The Housing Bubble

Alpha got an Obamarx phone. So did Oxide,

Alpha got an Obamarx phone

So all you guys have left is personal insult and questionable ‘I was in line behind a food stamper’ stories?

Thus dies a political philosophy.

Her card had an American-flag background on it along with the letters EBT - is that a food card?

Yes. Whenever you see EBT as an option for payment on the card reader, that is “Food Stamps”.

Couldn’t it also be child support money?

The dead give-away is when they segregate their ordering into two separate piles: food that is eligible for purchase on the EBT, and cash for the stuff that is not (alcohol, cigarettes, etc).

“Her card had an American-flag background on it along with the letters EBT - is that a food card?”

Reminds me of Jamie Dimon’s cuff links…

They are easy to spot as they seperate out beer and cigarettes from the food to be paid for in a seperate trans action.

let alone bleach toilet paper, dog food diapers..its all separated..

I was in line behind a younger British lady who told me she was using some kind of WICK and that it may take awhile. she had all kinds of forms like an application spread out on the counter top

so I moved behind a older Hispanic lady paying with 100 dollar bills which also slowed down the line as the cashier had to OK them with the manager

I think this was at target

I had a good laugh about it though old Hispanic cash young British WICK I wonder what their cars looked like ?

Probably the hispanic walked and the British ( fake accent maybe what do I know) ? had a landrover

I’ve seen dozens of women buying baby and kid stuff at Marshall’s and TJ-Maxx with $100 bills. They were invariably Hispanic. Likely the hubby was making under-the-table construction wages.

…they seperate out beer and cigarettes…”

The original claim was that it was in the “holding pattern” that this person was spotted, not while they were actually checking out.

So, either it was the EBT card that someone saw or this person was being judged via other means (appearance, etc), unless things were neatly separated prior to checkout. Not likely in a full cart. Without knowing the full situation this person is in, it sounds a little suspect of a story to me…

let’s remember that a middle class person who lives to the average life expectancy (77-78) will receive *far* more in benefits than they paid in.
You have omitted any correction for inflation and the lost opportunity, e.g. what they could have done instead with the money extracted by the FICA tax over the years they were forced to pay it. It is interesting that articles mentioning inflation & opportunities lost have not been published.

SS is forced savings for most of the US middle class. Whatever you want to use as “opportunity cost” varies greatly from person to person, in any case. But for the average American, they’d end up spending it. There is no question whatsoever about that. Now, you can argue that maybe we should let them do that… spend spend spend baby. It drives our “economy”, afterall.

My sense, however, is that we’d end up having to pay for them in old age a different way, unless we really went Galt Gulch and allowed the wreched refuse spend old age in poverty.

Remember - very few Americans own assets. Most of the productive assets in this country are controlled by a small group of intelligent, motivated, disciplined people. The average American family brings in less than 100k/yr and has a couple kids. Sometimes only one spouse works, so there are additional constraints on their ability to plan/save. These people are f***ed without social security because their critical thinking and planning can’t compare to the top couple %. And they’re starting from behind as far as cash. The average American isn’t born to parents who save or plan very well. They don’t own a stand-alone, cash-flowing business, but they do thinking they “know something” about investing, so they gamble on gold, the stock market, mutual funds, etc. Even if they have money, intellectually they are poors and the financial system treats them as such. Pwnage by Wall Street and the standing Army of lawyers and accountants.

I’m not arguing whether or not people would spend money that hasn’t been taxed away. My point is that FICA was taken away from them years before they could hope to collect SS.
You still did not mention inflation. Anyone holding a store of Federal Reserve notes or equivalent is gambling on that, and currently losing despite what the manipulated CPI figures say. It is absurd to insist that SS recipients will make out like bandits if they live long enough, unless & until inflation is fully and accurately accounted for.
I agree that ownership of productive assets is rare & confined to a small subgroup of the population. Some of them are indeed intelligent, motivated and disciplined. Some use these skills to extort rent from others. Others are merely lucky but think very highly of their real privileges and supposed qualifications.

Dogbert/Ghost Writer to CEO:
“I finished ghost-writing your autobiography: ‘I was ridiculously lucky. The End.’”
CEO: “I was hoping you’d include something about all my hard work.”
Dogbert: “You didn’t work any harder than your gardener, and he lives in his truck.”
CEO: “What about my vision and my intuition?”
Dogbert: “My first draft had a chapter on your hallucinations and magical thinking. But I covered that ground with the title: ‘I’m a Delusional Sociopath and You Can Too.’”
CEO: “I’m starting to regret paying you in advance.”

Most of the productive assets in this country are controlled by a small group of intelligent, motivated, disciplined connected, sheltered and mollycoddled people heirs.

These people are f***ed without social security because their critical thinking and planning can’t compare to the top couple %.

Would this be the same top 2% that ran our economy into the ground? Y’know, those *talented* job creators?

“But for the average American, they’d end up spending it.”

Irrelevant. The government withheld it. They had a responsibility to invest it wisely. At a minimum, calculations of payments in should at least include the interest rate equivalent to treasury bonds at the point collected and every point in between until time of withdrawal.

“Even if they have money, intellectually they are poors and the financial system treats them as such. “

All the more reason to have SS. Intelligent, motivated, disciplined people have sets of skills that are better suited to other endeavors than investing. Even exceptional business people can get in deep financial trouble with bad investments. Can an individual investor successfully compete against groups of people who have access to enormous computing power and can spend 24/7 pursuing investing? Do we really want to have a country full only of investors?

“The average American family brings in less than 100k/yr and has a couple kids. Sometimes only one spouse works, so there are additional constraints on their ability to plan/save. These people are f***ed without social security because their critical thinking and planning can’t compare to the top couple %.”

Thats me !! Even though I timed the housing bubble perfectly my critical thinking is lacking compared to the top 1% because I don’t brown nose and get bailed out when I blow the whole bank.

“so they gamble on gold, the stock market, mutual funds, etc. Even if they have money, intellectually they are poors and the financial system treats them as such.”

housing too we gamble on housing we are such poors ( what a stupid word sounds like inbred new england trying to be British )

intelligent, motivated, disciplined people have sets of skills that are better suited to other endeavors than investing.
Such as rent-seeking, moving paper in circles, organized crime, extortion, etc.

Would this be the same top 2% that ran our economy into the ground? Y’know, those *talented* job creators?”

yea those are the ones

Would this be the same top 2% that ran our economy into the ground? Y’know, those *talented* job creators?

——————–

Absolutely. I agree, but remember, they were primarily gambling with OPM. Moreover, they had the resources/knowledge to know how to a) escape real liability b) get bailed out c) convince the public that “all the problems are fixed, back to business as usual!”

Meanwhile, Linda the Lunchlady (TM) lives lavishly… on food stamps. While WT scrutinize her grocery haul.

But for the average American, they’d end up spending it. There is no question whatsoever about that.

It’s interesting. About a week ago, I told of a friend complaining that O’care is going to cost him $1800 in 2013. I threw the BS card and haven’t heard boo about it since (from him).

I haven’t been on here for an update, but another friend just posted the exact same amount and that they “couldn’t afford” not to have that $150/month. When pressed on the source of the increase, she said she had no idea where it came from although, again, I can say with great certainty that it’s the FICA increase, not O’care (but that didn’t get in the way of rabble-rousing from the masses).

For the purposes of this thread, the fact that it isn’t due to O’care is beside the point. We can all probably agree that situations change and further that it might be best for folks to have it now rather than when they are 65-ish, when it could be worth quite a bit less.

However, it’s pretty clear that when FICA taxes were lowered to 4.2%, instead of saving it, many people took the money and ran to such a degree that they now claim they can’t live without it. Never mind that they did so just a few years back.

Oh, to complete the profile, I believe she stays at home to finish raising their 3 teenage kids until HS graduation, while her husband works full time. (But she does have a medical background of some sort, just not using it currently to bring income…)

when it could be worth quite a bit less.
Missing the /sarc or /ludicrous understatement tag.

My bad. Certainly /sarc was the intent. Benefit of the doubt? Devil’s advocate?

Those damn teacher’s unions wielding all that power.

Never mind that teachers in CA do not pay into Social Security: it’s their pension that’s bringing down the economy.

Social security is NOT forced savings. You can use savings to get you through a rough patch. You can use savings to help your kids out with school, or to help your parents out when an unexpected bill comes up, or a sibling with an emergency car repair. You can take some risk with it, and invest in a small business, or in improving your own situation to get a better rate of return on your working time, or to pay down some debt so the interest doesn’t hurt as much. If you die before you spend it, you can transfer it to your heirs with no limit on their age, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, income, or disability status. You can diversify it out of “US dollars” or US treasuries in case you are concerned about putting all your eggs in a single basket. I could go on and on… But mostly, it is under your control, and not under someone else’s control telling you how they are doing what is best for you. At best it could be called insurance with the only real “upside” being it pays off if you become disabled before you reach “retirement age”.. IMHO the only *real* reason SS should even exist in any form…

Social security is NOT forced savings. You can use savings to get you through a rough patch.

Soc IS forced savings to get you through a “rough patch” which is known as old age.

Communists on parade.

Well it does seem like you observed a “uniquely American” group of “human feces”.

sorry SPHF if we’all piled high and deep on you, seems like when hard times hit, civility is the first thing that disappears, but than some people are just plain mean and i’ll tempered. i think its the tribal mentality, lizard brain, that takes over to huddle among the like looking group to survive the crises.

zee….even in Sandy those people on rockaway were looting instead of helping…..notice you never see any of them filling sandbags …or loot food and gas grills and cook the food outside in the parking lot before it went bad in the store..

Do they also receive handouts/bailout/subsidies?
————

Yes, are you kidding me? Business is the #1 receiver of tax breaks, subsidies, bail outs, hand outs, etc. This is why smart business people spend lavishly on lawyers and accountants.

The handouts received by food stamp/welfare types are pennies on the dollar compared to the tax breaks given to “invisible hand of the free market” types.

Why are the people who have shown the least amount of ability to manage their finances given “cash equivalents” for food?

2 reasons:

1. Most did not show poor ability to “manage their finances”. They lost jobs sent away.

2. “Managing their finances” means they had the ability to manage the super-rich dicking them. And they did not. Fool.

“With all the people on food stamps/EBT/SNAP wouldn’t it be more efficient to distribute a predefined set of foodstuffs on a weekly basis via delivery truck?”

Like a sack of dried beans per person per month?

Like a sack of dried beans per person per month?
That was actually done during the Great Depression in places like the Dust Bowl. I would not be surprised to learn that EBT cards actually save the government money - no need for gov’t to pay for separate transport, storage & distribution of specific food items.

I read.. 90% of pollution can be cleaned up relatively inexpensively……the next 9% costs about 10x more, and that last .99% is exorbitantly expensive.

I have read similar numbers. A major problem is when a country trying to clean that .99 percent tries to compete with a country not even cleaning up the 90% which is what this country faces competing with China.

You need to provide links. Just throwing numbers out there is misleading. What is it that makes up that 90%? Is it the floating islands of plastic in the oceans or gigatons of industrial agriculture waste. Who gets to decide when too much of a specific molecule or compound becomes a pollutant in the global biosphere? If it’s like government debt then we just redefine what pollution is. Presto change-o no pollution!

I thought it came from Iaccoca talking about car emission 30 years ago

Link supporting China’s role in U.S. pollution including 50% of the mercury pollution.

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/18-made-in-china-our-toxic-imported-air-pollution

I thought it came from Iaccoca talking about car emission 30 years ago

The big three have always fought any regulations regarding pollution, safety and fuel economy. Of course, now that they meet those regulation, they are quick to brag about how clean, safe and fuel efficient there cars are. But I still remember when the big 3 insisted that air bags would never work and were pointless.

Dan, I read the story and nothing about what that “90% of all pollution” number is. Got another source?
Hey, Remember the good old days back in the 60s & 70s when the US was the worlds #1 polluter? If China is now #1 they are standing on top of the billions of tons of waste we dumped in to the ecosystem first. So, to some extent their new record levels of pollution is just the delta over what we (the industrial West) front-loaded into the system first.

What really is China’s economic model? Is it in the economic textbooks? Who are their intellectual leaders who have published the theories that fits the known facts, including the incredible growth of their GDP over the last 3 decades?

It was not offered for the 90% number just confirmation that pollution from China was having a major impact on the U.S. I do not have time to research the number today but when I have more time I will.

GM first put air bags in cars sold to consumers in 1973.

Preston Tucker put an airbag in a car in 1951(after his company had folded though).

“Well, free market apologists will insist that the market will force polluters to clean up. Never mind that history has shown that industry has to be dragged kicking and screaming by government regulation into polluting less.”

Sorry, but the authoritarian communists own this one, that’s what happens when you have unchecked out of control power. Keep trying though, your efforts to spin are almost believable. Tell me…who holds the one party authoritarian government accountable?

Absolutely nothing! And we love buying our cheap, Russian-made ammo there, except there seems to be a bit of a shortage lately

I’m too good for Walmart, I prefer Target and their cheap chinese crap.

Target is French right? (sarcasm).

Yes, if you get the pronunciation correct: “Tar-zhay”

It’s not just Cheapo Wal-Mart and Target. Has anyone looked at a clothes label at Macy’s, or the home stuff from Bed Bath and Bee-yond, or mid-high end catalogs? Even the better quality stuff is all made in China and/or southeast Asia.

You don’t get Made in America unless the stuff is 1) small-batch very expensive designer stuff 2) American Apparel, which is basically 86 variations on leggings and T-shirts designed for the anorexics. Can’t wear it to the office.

The American textile industry was the first to be systematically dismantled to break the unions.

Can’t wear it to the office.

Can’t even look at their catalogue at work! (That’s why I like it so much.)

American Giant makes good clothes in America, I’m told. Their ‘world’s best hoodie’ is back-ordered.

http://www.american-giant.com/about-us/

It’s not just Cheapo Wal-Mart and Target. Has anyone looked at a clothes label at Macy’s, or the home stuff from Bed Bath and Bee-yond, or mid-high end catalogs? Even the better quality stuff is all made in China and/or southeast Asia.

Oh yes. I have noticed that as well. What? they can’t make a $50 shirt in the USA?

The difference is the profit margin between a $12 shirt made in this country and a $1 shirt made in China or Cambodia. But I know you knew that and it was a rhetorical question.

The difference is the profit margin between a $12 shirt made in this country and a $1 shirt made in China…

The difference in price is not nearly 12/1. Many times the difference isn’t even a dollar or even 50 cents. I’ve read that the average import landed cost price difference across industries is less than 15%. We’ve given away our jobs base for someone’s 15%. We can get it back.

Keeping It Local
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
More clothing makers are producing in the U.S. again, finding the investment pays off.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/19/image/la-ig-diary-20110619/2

Increasingly, manufacturing in the U.S.A. is becoming attractive to larger clothing companies too, based on speed, quality control and cost-effectiveness.

L.A.’s Single brand can turn around 800 silk print dresses for Neiman Marcus and Lord & Taylor in as little as two weeks, now that 90% of its production is done at home. “We recently brought more of our production back from China,” said Galina Sobolev, designer-founder of the $15-million brand. “The price difference was only about a dollar per [dress], and the quality control and timing were much better. We’re also providing jobs and keeping domestic factories working.”

U.S. Apparel: On Target, On Budget

http://www.textileworld.com/Articles/2011/May/May_June_issue/US_Apparel_On_Target_On_Budget.html

The U.S. apparel supply chain offers shortened delivery times and ensured quality in addition to the flexibility to handle smaller, customized product volumes.

The U.S. apparel supply chain — as part of a larger Western Hemisphere supply chain — lives, especially for higher-end and specialty brands, but also for moderately priced apparel. From raw material producers to yarn spinners to knitting and weaving mills to fabric finishers to cut-and-sew operations, it is possible for brands and apparel makers to work with a supply chain based substantially in the United States and deliver high-quality goods in a timely manner.

The markups in clothing is astounding.

Those jeans that sell for $40 are often manufactured for less than $2.50.

Rio, once again you miss the central point. It is that the profit margin is much higher on the foreign made good than the American made goods. Yes, cotton price is about the same everywhere and shipping needs to counter etc. Yes, I should not use exaggeration around you to make a point but I never certified the price of the shirts. But if you want something closer to the actual number for production overseas, it would be more like this number which shows how much wider the profit margin is when you foreign sources and it much higher than 10-15% on shirts:

http://www.normeconomics.com/equityvsfree.html

Actually withdraw that link. I do not have much time to look but I have seen studies with items such a baseball caps and the difference in profit margins does run as much as 10 times.

$80 for a hoodie? Yikes. Profit margin indeed.

The article cites that “A shirt made in Sri Lanka lands on U.S. shores with a cost of $15, while a comparable shirt made in the U.S. would cost $25.” That’s not even a real number, just an example to illustrate how a proposed tarriff would be $10, just to make the math easy.

Must be Dan’s Rasmussen polling bias again.

Oxide that is why a said to pull it, when I had time to read the study I realized it was not a true number. Six years of predictions and you can only cite rasmussen and I have explained how your side has distorted even that. You should be so lucky with your predictions.

San Antonio Shoes -excellent shoes well worth the money

http://www.sasshoes.com/

The difference is the profit margin between a $12 shirt made in this country and a $1 shirt made in China…Rio, once again you miss the central point.

No you miss the point again Albuquerquedan. A shirt that costs $12 to make in the USA does not just cost $1 out of China.

The difference is not even close to being that big but many globalists want to promote this deception. Why? I know why.

Rio, I am not even sure why we are having the disagreement since we agree on the main point I believe. Globalists want to hide that their reason for moving production is really just their profit margin. They want to pretend that they are moving the production since U.S. companies cannot come close to competing which is not true. They also want people to believe that they are getting products much cheaper due to globalization which is mostly untrue.

They also want people to believe that they are getting products much cheaper due to globalization which is mostly untrue.

It’s even worse when talking about “outdoor” related clothing. The mfgs know it’s hip to be seen as outdoorsy, so add another 40%+ to the profit margin.

On the other hand, this IS forcing consumers to be more picky about what they buy (buying for quality not quantity), which is probably a good habit to get into.

And the same arguments against ending pollution are still being presented today.

And all of this happens after Guanzhou is declared a “free trade zone” in the 1980’s and unrestrained free-market capitalism takes over. Oops.

Honest I said.

So you got nothing, as usual.

So you’re misrepresenting the truth…. as usual. Whoever is paying you to post isn’t getting their moneys worth.

Got a link PW?

Several would be better.

It’s not my false assertion to validate. It’s our resident real estate professionals.

Your false refutation requires validation, however. Not holding our collective breath here until it is forthcoming. Good thing we don’t live in Beijing!

And in walks the drama queen.

PW.. you have really turned this into an Art form. Challenging others without providing any evidence to backup your claims and then convoluting the conversation so masterfully that the original premises is blurred into oblivion while the back-and-forth takes a life of its own.. i’m in total awe of how you do it..

Truth isn’t “an art form”.

And the truth is that the historical price/income ratio was 2x. ALWAYS.

Housing prices have a very long way to fall from current levels.

the historical price/income ratio was 2x. ALWAYS.

From what I can find, it was between 2.5 and 3. But historically interest rates were higher. So today’s 3.5 ratio might be less than the past’s 2.5 monthly payment no?

The Median Multiple measures the ratio of the median house price to the median annual household income. This measure has historically hovered around a value of 3.0 or less, but in recent years has risen dramatically, especially in markets with severe public policy constraints on land and development. wiki

Comparing Price-to-Income Ratios to Affordability Across Markets

Svenja Gudell
June 29th, 2012

http://www.zillow.com/blog/research/2012/06/29/comparing-price-to-income-ratios-to-affordability-across-markets/

Last year we published a price to income ratio brief and, given some recent developments in this measure, thought now would be a good time to update that brief , as well as discuss how it compares to a measure of affordability.

To recap, the price-to-income ratio is a useful metric when gauging where current home values stand in relation to their historic norms, and when comparing the affordability of housing across different cities in the United States. The ratio compares the median price of homes to the median level of household income in a given area. Specifically, we used the metro-level Zillow Home Value Index, which is a measure of home values for a given metro, as well as median household income for that metro. Median household income is currently available through 2010. After that year we calculated the median household income by estimating it via Bureau of Labor Statistics wage growth rates. In this research brief we consider 133 metros and the United States as a whole.

Compared to their historical averages, measured from the first quarter of 1985 to the fourth quarter of 1999, 23 metros are below their historical average, while 106 metros and the United States as a whole are above their historical average. Four of the metros are exactly at their historical mean. The United States currently has a price-to-income ratio that is equal to 2.8, which puts it at 11% over its historical average. Eighty-two metros are still more than 10% over their historic average. Six metros have overshot their historical average by more than 10%.

Surprisingly, more metros are currently over their historical average than last year at the time of our last brief. Some of that can be explained by home prices appreciating a bit and some can be explained by sluggish income growth. Both of these factors will increase the price-to-income ratio.

yeah….. ok. “Zillow”. lmao.

“Compared to their historical averages, measured from the first quarter of 1985 to the fourth quarter of 1999, 23 metros are below their historical average, while 106 metros and the United States as a whole are above their historical average. Four of the metros are exactly at their historical mean. The United States currently has a price-to-income ratio that is equal to 2.8, which puts it at 11% over its historical average. Eighty-two metros are still more than 10% over their historic average. Six metros have overshot their historical average by more than 10%.”

Excellent. In short, there is still a lot of air left in the bubble.

“Zillow”. lmao.

That is not an argument it is a false argument. It is a fallacy:

Genetic fallacy – where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.[58]

You have no proof of your assertion whereas I do, therefore you resort to a genetic fallacy. You do this a lot along with many other types of fallacies including onus probandi, argumentum ad nauseam, Fallacy of composition, Onus probandi and of course the Abusive fallacy.

One of you debt pimps got caught lying and without vetting his lie, you leaped right on. Smarten up.

“And the truth is that the historical price/income ratio was 2x. ALWAYS.”

That’s what always remember hearing prior to the mother of all bubbles.

Awww…. the poor house-debtor is going to lose money…. alot of money. Boo hoo hoo.

“Prices are going down 65%. Just watch and learn.”

+1 Agreed, and I’ll wager 10,000 Quatloos on it!

Oh boy! Pimp is in the yard, at the end of his chain, running the length of the fence frothing and barking again. Look out!

a LOT of money

… enjoy.

Will I lose 65%? Or has it been revised upward since last week?

And the loses are yours and yours alone.

And the loses are yours and yours alone.

Here I disagree. Somehow losses will be passed on to us all.

Ryan, I believe the revision was 2-3 weeks ago.

Hey it’s the $700-For-An-Alternator-Is-Cheap guy.

Odd you should show up “joe”.

Honda Civic OEM alternator: $86

http://www.partsgeek.com/gbproducts/MC/6014-07089793.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=ff&utm_content=MC&utm_campaign=PartsGeek+Google+Base&utm_term=2002-2005+Honda+Civic+Alternator+MPA+13977+02-05+Honda+Alternator+04&fp=pp&gbm=a&gclid=COSG-tK06LQCFQWe4Aod00kAww

No wonder you’re a broken down old poor man. You’d pay $700 for a part that can easily be had for under $100.

The lies, the repetitiveness, you really have no credibility.

I also note that, like a typical poors, you bought a VW only to later find out they have relatively expensive parts despite being poorly made. LOL!

Tell us some more about Honda Civic or CRV parts being expensive.

Sorry Joe. You’re misrepresenting the truth once again. That’s an aftermarket alternator. An OEM unit is $700…. but that’s “cheap” according to you…. you’re an arrogant snob.

Pimpster must enjoy the daily dose of ridicule. Even negative attention is better than no attention.

I don’t know if they bought a pallet that fell off a truck or what AND it’s a reman, but a new Japanese OEM alternator is generally going to be at least $300-400 at the dealer. Most J6Ps aren’t going to know about such a deal as the one you’re quoting and if they did wouldn’t trust it. I doubt I’d trust it.

The online parts guys are great, as long as you have a week to wait for the part.

And the last I heard, if the car in question is a daily driver, it won’t run long with a dead alternator.

Fedex overnight charges kinda defeats the purpose of buying online.

And good luck with bringing your cheapo online parts to the garage for the shop to put on. They will tell you to pound sand, for reasons that have nothing to do with “getting their cut”.

Also note that O’Reilly’s is getting rich selling junk chinese parts with “Lifetime” warranties, knowing that people tend to get rid of troublesome cars after a year or two, max.

An OEM part is priced according to whatever the OEM thinks he can get away with. Aftermarket and used parts can work quite well, for those who know what they are doing. Those who don’t care to learn more about their cars deserve to pay whatever they must while they watch Honey BooBoo on the tube.

Fixr, what are the other reasons for a mechanic to refuse to the install the part, besides getting a cut on the price if he sells the part? I don’t know engines very well. They refuse to install faulty parts?

a new Japanese OEM alternator is generally going to be at least $300-400 at the dealer.

That’s right. But heay…..$400 for an alternator is cheap!!!!

I agree. But alternators and starters are in another category. If you don’t mind changing it yourself every year, then the cheaper the better. But otherwise, the cheap stuff sucks. I almost never pay dealer prices for anything, but I do for alternators. That’s the only way I can have decent odds that I won’t be doing it for another 10 years.

Oops, my reply was to tresho, the other responses showed up later.

I never go to a dealer. I will only go to a dealer if I get an Audi or Merc in the future. For now Hondas are great–plentiful affordable parts and generally pretty straightforward for the mechanic. Paying retail prices for work on non-performance cars is for suckers.

One more thing I just thought of…my “$300-400″ number is 10 years old. I haven’t needed to buy one in that long…because I bought new OEM at the dealership. Things may have changed since then…but I assume they haven’t gotten cheaper.

Paying retail prices for work on non-performance cars is for suckers.

For work, perhaps. For parts, not necessarily. Depends on the part. Change your “lifetime warranty” Autozone alternator every year for a few years and see how you feel about it.

Lawyers(a word remarkably like Liars) don’t have wrists strong enough to wrench. lmao.

Why would anyone go to the dealer and pay for an OEM part for something like an alternator or starter? Waste of money.

Only if you do the work yourself and your time is worth zero.

Because that’s where OEM parts are sourced unless you’re stealing them off the boat.

Only if you do the work yourself and your time is worth zero.
The devil is always in the details. I once replaced a $75 part on my 2001 F150 using pliers and a screwdriver. This took 5 minutes, including the time to open & close the hood. My dealer wanted to charge me $100 for the labor involved.

Sure. But an alternator takes a bit longer, can sometimes go at a very inconvenient time/place, and you’ll be doing it all the time with a cheap “lifetime warranty” unit. Life is too short for that crap.

But an alternator takes a bit longer, can sometimes go at a very inconvenient time/place, and you’ll be doing it all the time with a cheap “lifetime warranty” unit.
If you have that much trouble with alternators, carry a spare in the trunk. 5 minutes to replace, 15 minutes if you’re clumsy. Tools to do this can be had at HarborFreight or Big Lots for $20, and every car owner should already own a set of tools. The last time an alternator gave out on me was 30 years and about 400,000 miles ago.
That is nowhere NEAR ‘all the time.’

Naturally Honda makes alt replacement a little more difficult, but see this video.

Dude, I’ve tried cheap “lifetime warranty” units. Never again. I highly doubt you’ve gotten a ton of miles out of one. Say what you want but I’ve been there, done that, and will never use anything but new OEM alternators and starters.

I highly doubt you’ve gotten a ton of miles out of one.
The average mileage I have received on alternators I bought (all of which came with my vehicles) is 100,000 or more, except for the one in my Datsun pickup, which only lasted 80,000 miles. That was the only one I have had to replace. But then I’ve never owned a Honda.

Sounds like you’re talking about OEM alternators that came with the vehicle. Those last a long time. I’m not talking about those.

rental rates are still a fraction of the cost of buying at current inflated asking prices.

Not everywhere.

I just showed above with mathematics and sourced research that buying the 180K median priced home in the USA is cheaper than renting the average priced USA apartment according to the WSJ.

EVERYWHERE.

….You showed a puff piece from the WSJ. And there is no math to it.

Would you guys PLEASE stop feeding the “new construction” troll? He over generalizes to the point of lying on a regular basis. Everyone who reads here knows that by now. If you are doing it for fun (like Joe) that is one thing. If you think you can actually win an argument with someone who is willing to ignore information and just repeat untruths over and over and over again, then you need to revisit the classic Monty Python sketch.

And here’s our other real estate professional. Isn’t it interesting how she mirrors herself. How Orwellian.

“Your arm’s off”
“No it isn’t”
“‘Tis”
“It’s just a flesh wound”

Polly, is that the one?

You real estate professionals seem to have a hard time reading.

Who was it that stated the falsehood that the price/income ratio is 3.5x? Yes…. It was one of yours. And now he’s backpedalling. Why? Because he got caught.

Are you feeling the love yet?

Why? Because he got caught.

I got caught answering my own question, which was “isn’t the traditional multiple 3.5?” I discovered it wasn’t, it was actually 2.5, at least according to Zillow.

Guess I showed me, eh?

No, no, no. A whale is a mollusk.

Of course. MP and the Holy Grail is an entire movie. Time to brush up on those classic routines.

And you’re still lying. Imagine that.

Polly, I was playing up the RAL meme for fun for a while, but then I realized he is very serious about it. Over my 3-4 yrs of reading here (I read for quite a while before I ever posted) I always felt RAL was 50% hyperbole in his schtick.

I actually was keeping a spreadsheet of his memes for a while, but have since hit the delete button on that. Knowing he is serious makes it boring.

“Your arm’s off”
“No it isn’t”
“‘Tis”
“It’s just a flesh wound”

Polly, is that the one?

I thought she meant the “Argument Clinic” sketch. Classic. Think I’ll call it up now!

Yes, I was thinking of the Argument Clinic. The part where he says that pure contradiction isn’t an argument.

And notice that the poor dear is now telling you that I am somehow involved in real estate. The last time I talked to a realtor was at a street fair near my building over the summer. She was handing out magnets with the Redskins schedule on it. I ignored the pitch, but I took the magnet.

Mildly amusing.

Now let’s hear more of your bird-brained bucolic BS.

“The part where he says that pure contradiction isn’t an argument.”

“But it [arguing] isn’t just saying, ‘no it isn’t'”

“Yes it is.”

“No it isn’t!!!”

The historical median house price to median family income is roughly 2:1.

According to our good friends at Zillow:

“the United States currently has a price-to-income ratio that is equal to 2.8, which puts it at 11% over its historical average”

That means the historical average is 2.5x income. But according to them, we’re at 2.8 now. If indeed we are at 3.6, and the average is 2.5, then houses are overpriced by about 30%, which actually seems about right to me.

But of course historically low interest rates screw up the metric, by increasing it.

uh huh…..

I remember my parents talking about this back in the sixties, when they bought their first house

Ratio was 3-1

Stayed that way for a long time, including during my last purchase (Except that I was figuring 3-1 on my income ONLY….the Realtwhores were sayng stuff like “you can qualify for a lot bigger house, if you include the wife’s income……)

Never heard anyone say 2-1, before now, on this blog.

Not that I don’t think that it’s what we should be using now. For starters, state and local tax rates are a lot higher now (our sales tax rate went from 3% to 8.0-9.5%, depending on where you are shopping at)

As far as rents……..I’ll believe my lyin’ eyes. That tell me that rents are going up in places with jobs, and going down where there aren’t.

There are many ways to look at statistics. Median, average, personal income, household income. There is also what banks used to consider wise for a maximum amount to finance and then there is what people do.

I’ve been mortgaged about six times and it was always for less than 2x, but they would tell me I was qualified for a lot more. I read the 2x in the NY Times a few years back, no link but I’m sure it was Median numbers.

That “someone” does consulting work for the Housing Crime Syndicate.

Nice try though.

That “someone” does consulting work for the Housing Crime Syndicate.

That would not necessarily make his numbers bad. The Housing Crime Syndicate is not solely interested in fake high housing prices. The “Housing Crime Syndicate” is also interested in loans not going bad and an industry that remains viable. The dude was literally a rocket-scientist. If he put out bad numbers, why would he be hired?

And BTW, who is going to come up with any ratio that would not be in some shape or form be interested or involved in housing or finance?

The US shipbuilders Association or the Christmas Tree planters is going to come up with housing cost/debt ratio guidelines? And then you would think the ratios valid?

I don’t have to “believe” anyone. Nor do I trust anyone who develops a website to post their garbage information.

Now… even you can go to the CB and look at the historic wage and price tables by MSA to understand that the 3.5 metric is a lie. But frankly, I think you’re just too damn lazy to do so. You want someone to provide the information no matter how skewed and untruthful it is rather than seek the truth yourself.

Carry on.

understand that the 3.5 metric is a lie

I just found that Zillow says the historic metric is 2.5. But they also say (at least in June 2012) that the US is at 2.8, about 11% overpriced.

But they go on to point out that our present historically-low interest rates allow people to afford a more expensive home than was usually the case. Historically we are 11% overpriced by the income to house price metric, but based on ‘affordability’ (ie using today’s interest rates), we are at decades’ lows.

http://www.zillow.com/blog/research/2012/06/29/comparing-price-to-income-ratios-to-affordability-across-markets/

You’re backpedalling my Real Estate Professional.

You made it up

Check my link above. He actually runs the numbers, instead of spouting invective.

Quoting and linking NAR once again my Real Estate Professional?

$200 taxes and insurance? Not so fast. Calif which has low(er) property tax rates imposes a 1.25% tax on assessed value.
At $245K, this is about $3000/yr, or about $250/mo alone. Typical homeowners insurance on that amount ranges form $500 - $1500. This is NOT counting PMI, which you are more likely to pay with a higher price and lower interest rate compared to a lower price and higher interest rate. Anyway, call it an extra $75/mo in homeowners for a $325 total TI portion of PITI. Add in PMI on financing for less than 20% down.. costs go up again. In addition, since you are deducting less in interest, your savings through income tax deduction is also reduced. @4% on 250k, that’s 10k in deduction in vs 17.5K on a 7% loan.

Just saying.. lower prices at higher interest rates are more affordable. For the equivalent payment, you pay less in property taxes, get a bigger income tax deduction, and every *extra* dollar you pay on your lower balance mortgage per month reducing principal accelerates your repayment period faster than the higher balance mortgage.

Also, the higher the interest rate, the more likely you can refinance at a lower interest rate in the future reducing total repayment amount. Overall, equivalent monthly payments of high price low interest vs low price high interest.. low price wins every possible way.

Overall, equivalent monthly payments of high price low interest vs low price high interest.. low price wins every possible way.

Yep…. in EVERY possible way. And don’t forget 3%/year in maintenance costs.

Admittedly, I was fudging TI numbers from my area.

I guess the main point is that prices these days are so high that we need low interest rates to maintain the same PITI on 3x income house prices.

Of course the lower price wins/high interest wins over high price/low interest. Now, if you could just point to WHEN you think interest rates will rise and when prices will fall accordingly, that would be great. IMO, it will never happen. What is more likely is that interest rates will rise a little but any drop in price will be swallowed by inflation, leading to stagnant prices.

And don’t forget 3%/year in maintenance costs.

Hold on now, that’s a traditional metric. If today’s houses are wildly overpriced, then their maintenance metric should be a lot lower.

I was fudging TI numbers

We know that and we expect it from you.

any drop in price will be swallowed by inflation

Do you proof read? Ever? Have you learned nothing in your years here? Or maybe fudging your own reality on this one?

One other piece of the equation that people are ignoring:

“P”, or Principal Reduction is not an expense. Maintenance is. We should be talking about MITI, not PITI. However, people are in a “howmuchamonth” mode, so PITI plus maintenance is what is discussed.

In any event, at 3.75% and 30 year amortization, approximately 32.5% of your FIRST month’s payment goes to reduce principal…this percentage rises throughout the ownership of the property. This is a lot of principal reduction as compared to higher interest rates (at 7%, this percentage is only 12.3%).

I’m not trying to justify overpaying for a house, but if you are trying to compare to rent, you should compare on one side:

Interest Cost
Taxes
Insurance
Maintenance

And on the other side

Rent
Insurance (I had renter’s insurance…don’t know about you)

“I’m not trying to justify overpaying for a house,”

Of course you are. And you can’t even be truthful about that.

If you overpay by 100%, which you are at current inflated asking prices, 50% of that money + interest is gone forever.

Knock it off.

“If you overpay by 100%, which you are at current inflated asking prices, 50% of that money + interest is gone forever.”

Are we now back to only falling 50% from here, not 65%?

Keep misrepresenting and we’ll keep swatting you down.

Rental, you have to admit, if your payment will be equivalent of 250k @3.75 vs say 165@7.0%, then even though the principal amount is reduced less at the 7% rate, it’s much easier to pay down your balance with additional money directed at the mtg.. In other words, you are MORE of a debt slave even with a lower interest rate.

Sorry, another way to look at it..
“In any event, at 3.75% and 30 year amortization, approximately 32.5% of your FIRST month’s payment goes to reduce principal…this percentage rises throughout the ownership of the property. This is a lot of principal reduction as compared to higher interest rates (at 7%, this percentage is only 12.3%).”

In other words, to knock a single payment off at the start you only need to pay an additional 12.3% of your payment when you pay 7% vs 32.5 % additional @3.5 % … With equivalent mortgages of say $1500 this means @7% you need only pay an additional $180 to knock 1 month off your mortgage.. At 3.5% you would need to pay nearly $500 to get rid of 1 month of payments. MUCH more expensive to buy your way out…

mathguy-

I get it.

Cheaper is always better, both from the original basis standpoint, as well as the cost of interest. If you are only buying because of low interest rates, and are increasing what you are buying because of a “howmuchamonth” analysis, IMHO, you are making a mistake. We see this with apartment investors today…they are paying a LOT for the cash flow, and justifying it because they can get cheap debt…the problem is that if rates (interest and cap) rise just 100bps, they lose a huge amount of capital value.

And everything that you are saying makes a ton of sense, but ONLY if you make the assumption that home prices are the “plug number” and the that mortgage payment dictates price movement. Over medium-long periods of time, that may be true, but in the near term, it is not.

Simple example, from mid-2011 to today, my mortgage cost went from 5.15% to 3.75%. To keep the mortgage payment constant, I could take on 18% more debt…however, under your assumptions, home values would go up by 18% to make the monthly payment the same. This hasn’t happened. Will it? Maybe, but in time, not right away.

Because I refinanced, the total cost of my loan is less than when I first purchased. My principal balance is going down faster than I first anticipated. If I wanted to keep my payment the same, I could amortize the same cost over a period of about 22.5 years.

I’m sure glad we have a real estate professional “running all the numbers” for us.

If you clicked his link you’d see he has no connection to the RE industry.

But I’m sure it’s all a cover for a deep conspiracy.

Real Estate Professional,

Just like you, all internet Real Estate Professionals hide their relationship with the Housing Crime Syndicate. You’re not hiding anything.

ust like you, all internet Real Estate Professionals hide their relationship with the Housing Crime Syndicate.

Suck it up.

I live in Brazil. I have no USA real estate. I have no dog in the fight. I want USA real estate to become cheaper but WGAF?

But you “Pimp Watch” are a sad cry from what you once seemed to be.

You’ve devolved into a moronic troll. No logic. No decorum. No math, and no civility, just an angry “voice” spouting what you want reality to be.

Let me tell you something “Pimp Watch”. Reality is not what you want it to be, no matter how right you think you are.

You’re a coward and a liar.

Demand is falling. Get over it.

“Everybody has to chip in, in the recovery”

Then we are going to have to back and change the campaign speeches.

By Holly Bailey, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – Sat, Sep 22, 2012

MILWAUKEE—President Barack Obama visited Wisconsin for the first time in seven months Saturday.

“I can afford to pay a little bit more,” Obama said. “And Mitt Romney sure can afford to pay a little more.” and a single person who makes $11,702, considered the poverty line in the U.S can afford to pay a little bit more. Everybody has to chip in, in the recovery.

Are we, all of us, who are ultimately responsible for this run-up in debt and these unpaid for “benefits” of the past decade, going to pay for this thing or not? Yes or no?

@alpha

I run my own finances such that I don’t go too deeply into debt. If I want to buy something I patiently save until I can afford it. Now I am expected to chip in, in the recovery. A recovery that is only necessary because others don’t know how to control their spending. I didn’t cause the problem but now I am expected to pay for it. and because I did without I actually still have some money in the bank. So because of that I should be expected to “do a little more”. That is why it is infuriating.

“Are we, all of us, who are ultimately responsible for this run-up in debt and these unpaid for “benefits” of the past decade, going to pay for this thing or not? Yes or no?”

What’s it gonna be, boy? Come on
I can wait all night
What’s it gonna be, boy? Yes or no
What’s it gonna be, boy? Yes or no

Let me sleep on it, baby, baby, let me sleep on it
Well, let me sleep on it, I’ll give you an answer in the morning

I gotta know right now,

Let me sleep on it, baby, baby, let me sleep on it
Let me sleep on it and I’ll give you an answer in the morning

That is why it is infuriating.

I agree. But it’s hard to get out exactly what you chip in to the monkey pack, since the future is unknown.

Would you be making the same salary if there was no monkey pack?

$9/week = 36 pack of top ramen ($5.50) + 1 dozen eggs($2.25) + 1lb bag of frozen mixed veggies ( .99c) . Part of my economic scan includes checking periodically to see what it would cost me to live (feed myself) as I did when basically in poverty during college.

“These are NOT significant increases.”

“If you think $9 a week is lot of money, you need to get out more often.”

Tell Leslie Martinez that not me, of course she is making $17,000 so it would be more than $9 a week.

“Even if the change seems small, Leslie Martinez said she worries the increased tax will affect her ability to pay bills on time or afford activities such as a movie night with her kids. The 32-year-old mother of two makes $17,000 a year working at a central Phoenix dry cleaner.”

tell Leslie Martinez that not me, of course she is making $17,000 so it would be more than $9 a week.

It always amuses me how the right-wingers will ‘feel sorry’ for a low wage person when it suits their political point, but never at any other time.

“It always amuses me how the right-wingers will ‘feel sorry’ for a low wage person when it suits their political point, but never at any other time.”

That is funny cause I was laughing at those of you on the left saying how it shouldn`t be a problem for the truly WORKING poor to pay a little more each week.

The 32-year-old mother of two makes $17,000 a year working at a central Phoenix dry cleaner.
We never read about a kind soul who befriends a woman like that, gives her a $100 tip for her service at the dry cleaner or pays tuition for one of her kids at a good private high school, do we? Both of those things happened to my mother during the Great Depression. I may owe my existence to the kindness of strangers like that.

“It always amuses me how the right-wingers will ‘feel sorry’ for a low wage person when it suits their political point, but never at any other time.”

Agreed. Weren’t “those people” just arguing before the election that EVERYONE should be paying something? That something is something they already were paying. Why should they not pay it?

Or was that just for non-FICA taxes and this is separate; a way of saying that you don’t agree with the SS system?

Use the link provided and you’ll see she isn’t paying anything and in fact, her EIC has gone up and her tax rate WENT DOWN.

“Use the link provided and you’ll see she isn’t paying anything”

Is she making it up on the reductions in the refundable child tax credit — might not be recognized by households until they file their tax returns in 2014?

So why take it from her in the first place? To me this goes back to 1900. All taxes on wages need to be removed. Corporations/businesses/self employed should pay a labor tax for the use of the people of this country to generate them revenue, and to provide for their general welfare. Corporations exporting production to reduce costs should have their products and overseas earnings subject to tariffs. We could eliminate thousands of pages of personal income tax code, entire divisions of the IRS, and restore the common man’s trust in the gov’t again.

““It always amuses me how the right-wingers will ‘feel sorry’ for a low wage person when it suits their political point, but never at any other time.””

A lot of non communists like my self have been part of the poor low wage and/or poor community, some still are, and I bet I have more empathy and do more financially than any of you communist posers.

Not all working poor people think that communism is the answer, some of them still love and believe in this country only to see it sold down the river by greedy low IQ misguided global progressives.

No but 20+ MILLION of them have zero equity.

“it implies that 80% of mortgage debtors aren’t paying their mortgages.”

I don`t claim to know what % of mortgage debtors aren’t paying their mortgages, I do think it is much higher than any numbers show.

Paying mortgage isn’t a top priority in tough times, research shows

financial expert says the traditional payment hierarchy has shifted, and that consumers are worried more about their cars and credit cards than their homes.

June 10, 2012|By Mary Umberger

The once-mighty mortgage has slipped to No. 3.

Ezra Becker, vice president of research and consulting at TransUnion’s financial services business unit, discussed why mortgages have lost their place in line.

What did you study to conclude that there’s been a change in attitudes about this hierarchy?

One of the things we noticed at the beginning of the recession was that delinquency rates on mortgages were skyrocketing, but they were controlled in the credit card space. We knew this was weird. If the traditional payment hierarchy were holding true, credit card delinquencies also would have skyrocketed too.

So we studied the data in 2010 and later updated it, concluding that credit cards had, indeed, become the top priority. But we didn’t include car payments in those studies, so we did a second update, studying 4 million people who had a mortgage and at least one credit card account and one auto loan.

We found that in 2011, consumers were likely to pay their auto loans before their credit cards, and then their mortgages. It was true in all 50 states and the District of Columbia and across different risk tiers, such as prime versus subprime. It was illuminating to see that credit cards aren’t the most important credit to people; it’s auto loans.

For consumers who had all three types of credit in 2011, when they became delinquent in any of those categories, 9.5% who were delinquent on an auto loan were current on their credit cards and mortgages. And 17.3% who were delinquent on their credit cards were still up to date on their mortgages and car loans. But a far larger number, 39.1%, who were delinquent on their mortgages stayed current on their credit cards and car loans.

Why have cars taken the top priority?

We believe that it’s primarily because consumers need their cars to get to work or to seek employment. Being able to seek employment is particularly relevant because of how long people have been out of work.

Another factor is what we call the timing of consequences. If you stop paying on your credit cards, the credit card account gets closed, and you can’t use it anymore. When you stop paying your auto loans, at some point fairly soon people are going to come to take that car away from you.

But when you stop paying the mortgage, the average time to foreclosure in so-called nonjudicial states [in which the courts aren't involved in the process] is 300 days. In judicial states, in which the courts rule in foreclosures, now you’re looking at 10 to 20 months before you’ll be evicted.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/10/business/la-fi-umberger-20120610 - 86k -

When I was shopping for a car a year ago, used 2 year old Elantras were $15,000 while brand new ones were $18,000. The new ones had far better warranties, out to 10 years and 100,000 miles.

I just looked at a 2013 honda accord lx $24,000. My 2003 accord ex was $24,000. The 2013 lx has a lot more than the 2003 ex (much more hp, better mpg, more airbags, larger wheels, usb port for stereo etc.) deflation?

Paying mortgage isn’t a top priority in tough times, research shows

Unless you live in a state where they actually do foreclose and evict in 6-12 months.

“Unless you live in a state where they actually do foreclose and evict in 6-12 months.”

Where is that?

Squatter Nation: 5 years with no mortgage payment

By Les Christie June 12, 2011: 9:23 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Charles and Jill Segal have not made a mortgage payment in nearly five years — but they continue to live in their five-bedroom West Palm Beach, Fla. home.

Lynn, from St. Petersburg, Fla., has been living without paying for three years.

In Thousand Oaks, Calif., an actor has missed 30 payments, and still, he has not lost his home.

They’re not alone.

Some 4.2 million mortgage borrowers are either seriously delinquent or have had their cases referred to lawyers to pursue foreclosure auctions, according to LPS Applied Analytics. Of those, two-thirds have made no payments at all for at least a year, and nearly one-third have gone more than two years.

These cases can go on and on. Nationwide, it takes an average of 565 days to foreclose on borrowers in default from their first missed payments to the final auction. In New York, the average is 800 days and in Florida, where the “robo-signing” issue is particularly combative, it’s 807.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/09/real_estate/foreclosure_squatter/index.htm - 60k -

“I just looked at a 2013 honda accord lx $24,000. My 2003 accord ex was $24,000. The 2013 lx has a lot more than the 2003 ex (much more hp, better mpg, more airbags, larger wheels, usb port for stereo etc.) deflation?”

I noticed the same thing with CRV’s. The mass-market auto companies have gotten a lot better in the past decade or so. I’m pretty sure I’m going to get my wife a CRV, but the competition from Ford, Chevy, and Toyota is very strong. 2013 models are much better than what was available a decade ago. There are many features that just didn’t exist 10 yrs ago that are now in low- and mid- levels of trim. The interiors are much better, the fuel efficiency is better, more horsepower pretty much across the board compared to 10-15 yrs ago.

I am guessing the reason for reasonable prices these days is that prices from 02-07 were driven up by easy lending, HELOCs, and a strong job market.

Where is that?

Uh … I’ve seen it right in my own neighborhood

Floriduh is a different place my friend. In my neck of the woods people don’t brag at cocktail parties about not paying the mortgage.

“Unless you live in a state where they actually do foreclose and evict in 6-12 months.”

Let`s see is 2008 - 2012 longer than 6-12 months?

Evidently you live in Coloraduh.

“One of those notes belongs to Jerry Hansen, a real estate broker who said he has expected foreclosure papers on his Aurora home since 2008. He is among several homeowners interviewed by The Post who said they’re merely waiting for their lender to make a move.”

“Lenders were also believed to be holding back a “shadow” inventory said to top 2 million homes because they couldn’t sell them at a reasonable price.”

Colorado could be facing a new wave of foreclosures

By David Migoya
The Denver Post
Posted: 06/20/2012 01:00:00 AM MDT

Despite reports of a thawing housing market, yet another wave of foreclosures appears to be looming, real estate records filed in multiple metro-Denver counties indicate.

A “shadow” inventory?

Lenders were also believed to be holding back a “shadow” inventory said to top 2 million homes because they couldn’t sell them at a reasonable price.

“You’ve had this lengthy artificial timeout from the robo-signing investigation, creating a logjam that had to break free,” Denver mortgage broker and market expert Jim Spray said. “That foreclosure river had to flow again eventually, and it appears this is the proof. I just hope it’s not another flood.”

One of those notes belongs to Jerry Hansen, a real estate broker who said he has expected foreclosure papers on his Aurora home since 2008. He is among several homeowners interviewed by The Post who said they’re merely waiting for their lender to make a move. All said they were unaware their deed of trust had been assigned. “We’ve been sitting on this bubble for the longest time and I have no doubt it’s coming,” said Hansen, 58.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_20895107/colorado-could-be-facing-new-wave-foreclosures - 167k -

That is what passes for “middle class” in flyover. But in most metro areas that is too low to buy anything. You sure can’t buy a 100K house or condo in any Rocky Mountain metro area.

And the $14/hr supervisor probably has a college degree and some student loan debt to service (about 20K if she is average)

I saw a similar comment on another website about affordability in flyover country. I don’t buy it. You are not going to buy a home in any of the major midwest metros for $100,000 and be in a safe neighborhood. Even the suburbs around Indy and Columbus (two of the cheapest major metros for housing prices) don’t have home for that price. You will easily pay $150,000 and up for a 3 bedroom home. Even many of the more desirable midwest small cities, like college towns and communities that still have viable economies will be in the $150,000+.

Yes. The notion that housing affordable anywhere is a false one.

Housing prices still have a very long way to fall.

You will easily pay $150,000 and up for a 3 bedroom home.

That would be the ’step-up’ home, after the $100k ’starter-home’. When hubby gets taken on at the machine shop and starts making $13/hour.

Alpo…… You’re contorting again.

Hush, Pimples, the adults are talking.

But we expect nothing less from you Real Estate Professionals.

I have lived in many of these metros. To get a house for $100,000 and have 3 bedrooms, it either needs a lot of work, or is in a declining neighborhood or in a bad school district. Try buying in the Cincy area or Madison Wis, Bloomington IN, Ann Arbor MI, or Des Moines IA and see what you get. Now if you are talking about metros with significant job losses, then yes. Of course you probably have declining infrastructure, poor services and a school system that is falling apart.

To get a house for $100,000 and have 3 bedrooms, it either needs a lot of work, or is in a declining neighborhood or in a bad school district.

Did you miss my response where I said the $100,000 was the starter house, $150,000 the step-up house when hubby got on at the plant?

That said, I guarantee you can find a nice enough starter home for $100k in Columbus or Indianapolis, and a nice enough 3 bedroom in a pretty good school district for $150,000. You sure can in my midwestern/southern city, and we’re in much better economic shape than they are up there in the rust belt.

My Real Estate Professional friend,

LEARN what a starter house is before you use the expression.

What’s a starter house then? I think of it as a 2 bedroom/1 bath. Works alright with one baby, not so much with two.

“A $100,000 house would only cost them about $550/month in PITI. That should be doable with a monthly gross of about $4k.”

I agree with what you say, but you and your communist agitator friends would not be so willing to accept the downward spiral that is our economy if not for your organizer in chief being in charge.

I guess your definition of starter house and mine are different. I said 3 bedrooms, you say 2 bedrooms. I say a stater house cost should not require another $20,000 to make it livable. If its does then it cost you $120,000.

Whoa! Heavy scripting on that website.

Yeah, worked with quite a few of these types.

Obviously the job creators need a tax cut.

I can GUARANTEE you they were not paying 50k at the call center.

AFAIK, HP has long offshored all of its “call centers”. If these guys were getting 50K a year, they were high end, enterprise level tech support. As in, “my UNIX server won’t talk to your HP Tape library and I have a Service Level Agreement” and not “the cheapo HP Laptop that I just bought won’t boot”

Back around 07 and 08, HP paid these people much more than 50K and allowed them to work from home. Then they were told that they would have to work at one of a few select sites (Albuquerque was one) and that HP wouldn’t pay to relocate them either. I knew a few support guys in Colorado who were affected by this. Most of them quit and were replaced by the 50K guys, who are now considered too expensive.

That’s what I thought.

Here’s a guy who did the right things — went to college and served in the military too. And he still can’t find more than menial work.

The new America, where you need “credentials” to do menial work.

He didn’t get a degree from either one.

then

a guy who did the right things.

Does not compute.

He didn’t get a degree from either one.

Does not compute.

Okay, let me explain: The guy’s a few years older than I am. Meaning that the “Go to college!” exhortation was really front and center.

So he did.

For some reason, he found service in the USMC to be more compelling than completing a degree at the University of Michigan. So, a Marine he became.

And then he went back to school after the service. Eastern Michigan University.

He didn’t finish, but by that time, it was the late seventies/early 1980s. In Michigan, the economy stunk to high heaven, and he may not have been able to afford to stay in school. I can relate because the same thing happened to me with the community college here in Tucson.

In short, we have a guy who’s way smarter than your average groundskeeper, but that’s the only job he can find after a lengthy bout of unemployment.

What about dollar devaluation that is priced into the 150%-250% price increases? Does that go away as well?

You mean inflation?

But never mind that satellites from other nations have photographed the landing sites.
Those were faked too. In fact the Moon is a complete fake. Don’t believe your lying eyes.

I’m sure Spook doesn’t really believe this stuff, he’s just *putting it out* there, again, and again.

I’m sure Spook doesn’t really believe this stuff, he’s just *putting it out* there, again, and again.

You’re probably right, he’s just yanking our chain.

I still wonder why they let him do it 7 times in a row and it took ten years after to find out?

“I still wonder why they let him do it 7 times in a row and it took ten years after to find out?”

Because he brought a lot of American attention to the Tour de France. Because everyone really was doping then and if they eliminated all of the dopers, they would have to give the yellow jersey to the Laterne Rouge - who probably never had to give a sample and so could not be found out.

BTW, this was the funniest posting I ever saw about the Tour de France.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/pro-cycling-race-discussion/meanwhile-35498.html

I had the flu shot. Still got some kind of version of three different virusus, back to back. I have been blowing my nose since November. I would have made a passable Rudolph had anybody been looking for one for a Christmas pageant or whatever.

Thanks for the belly laugh from reading the comments from that site. I’d not have had the laugh without that link.

I’m glad you enjoyed it. It still had me laughing after all these years.

Perhaps you missed the fact that you, as a gun owner, are statistically a better candidate for a self inflicted mortal gun shot than the typical non-gun owner?

The most armed segment of our society, the military, have a pretty high suicide rate compared to the general population (which is already at elevated levels).

Perhaps you missed the fact that you, as a gun owner, are statistically a better candidate for a self inflicted mortal gun shot than the typical non-gun owner?

We’ll chalk that one up to common sense… you need to have a gun present to “self-inflict a mortal gun shot”.

Let’s have some more fun with statistics… how about this one: According to the FBI, from 2005 to 2011 more deaths occurred from hammers, clubs, and blunt instruments than from rifles, including the dreaded “assault rifle”, otherwise known as a semi-automatic rifle.

Based on that statistical data point, we should be focusing our efforts on licensing and regulating hammers as opposed to “assault weapons”.

more deaths occurred from hammers, clubs, and blunt instruments than from rifles, …we should be focusing our efforts on licensing and regulating hammers

That guy didn’t walk into Sandy Hook Elementary School with a 9 iron, a bat and claw-hammer.

Clearly I’m just trying to downplay the tragic number of suicides by hammers & clubs. Did you know that guns don’t kill people? Bullets are highly toxic though.

That guy didn’t walk into Sandy Hook Elementary School with a 9 iron, a bat and claw-hammer.

No, he didn’t. And had there been a police officer or an armed security guard on the premise, there wouldn’t have been any deaths at all, or at least far fewer.

Bottom line is that Sandy Hook and Aurora, CO were statistical anomalies. The arguments against “assault rifles” are baseless given they account for such a small percentage of total deaths.

had there been a police officer or an armed security guard on the premise, there wouldn’t have been any deaths at all, or at least far fewer.

That’s odd, because the armed security guard at Columbine didn’t accomplish much of anything.

BS on your “statistical anomalies”. There has been a live feed on C-SPAN2 all day covering gun violence. Dozens of experts citing actual numbers and decade long studies that say you are lying. These experts included hospitals, psychologist, insurance companies, universities. They just finished a in-depth review of the state of the art in Smart Gun technology that was great.

”Perhaps you missed the fact that you, as a gun owner, are statistically a better candidate for a self inflicted mortal gun shot than the typical non-gun owner?”

Is that what they teach in statism 101? I seem to hear that one very often from statist progressives…got to be a tired retread talking point.

Agreed, I have a .357 with a six inch barrel for both home defense and bears. I have a snub nosed .38 also. .38 ammunition is a lot cheaper and I can use it for both.

Need .44 mag for bears.

“but we needed something a little bigger for bears”

Glock 20 | G20 | 10mm Pistol | GLOCK USA
http://us.glock.com/products/model/g20 - 22k - Cached - Similar pages
The GLOCK 20, in 10mm Auto, provides nothing short of massive firepower especially suited for hunting. Learn more about this reliable hunter’s companion.

Need .44 mag for bears

For the grizzly bears where you are, yes.

Down here we have black bears only.

Remember, if you are going to use a gun smaller than a .44 Mag you must file the front sight smooth.

That way when the bear shoves it up ur a$$ it doesn’t hurt as bad.

LMAO

It is too bad Romney did not give those binders full of women to Obama
Rumor is, Bill Clinton stole those binders.

It is too bad Romney did not give those binders full of women to Obama Bill Clinton stole those binders.

To add a bit of detail to the above post and to shed the stereotype that Hollywood has spread regarding the ease of shooting among the non-shooting public, here are some data points compiled by the NYPD regarding police shootings… keep in mind the police are considered “trained professionals”.

In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ….. 28%
3 yards to 7 yards …. 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%

Bottom line, in any sort of “gun fight”, if you’re given a choice between a handgun and a rifle, choose the rifle. Hitting a target in a dynamic, kinetic engagement with a pistol is difficult at best.

Yea just remember how many innocents were shot in that last wild shoot out in NYC with the hitman and how many shots were fired compared to how many hit the hitman.

Yeah, you guys go ahead and start blasting away at the loser bashing in the patio door.

Just call the neighbors first, and tell them to duck, because those 5.56 rounds that miss will be paying your neighbors a visit.

If I ever have a neighbor who feels the need to unload 30 rounds in the city limits, and I end up with bullet holes in my house/car/dog/etc., their azz is going to get SUED.

their azz is going to get SUED.
Isn’t it better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6?

Actually killer is more accurate than hit man for that last shootout but it was a killing which was like a hit.

“Tried by 12″

How many people do you know that have been killed over a tape deck in their car?

Besides, lawsuits for bullet induced damage to property go before judges. Who, unlike to local NRA club, take a dim view of people spraying neighborhoods with high-power rifle fire.

My NRA buddies are WAY TOO EAGER to start personally meting out the death penalty for real (or perceived) infractions.

My NRA buddies are WAY TOO EAGER to start personally meting out the death penalty for real (or perceived) infractions.

You see it here, in the paranoid fantasies of the gun nuts. (’I'll need at least a 30-round magazine for my AK, in case they attack in waves. I’ll keep my glock strapped to my leg for close-in fighting…I’ll send my kids to stay with their aunt marge while I’m on recon…’)

You see it here, in the paranoid fantasies of the gun nuts.

Totally. I’m not anti-gun at all but what I’m reading is borderline mental-illness.

‘what I’m reading is borderline mental-illness’

Yeah, we got 2 or 3 Obama “nut cases” (to use language you people seem to like) that bounce crap off each other. I don’t care about this because, as I’ve asked you tough gun law posters; why don’t you walk down the street and start taking guns? Oh, not going anywhere soon, eh?

Here’s where you’re borderline mentally ill; if you think gun owners are going to cave in to this guy:

‘In a video published by Al Jazeera English on Saturday, MIT professor and activist Noam Chomsky slammed President Barack Obama for using aerial drones to kill suspected terrorists. Chomsky said that a black activist had recounted a story in which a group of African American women visited the President following his inauguration in 2009. After the meeting, the disappointed women told the black activist, “this man has no moral center.”

“I think they’re right,” Chomsky said. “If you look at his policies, I think that is what they reveal. Just some nice rhetoric here and there. If you look at the actual policies, they’re pretty shocking. The drone assassination campaign is a perfectly good example. I mean, that’s just a global assassination campaign.”

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1ynmq)

This mad war criminal in the White House has had hundreds of children violently murdered. Yet he faces no charges, not even much criticism. But people like you will attack law abiding citizens for the crime of having a weapon we’ve always had. Weapons that surround and protect our 1% tool president, 24/7. Let’s see if you can hear this all the way down there Rio; Obama ain’t taking anybody’s gun.

‘ Here’s the strange thing in the present gun control context: no one – not pundits, politicians, or reporters – seems to see the slightest contradiction in an administration that calls for legal limits on advanced weaponry in the U.S. and yet (as rare press reports indicate) is working assiduously to remove barriers to the sale of advanced weaponry overseas .Generally the Obama administration has put effort into further easing the way for major arms sales abroad, while working to rewrite global export rules to make them ever more permeable.’

‘In other words, the Pentagon is the largest federally licensed weapons dealer on the planet and its goal – one that the NRA might envy – is to create a world in which the rights of those deemed our allies to bear our (most advanced) armaments “shall not be infringed.” The Pentagon, it seems, is intent on pursuing its own global version of the Second Amendment, not for citizens of the world but for governments, including grim, autocratic states like Saudi Arabia which are perfectly capable of using such weaponry to create Newtowns on an unimaginable scale.’

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2013/01/13/for-washington-there-is-no-arms-control-abroad/

They can go back to Mexico?

Why Colorado, when living on food stamps in this country is better than working in Mexico? I know people will say they cannot get food stamps if they are not citizens, well besides fraud there is another way to feed your family. If you have one or two anchor babies you can get food stamps and buy a lot of pinto beans and flour with that money and feed you entire family better than a lot of them can feed their families in Mexico. Other benefits are also available to them. BTW, last I knew Obama care or ACA, only required that people claim to be U.S. citizens on a form to get health care, there was no actual verification. Also, emergency care can never be denied. I am not so heartless that I want that changed but I do want people to be deported even if they have not committed a major crime.

I never see food stamps being used to by flour or beans or rice.

Steaks, milk and potatoe chips

I never see food stamps being used to by flour or beans or rice.
I see this all the time. We must be going to different stores.

Why Colorado, when living on food stamps in this country is better than working in Mexico?

Apparently many states are now requiring proof of citizenship or a green card before handing out the SNAP cards. And as we’ve seen in the news, there is fierce competition to get a Section 8 voucher these days.

If there is no work, many will go home. In fact, many already are. Not saying that its an exodus, and in any case only a minority of illegals pick crops. They are more likely to bus your table or cook your food at a restaurant.

No empire in history has had a nuclear arsenal capable of killing EVERYBODY, like we do. This could well prop up our oligarchy for centuries.

No empire in history has had a nuclear arsenal capable of killing EVERYBODY
Look at the bright side. If everyone is killed off there will be no further concern for AGW, overpopulation, assault weapons, or any of the other many ills committed by members of the human race. When the fallout settles, future homicide rates will be ZERO. Housing will finally be affordable.

‘No empire in history has had a nuclear arsenal capable of killing EVERYBODY’

The Soviet Union did. They went broke too. And what good were nukes in Vietnam, or Iraq, Afghanistan? Look, I’m glad the US isn’t up for ‘medieval standards’. But whether you think we should be or not doesn’t matter. We aren’t going to nuke Mali.

Empire doesn’t mean strength, it bankrupts you if it goes on long enough. It eventually bankrupted empires that were bringing home boatloads of gold.

Like I said, I’m not going to get into a ‘how we can turn this empire around’ discussion, because that cow has left the barn.

Seems like the same people are running Russia as were before, they just don’t call themselves communists.

Empire doesn’t mean strength, it bankrupts you if it goes on long enough.
The author Jerry Pournelle has different political views than Ben Jones, but Jerry has similar views on the American Empire and has written a lot on this since 2001.

And this part of the world would join with Mexico.

Don’t be ridin’ any buses, then. You never know if you’ll be called upon to fight a fellow passenger by some scum cartel capitano.

“And if California slides into the ocean
like the mystics and statistics say it will,
I predict this motel will be standin’
until I pay my bill” (W. Zevon)

It’s a balmy, breezy sunny 65 here in RI.
You’re welcome.

Go Rams URI

Well, it’s darn cold here too!

Lows in the 20s! Highs in the 40s! My garden is dying! My big cactii are keeling over!