number of guns MA residents will be able to purchase to 1 per month?

A ban on those purchasers and merchants who are law-abiding and legally licensed and have a right to buy and sell will be limited to 1 per month. What has that to do with the type of weapon used in this crime?

“Why is Deval Patrick, the Governor of MA, pushing a limit on the number of guns MA residents will be able to purchase to 1 per month?”

Working on his re-election?

yes they probably wouldn’t be caught dead with a gun.

Gee, I don’t see all those Hollywood celebrities and songsters getting out there and holding protest events and concerts and such.

Where are ya, Brucie Springsteen? John Bon Jovi? Babs?
Lost yer pipes?

Ooh, forgot George Clooney. Sean Penn.

C’mon, I wanna hear all ya’ll SING IT:

“We are the world
(incoming)
We are the children…”

Dang, the silence is DEAFENING!

Whatever leftist “do-gooders” do to make the world a better place to live is always justified because the “mean well”, and they “care”.
If a Conservative did the same things, the news stories about the injustice of it all would never end.
Think Waco and Janet Reno. We have to “save” the children, with tanks and guns and threats and torture (mind control high volume amplification used to torment those housed in the buildings).
The Left will never admit that anything they do is evil. It’s always good.
We are still in Guantanamo, aren’t we?
Remember the outcry over the Patriot Act. It was an unconstitutional intrusion on our liberties. OBAMA doubles-down. Not a word of protest.
It is all about personalities and ideology. The Left is always “good”, the right, “bad”.
It’s pretty much that simply.
We “good”. They “bad”.

Gee, I don’t see all those Hollywood celebrities and songsters getting out there and holding protest events and concerts and such.

FWIW, the true “liberal”, non corporate owned media is indeed screaming bloody murder over the drone attacks.

“FWIW, the true “liberal”, non corporate owned media is indeed screaming bloody murder over the drone attacks.”

You’re right, but notice how they’re droned out by the “fashionable” phonies, who like to wag their fingers at everyone else and hold themselves up as examples.

“Liberal” is a very bad term for these turds. Some are true totalitarians of the Stalin variety, others are just shallow cardboard cutouts.

Nice to see Mr. Day-O showing his true colors.

Once Iran starts using drones, Americans will understand the horror.

Once Iran starts using drones

We gave Iran no choice but to arm itself to teeth.

+1.

I heard an interesting argument that you shouldn’t raise the medicare age, because the 65-67 set is the healthiest and therefore cheapest sector in the risk pool.

By that resoning, shouldn’t everyone be on Medicare? I bet a 24 -year-old can offest the very elderly better than a 66-year-old can.

By that resoning, shouldn’t everyone be on Medicare? I bet a 24 -year-old can offest the very elderly better than a 66-year-old can.

ISTR reading that Medicare was designed to be scaled up to the entire US population. The over-65 crew was the starter population because the private insurance industry didn’t want them.

Makes sense as long as their is available, reasonable health insurance…

So, what is Obamacare - chopped liver??

Makes sense as long as their is available, reasonable health insurance…

So, what is Obamacare - chopped liver??

Obamacare might as well be chopped liver at the moment. It’s not really available yet. The insurance companies are jacking up their premiums as a large number of new unpaid mandates are issued. Government agencies (the FDA for one) are doing their utmost to skew medication expenses ever higher: e.g. a few years ago the FDA mandated regs on a 5000 year old medication that made its price spike 1000% or more. Little or no cost control measures are being taken. Population is being taken for a ride.

because the 65-67 set is the healthiest and therefore cheapest sector in the risk pool.
Only true because health ailments & medical expenses are pretty much baked into an aging population. In the end we will all have to die of something.
If the age limit for Medicare eligibility should be raised to 67, then it will have become true that ‘the 67-69 set is the healthiest and therefore cheapest sector in the risk pool.’ Same holds for raising the age to 69, etc.

Tresho - I have the PCIP Obamacare and it is a LOT better than the pitiful excuse for private insurance I carried earlier.

And yes there are cost savings - the negotiated price for services are LOW. I suspect they are comparable to medicare. There is a big push for cost savings on meds.

Yes I am enjoying the public option while it exists.

BTW I am paying more into the system than I have used in benefits so don’t no one call me a leech.

Not if we start limiting what we cover and what constitutes a medical need.

I did of course. They apparently do not want actual customer feedback, they have marketing managers.

Yep. Their marketing managers’ research indicated that the competition was downsizing their containers, so they might as well too. This = “customers wanting it so”.

“They apparently do not want actual customer feedback, they have marketing managers.”

You’ve nailed it again.

This is the scenario of most companies.

For more fun horror stories and to see just one of the reasons I’m not big business friendly, check out this website.

http://consumerist.com/

They can ride it to the bottom for as long as it takes to get there. (shrug)

These people who want the high prices have likely done little to no maintenance.
You keep harping on that. It doesn’t much matter. Most of the missing ‘maintenance’ you wish had happened is just not that expensive to provide after a home is purchased. How hard is it to lay down top-dollar flooring in an empty house? And so forth. EVERY homeowner wants a high price at sales time. Residential housing in general is overpriced, and more so in areas where employment / wages are higher than in less favored parts of the USA. This situation is basic in a housing bubble.

I’ve been guessing 9-10 months and 30% below current list.
So go back 9 or 10 months and tell us how good your guesses then turned out to be. Or post your current guesses now & we’ll tune in again in 9-10 months.

Oxide was referring to a different house.

I guess you missed that.

And you missed the fact that JoeSmith stated “housing is inflated by 20%” which was misrepresented by our resident Koolade drinker.

I just add that if the Fed/Fedgov crime syndicate loses their grip on this ponzi, our savings will be vaporized in the bank failures. Not that $$ won’t be worth anything, just that they’ll be gone.
Yup, and then we will all have a deflationary depression to deal with. It’ll be like March 1933 all over again, but worse.

It already is a deflationary spiral. Pay attention.

You are gleefully hoping anybody who has any money will lose it and best of all, they should lose in Municipal bonds.
Look a little further down, and the genius, Overtaxed is saying that people with money are stupid not to be putting it in Municipal bonds.
As we can see, there is NO safe place to park money that returns any interest.
My brother owns muni’s. I won’t buy them.

there is NO safe place to park money that returns any interest.
Looks to be the case. Park your money in commodities & stack ‘em in your basement or bury them in some secret location, then use ‘em as you need ‘em. Not a good solution either, IMHO.

“You obviously have no money, so resent anyone who does. IF you did, you’d be really, really p.o’d that you can’t get ANY interest on your savings.”

LOL, not true. The difference is my parents and in laws didn’t just hand over money to someone else to invest in publicly available stocks and bonds. It’s pure idiocy to expect some sort of guaranteed return from “the markets”. First off, which market? The bond market? The annuities market? The stock market? The housing market? The market for tax liens? The market for cash flowing local businesses? These are all different markets–there is a constant flux. A real “boot strapping” lover of “capitalism” would not just blithely assume the market owes them a certain rate of return. Pure idiocy. Lazy bulls**t. I’m glad your old boss got pwned.

The other thing is that I doubt your boss was aggressive enough with savings. If you could dig through his transactions, you’d probably find a lot of useless fees, some high expenses, divorce, multiple kids with expensive college tuitions, something else? Otherwise, if you’re frugal and have a good job, it’s pure madness not to be able to save a ton of money during a 30 yr career. Most people never really put it all together.

People just like to blame things on other people. A real free market “capitalist” (such as your boy Mittens) takes bankruptcies, bail outs, inflation, the Fed, and government programs into account. They don’t whine that they’re at the mercy of someone else’s actions.

Come on Diogenes, stop making excuses for people. Lame.

It’s pure idiocy to expect some sort of guaranteed return from “the markets”
I agree wholeheartedly with you. That is my criticism of defined benefit pension plans, they are based on idiocy, assumptions that markets are reliable and predictable, decades ahead of time.
Moreover, it is also most unwise to expect dollars will retain their value. There seems to be no point in saving $ for the future.

People just like to blame things on other people…They don’t whine that they’re at the mercy of someone else’s actions.
Only LOOSERS do things like that. Those who win are in a position to enjoy an inflated sense of self-worth and can indulge in putting others down.

We are all realtors, get it?

you’re a fraud.

you are not?

And a coward.

Your dad must not remember the 1960s.

No problem, we’ll all get a nice warm reminder in just a few more years.

The Walter Mitty Galts are in for a big surprise.

(extra points to anyone who get the Mitty reference)

LOL, I remember the 60s. Stranded and on foot in Newark I was, returning from a summer trip to the Blue Mountains of Maine. I had no clue. I got one block from the bus station and got “arrested” for being white. It meant a free ride home.

A tiny, old, broken down house at that. The little ones are all from the WWII era.