Bits Bucket for December 19, 2013
Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here.
The Housing Bubble
Examining the home price boom and its effect on owners, lenders, regulators, realtors and the economy as a whole.
About Me
Name:Ben Jones
Location:Northern Arizona, United States
To donate by mail, or to otherwise contact this blogger, please send emails to: thehousingbubble@gmail.com
PayPal is a secure online payment method which accepts ALL major credit cards.
Links
-
November 2024 M T W T F S S « Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Photo Submission: hbbphotos@gmail.com
View the HBB Photo Gallery *updated 4/13/2008
Comment by rms
2013-12-19 00:02:42
“I suspect that if the minimum wage went up like that, rent would go up to match.”
+1 And the price of a Big Mac too.
neither. it would just kill more entry level jobs. the economy would grow weaker.
prediction..
if obamacare covers birth control, the price of birth control will sky rocket.
Good Morning HBBers
“if obamacare covers birth control, the price of birth control will sky rocket.”
Still cheaper for society than unwanted children or children born into dysfunctional families. Lesser of the evils, I guess. We’ll just get the religious zealots involved.
But I hear ya.
Come to think of it, with an ageing population, I think that’s the critical issue of cost control. “Diabesity” (Dr. Mark Hyman’s MD’s word) is a big problem. Look around you.
Still cheaper for society than unwanted children or children born into dysfunctional families.
ten dollars a month is too expensive to employ?
if birth control prices sky rocket, how will the poor that aren’t covered by obamacare (many) going to pay for it?
i predict that not only will the price sky rocket, but there will be more ‘unwanted’ children or abortions.
Lesser of the evils, I guess.
both of the evils i guess.
The problem isn’t the price of the pills themselves — it’s the time, cost, and hassle of the office visit to get the prescription.
The problem isn’t the price of the pills themselves
obamacare is about to add the cost of the pills to the other problems you mentioned that are also caused by government meddling.
Hot date this weekend with the Home Depot employee in the lighting fixture aisle?
Actually no, he’s usually running the forklift in Garden.
Did you mean it that way?
“running the forklift in Garden.”
LoL…
“Still cheaper for society than unwanted children”
That’s an understatement. For every mother on birth control, there’s some fractional percentage of tomorrow’s criminals that will never be born. Birth control should absolutely be free to anyone who wants it (and any type, including surgery for perm BC). Not having unwanted children who grow up to be thugs/criminals and under the permanent care of the US government is money well spent, IMHO.
this is both racis and anti-christian.
every woman born with a functional womb has the right to breed.
Moreover, all other members of society besides said woman have moral and financial obligations to help pay for the child’s upbringing.
that’s right. and free school lunches and bekfusses and obamaphones for all.
Yes, Whac.
And that includes all unnecessary men. Which incidentally is all men.
“And that includes all unnecessary men. Which incidentally is all men.”
All inclusive; um, which way to the incinerator?
all heterosexual sex is rape according to this beauty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin
“…according to this beauty:”
+1 LOL.
Dworkin is a moron…sex is like ivory soap 99 44/100% it’s by 2 willing consenting partners…the rest is rape and incest.
all heterosexual sex is rape according to this beauty:
i knew a guy who is now in his seventies that said he was ‘raped’ by a woman in her twenties when he was 11 years old. he said if he had her address, he’d still be sending her ‘thank you’ notes. he said he always wished he had been ‘violated’ like that more often back then.
Birth control should absolutely be free to anyone who wants it (and any type, including surgery for perm BC).
free birth control will mean its proper use won’t be respected. there could actually be more unwanted births or abortions with free birth control.
FWIW, when it became free in Mexico, birthrates plummeted.
“Birth control should absolutely be free to anyone who wants it (and any type, including surgery for perm BC).”
+1 Frolic?
I bet the Catholic Church was up in arms about free BC in Mexico. What, women’s uteruses going unused. Why, that’s a sin. Bad, bad sheep.
We’re child-free ourselves. Did a self evaluation and concluded I wasn’t the type. Hubby is 1 of 10. Lots of nieces and nephews.
I bet the Catholic Church was up in arms about free BC in Mexico.
They weren’t too happy about that.
The funny thing about pharmaceuticals, is that they are cheaper in countries with socialized medicine. Witness how people without insurance who live near the borders go to Canada and Mexico to buy their meds. Meanwhile, in “free market” America, where tens of millions have to pay out of pocket for their meds, we have the highest prices in the world.
As for the birth control being covered brouhaha, consider this: Most people will be on high deductible plans, meaning their insurance won’t cover their meds until they meet their deductible. That’s exactly how the HD plan I had at my previous job worked.
Colorado:
There is a reason that pharmaceuticals are cheaper in socialist countries. It’s because pharmaceutical companies make their profits by selling in the United States first. Then, AFTER they have recouped their R&D costs and made their profits, they can add a few cents to the pile by also selling in socialist countries at a rate that can be afforded in those places. The socialist countries benefit secondarily from the capitalist activity in the United States.
The socialist countries benefit secondarily from
the capitalist activitycorporate rent-seeking in the United States.FIFY. The topic has little to do with “capitalist activity”.
There is a reason that pharmaceuticals are cheaper in socialist countries. It’s because pharmaceutical companies make their profits by selling in the United States first.
That’s true about drugs that are still under patent. But even public domain generics (which most birth control is) are cheaper outside the USA.
even public domain generics are in the process of becoming patented, courtesy of the FDA. Google “colchicine fiasco” as an example.
Permanent should not only be available, but come with a bonus.
At whose expense? While I am extremely rational on birth control (pro choice) “should be free” and screen name “overtaxed” don’t mix too well.
It is a fact also mentioned on the documentary and in the book “Freakonomics,” that since Roe V. Wade in the early 70s the crime Rae in the USA dropped. They showed how it is because of fewer unwanted children born,
inchbyinch, i answered you some time ago. it wasn’t too long. i don’t know why it hasn’t shown up yet.
tj
I read your input. Thank you.
The poor get Medicaid.
I think ACA is the first step towards the march of universal healthcare. “Sick Around The World” (PBS Frontline online) put Taiwan’s universal healthcare system at #1. We’re 37th. Time to stop mentally mast*rb*ting as a country and move towards a solution. 78M Baby Boomers.
I had See’s chocolates at breakfast and on to the treadmill now. I am responsible to control risks that I can. Light bulb women look sloppy.
“Light bulb women look sloppy”
That is both sexist and sizeist.
I think ACA is the first step towards the march of universal healthcare.
i agree. and it will prove to be a disaster.
“Sick Around The World” (PBS Frontline online) put Taiwan’s universal healthcare system at #1.
thanks to their free market policies taiwan has a first world economy. they are growing more wealthy and can afford to make big mistakes now and again. the problem is that their single payer system will continue to rot from within. growing wealth always leads to socialism which then destroys wealth. taiwan will probably continue to enact more socialism that will eventually degrade their standard of living.
i agree. and it will prove to be a disaster ??
taiwan will probably continue to enact more socialism that will eventually degrade their standard of living ??
Really;
While young working families search desperately for affordable child care, older Americans worry about how they can retire with dignity. Many of our people are physically exhausted as they work the longest hours of any industrialized country and have far less paid vacation time than other major countries
Denmark is a small, homogenous nation of about 5.5 million people. The United States is a melting pot of more than 315 million people. No question about it, Denmark and the United States are very different countries. Nonetheless, are there lessons that we can learn from Denmark?
In Denmark, social policy in areas like health care, child care, education and protecting the unemployed are part of a “solidarity system” that makes sure that almost no one falls into economic despair. Danes pay very high taxes, but in return enjoy a quality of life that many Americans would find hard to believe. As the ambassador mentioned, while it is difficult to become very rich in Denmark no one is allowed to be poor. The minimum wage in Denmark is about twice that of the United States and people who are totally out of the labor market or unable to care for themselves have a basic income guarantee of about $100 per day.
Health care in Denmark is universal, free of charge and high quality. Everybody is covered as a right of citizenship. The Danish health care system is popular, with patient satisfaction much higher than in our country. In Denmark, every citizen can choose a doctor in their area. Prescription drugs are inexpensive and free for those under 18 years of age. Interestingly, despite their universal coverage, the Danish health care system is far more cost-effective than ours. They spend about 11 percent of their GDP on health care. We spend almost 18 percent.
When it comes to raising families, Danes understand that the first few years of a person’s life are the most important in terms of intellectual and emotional development. In order to give strong support to expecting parents, mothers get four weeks of paid leave before giving birth. They get another 14 weeks afterward. Expecting fathers get two paid weeks off, and both parents have the right to 32 more weeks of leave during the first nine years of a child’s life. The state covers three-quarters of the cost of child care, more for lower-income workers.
At a time when college education in the United States is increasingly unaffordable and the average college graduate leaves school more than $25,000 in debt, virtually all higher education in Denmark is free. That includes not just college but graduate schools as well, including medical school.
In a volatile global economy, the Danish government recognizes that it must invest heavily in training programs so workers can learn new skills to meet changing workforce demands. It also understands that when people lose their jobs they must have adequate income while they search for new jobs. If a worker loses his or her job in Denmark, unemployment insurance covers up to 90 percent of earnings for as long as two years. Here benefits can be cut off after as few as 26 weeks.
In Denmark, adequate leisure and family time are considered an important part of having a good life. Every worker in Denmark is entitled to five weeks of paid vacation plus 11 paid holidays. The United States is the only major country that does not guarantee its workers paid vacation time. The result is that fewer than half of lower-paid hourly wage workers in our country receive any paid vacation days.
Recently the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that the Danish people rank among the happiest in the world among some 40 countries that were studied. America did not crack the top 10.
Ya know…. if you’re going to continue to post LIEberal, statist price fixing junk, inform the readers that is what you’re doing.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/28/1212112/-What-Can-We-Learn-From-Denmark
RE: Denmark, someone once posted on HBB that “I’d rather live 60 years under freedom than 80 years under tyranny.”
And LOLZ that they spend 11% of GDP on health care versus 18% in the USA. America is a f*ing joke. But at least the 0.1%ers here have the “freedom” to keep getting richer faster, with a bought and paid for legislature put into office by an electorate too stupid to vote in their own economic interests.
@scdave..
i don’t argue with articles. that’s probably why you presented it without the link. it indicates your moral standards.
i’ll tell you this.. our present problems are caused by the many socialist policies enacted over recent decades and further. of course obama is bringing us socialism on steroids.
HA, thanks. i realized it was an article, but i would never have taken the time to look it up. thanks again.
‘move towards a solution. 78M Baby Boomers’
Well you know, we have a process for that. Get behind some single payer candidates, win enough seats in congress and get it passed.
Short of that, what does Obamacare (do they still call it that?) really do? Have young healthy people pay for the boomers ailments. That’s great! They are already paying for social security they’ll never receive. They pay 1000% or more for college than you did. They have probably about the same ratio of government debt to pay off, for stuff older people got to enjoy on credit. And in a few years, there will be 2 people working for every retiree. I’m sure they can handle paying for your health care too. Which is something you didn’t have to pay for when you were young, BTW.
Let’s consider another cost that keeps going up and up. Houses! OK, so what if it was proposed that people who own a house already, like yourself, are forced to pay for young peoples houses? Come on now, don’t get shy. This isn’t socialism, it’s progress. I want a house and you should pay for it, darn it! We’ll call it the American’s Should All Get A House Act. Or Housing Is A Right Act. No Renter Left behind. After all, if I can’t paint my walls you shouldn’t either. Think of the children!
Or maybe, just maybe, we could consider why the health care costs have skyrocketed for years. Why did we used to just go in with a check or cash and pay and walk out? And don’t say it’s cuz of technology; technology makes stuff cheaper. What does a band-aid in a hospital bed cost today versus 20 years ago, and why the big difference?
Insurance. Insurance is why things cost so much more. Stop mandating insurance and watch prices fall like a rock. Take the middleman out and let them get jobs doing real work. And I’d bet a doctor or nurse can still make a living treating sick people, just like they did for centuries.
Which is something you didn’t have to pay for when you were young, BTW ??
I have been paying my own health care insurance since I was 21 years old…thats 40 years and counting…I have also paid both employee & employer FICA for that same period of time and counting…
Get behind some single payer candidates, win enough seats in congress and get it passed ??
I am all-in…Just tell that same “candidate” to leave his morality convictions at home…
But scdave, you didn’t HAVE to pay for it back then, and it was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy cheaper (mainly because people/employers didn’t HAVE to buy it).
But scdave, you didn’t HAVE to pay for it back then ??
Well, I had something to lose so although not mandatory by law I would have been irresponsibly ignorant not to have insurance..A few years later I had a wife and three kids..You suggesting you choose to go without insurance then also..??
This is where people go for free medical care in my county…Free as long as you have nothing to lose…Friend of mine just got triple bypass here for free…He has a job but thats about it…He paid “zero”…Watched him eat a whole pizza by himself the other day during football…
https://www.google.com/search?q=Valley+Medical+center+santa+Clara+County+Pictures&sa=X&espv=210&es_sm=119&biw=1344&bih=632&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=1y2zUtHaHYPsoASsrIKYBw&ved=0CCoQsAQ
I like your line of thought, here, Ben.
Yes. I think ALL homeowners that own their houses outright, especially those whom benefitted by “trading up” over the past 25-50 years ought to be on the hook.
They should HAVE TO buy everyone under 35 a house.
And why not? They have too much money anyway. It isn’t right.
Let’s start with Washingtonians. As in D.C.
I wonder how many lovers of socialized medicine on the HBB would also be in love with THAT idea. Any takers? Joe? Rio? In Colorado? Polly? Goon? Scdave? Oxide?
‘They should HAVE TO buy everyone under 35 a house’
Why stop there? Every renter gets a house, they deserve a roof over their head. It’s a right. We could make it single payer. And we’ll call it a tax! The government has the right to tax; supreme court said so. To make it fair, it’ll be proportional to equity. Oxide put some money down, so we’ll tax her a little less than someone who owns a house outright. If you own an expensive house, tax even more. Dang, this redistribution of wealth is fun when you’re the one receiving!
And of course, house prices would skyrocket. Because if the government is buying me a house, I want a nice one, and I don’t care how much it costs. I’ll pay over asking! And it has to be proportionate to my needs. I’ve got to have a two car garage, because I have two cars and it snows a lot here. I also need the latest and greatest; most efficient furnace, you get the idea.
Now I can see why there’s no need to address the root problem; high house prices. Who cares if prices go up year after year? These deadbeat house owners are gonna pay up, no matter what all the unintended consequences are. Then and only then will we be civilized.
They should HAVE TO buy everyone under 35 a house ??
Why ?? Just like lacking insurance and many get free health care from the taxpayer they can have free housing also if you like…Sec #8..There’s your house…On someone else’s dime…
Ask me when I own my house outright.
Then and only then will we be civilized.
you gotta stop! my sides are killing me. i couldn’t get through it all at once. i had to stop at different paragraphs. my gawd, i don’t remember ever reading a funnier post.
OK, let me address that again. I thought that people who bought houses WERE taxed… with property taxes. If I sell my house and buy a smaller house, then any profit I make is taxed. If I die and try to leave the house to an heir, that is taxed.
I don’t know about rental revenue, is that taxed?
What about cash-out refi? Is that taxed above a certain amount?
And of course, house prices would skyrocket.
wait a minute! i just thought of something! why not 2 houses for everyone?? that way, we could have one to live in and one to flip to make money on forever! no one would have to ever work again! just keep flippin’ that second house! sound like a good plan?
I don’t know about rental revenue, is that taxed ??
Yes…
What about cash-out refi? Is that taxed above a certain amount?
No, BUT, there are tracking rules that determine if you can deduct the interest as I understand it…There is also mortgage over-basis that is taxed…
So, if you paid 250k for a house, refinance later for 450k, sold sometime later for 500k you would declare 250k of income even though you would only walk away with 50k…Lot of other factors at work here but you get the idea…
Ben, I think this is my favorite post of the year. I like the fact that it gets to the three fundamentals of survival: food/water, *shelter*, and clothing. Before healthcare ever gets debated as a “right”, these three necessities for life should be accounted for. We have all these government programs to supposedly assist the less fortunate in providing the basics, yet it is almost daily that we hear about poverty causing hunger in America’s youth, and homelessness in the downtrodden. The only thing you don’t hear a problem with is people going naked. Strangely enough, this is the only area that government doesn’t directly subsidize for the poor. Thrift shops seem to be filling their role. Please never let there be an affordable clothing act. Then I will know our country is truly lost.
The only thing you don’t hear a problem with is people going naked.
This is a fairly common occurrence, but usually follows some type of acute drug abuse, followed by running around berserk and naked.
Free drugs for all!
OK, let me address that again. I thought that people who bought houses WERE taxed… with property taxes.
As long as there is a single homeless person, a child left behind, a massively obese eater with room for even more food, a single public pension plan not fully funded, you haven’t been taxed nearly enough.
The cost of health care can be found in the Danish tax rates, including a 25% vat or sales tax. They also have an eight per cent health tax which is collected like we collect social security. I do not think most Americans want to pay the type of taxes that “free healthcare” requires:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Denmark
pay the type of taxes that “free healthcare” requires ??
Its not just free Health Care Adan…Their tax structure goes directly impacts quality of life issues…Read my post…
Americans would not even want to pay the 8% tax. Had the Danish government tried to impose the level of taxation you are talking about even for the services you listed all at once the people would have revolted. It is boiling the frog slowly theory. However, Americans will not make the trade off that the Danes have made. It would have to be imposed with force.
42,900 DKK is about $7600. Most everyone on this board would be in the 59% tax category and many of these income taxes begin on the first dollar or DKK. Add in a 25% VAT tax and a property tax and you are being taxed up the whazoo with a middle class income. Sorry I would rather pay for my own college and health insurance than be a tax serf for the rest of my life. In fact, far worse than a serf. They had to pay 10% to their lord and 10% to the Church and but were allowed to keep the rest of their income.
The income tax can be broken down like this:
Social contribution (gross tax) - 8%
Plus -
Over DKK 42,900 - Municipal tax - 23% - 28%
Health tax (Region tax) - 8%
State tax Below DKK 42,900 - 0%
Over DKK 42,900 to DKK 389,900 - 3.76%
Over DKK 389,900 - 15%
Now look at housing prices in Denmark. Notice they are the most indebted persons on the face of the Earth. Yes, that is quite a system they have going:
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Denmark/Price-History
What a LIEberal paradise.
Bubblenomics done right. More from the link:
The Danes are the world’s most indebted people
Danes, with personal debt equal to about 267.31% of income, are the most personally indebted people in the world, based on figures from Eurostat
How does Denmark deal with “end of life care”? My understanding is that they, like many other European Countries, don’t go through any extraordinary/significant measures on older patients with taxpayer money. Doctors have the final say.
This is dramatically different than in the US, which is a significant part of the reason for the gap between spending.
Of course LIEberal Riotard chose Post-Socialist Brazil to live instead of now socialist Europe. Yet warbles the same commie song for redistributing OPM.
‘diabesity’
taxing big gulps is nanny state socialism.
instead, it will be better when health care is 30 percent of gdp.
Because the companies that manufacture birth control won’t increase production in response to increased demand? So you think those manufacturers have monopoly pricing power? OK. Want to provide some proof of that?
You know…… your constant stream of demands for known and established truths is getting old very quickly.
If you’d back up at least some of what you spew, he might quit asking.
I didn’t know Polly was a he. Thank you for informing me.
Now lets address your problem….
What would you like us to “back up”?
Because the companies that manufacture birth control won’t increase production in response to increased demand?
no. because the product is no longer price sensitive to the market. they’ll be able to charge much more for it. maybe people that don’t need the pills will get them and start selling them on ebay.
So you think those manufacturers have monopoly pricing power?
that’s how you get $500 hammers and toilet seats in military contracts. prices are going to sky rocket.
OK. Want to provide some proof of that?
the proof is in what happens to every market that the government gets involved with. like housing.
as friedman said: “if the government got involved in the sahara desert, if 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand..”
What does Gov do best? Put floors under prices.
And the GovLoving EmptyPocket DebtDonkeys think it’s a good thing.
Figure that one out TJ.
Figure that one out TJ.
i have. stoopid law makers can’t think past their noses. either that or they intentionally want to harm the country.
It’s provided by the government in Mexico, and the price has not skyrocketed there.
i’ve lived in mexico. i’d never trust government numbers. i can tell you that many things are more expensive in mexico than the USA even though its people earn less. that’s the earmark of a weak economy.
time will tell who is right.
Diamonds are more expensive in the US than in South Africa….surely the economy of South Africa is not stronger.
And don’t get me started on how high speed internet is much more expensive in the US and way cheaper in every other country in the world…
Skroodle as usual, you think you’re comparing apples to apples when you’re not.
i’m not about to go over every false assumption you’re making.
i’ve lived in mexico. i’d never trust government numbers. i can tell you that many things are more expensive in mexico
Some things are, but in my experience living down there healthcare, especially generic meds, are not. And border town farmacias do brisk business selling to border crossing gringos.
The fact is we, in our “free market” system, pay more for meds than anyone else. A lot more.
And border town farmacias do brisk business selling to border crossing gringos.
in most cases the locals couldn’t afford to buy them if they weren’t cheaper. everyone including the drug companies know this.
The fact is we, in our “free market” system, pay more for meds than anyone else. A lot more.
we don’t have a free market when it come to medications. the FDA continually sides with big pharma. even to the point of breaking laws to do so. the FDA kills many more people that it would ever save.
We don’t have free market anything. The bailout was the endgame for that. Now the government gives money to banks, which use some of that money to buy government officials that will give more money to the banks.
We have a kind of backwards socialism now… bank owned government.
That is called Fascism, in the classical sense of the word.
Of course it is still price sensitive. The insurance companies providing the benefits under the ACA will negotiate for the best price they can get. Since they are going to have to pay for it.
My insurance company has a lot more power in the marketplace when trying to buy birth control than I do. The companies could do without me. They can’t do without the 10s of thousands of women that my insurance company is buying for.
As far as I know the only entity that CAN’T try to negotiate for better drug prices is Medicare (thanks GWB administration and the Congress that passed Part D). And not that many women on Medicare use birth control.
Of course it is still price sensitive.
Polly, at this point i’d just be mostly repeating what i said before. i predicted that birth control will sky rocket if it stays in obamacare.
time will tell which one of us is correct.
Ran out of false arguments when I reminded you that there is a profit seeking company that is actually paying for the birth control? Well, it isn’t a real concession, but it is about as close are you are going to get. So, I accept.
an out of false arguments when I reminded you that there is a profit seeking company that is actually paying for the birth control?
okay, if you insist. your profit seeking companies won’t be paid by consumers. they’ll be paid by the government that takes the money in the form of taxes from the consumers.
further, it will probably eventually be narrowed down to one BCP making company that is favored for some reason by the government. so it kills the market in two ways.
Polly,
another thing the BCP companies might decide to do is offer goodies if you choose to buy their pills. like maybe a bag of your favorite cookies, or something more expensive or gift certificates. anything to get you to buy theirs. because it’s all about to get much more expensive. and the taxpayers will be on the hook for it just like tarp and cash for clunkers etc. etc. hardly anyone will be able to afford BCP once the law makes payment for them mandatory. just give it a little time.
The company making the pills will be paid by the insurance company just like it is paid now. Do they pass out cookies with birth control pills now? Why do you think that the insurance companies are going to start letting the manufacturers of more expensive pills mess with things now? They already have schedules of drugs they will cover. If one manufacturer tries to charge the insurance companies more than the others, it will find its pill off the list of approved medications. The law requires them to cover birth control, not every single brand of birth control on the market.
By the way, back in the day, the one thing the companies did to try to entice you to “brand loyalty” for their pill was to make the case you carried them in a little interesting (like making it a nice color, or making it round). Now? they are all in cheap plastic sleeves as far as I can tell. Barely enough to keep the foil from being punctured by a pen you have in your purse. The only enticement is the ads on TV saying that one or the other will keep you from getting zits or treat PMS or make you have a good hair day. And that has been going on for years. Nothing to do with ACA.
The company making the pills will be paid by the insurance company just like it is paid now.
no, not just like it is paid now. now the insurance company will be backed by the taxpayer for BCP. it wasn’t like that before.
Do they pass out cookies with birth control pills now?
they aren’t backstopped by the taxpayer now.
Why do you think that the insurance companies are going to start letting the manufacturers of more expensive pills mess with things now?
because now the taxpayer will be picking up the tab with no input about price.
They already have schedules of drugs they will cover. If one manufacturer tries to charge the insurance companies more than the others, it will find its pill off the list of approved medications.
as they are dropped, the ones left will be able to charge more. the cronies will co-opt government like they always do. the ones with the kickbacks will get the others tossed. it’s called government capture and it’s because government has too much power. government now has the power so insurance companies will buy them off. the BCP prices will be headed higher. in the end, there will only be one company making BCP.
The law requires them to cover birth control, not every single brand of birth control on the market.
the heard will be thinned.
Barely enough to keep the foil from being punctured by a pen you have in your purse.
no worries. with the new law, if you want you keep your case, you can keep your case. period.
The only enticement is the ads on TV saying that one or the other will keep you from getting zits or treat PMS or make you have a good hair day. And that has been going on for years. Nothing to do with ACA.
those quaint little perks were nothing compared to what they will be offering now. if it stays in obamacare, higher prices are coming for BCP. guaranteed.
” Do they pass out cookies with birth control pills now?”
No. They compete on price now. But when govt pays for it, and it’s “free” to the consumer, price is no longer a factor. So to get you to buy Brand X, Brand X will give you a bag of cookies.
Smithers,
The government isn’t going to be paying for it now. The insurance company is. And they have a profit motive. They will fight hard for a better price. Will there be more people who want it because it is 100% covered by their insurance? You bet. Which is a really good thing because that means fewer unwanted/unplanned kids.
Are you really that ignorant about the way this law works? You didn’t hear all the liberals whining and complaining that the insurance companies weren’t going to have to compete with a public (medicare for whoever wants it) option?
Polly, is the cost of ANY drug or medical product subject to free market forces? From what I can tell, no. The amount of money that some entity pays* for a medical product is so embedded in the insurance payout process that nobody knows what anything actually costs.
—————
*I don’t even know if the words “cost” and “price” are appropriate here.
For what it’s worth, the birth control pill cost is an absolute disgrace. Birth control pills came out in the 1960s. These things are generic and cost pennies a pill at this point to manufacture. Ask yourself why a blood pressure pill that is 30 years old costs 4 bucks for a month supply and the cheapest birth control pill pack is about 30…
Steve
Let me guess…
1. They can and nobody can do anything.
2. Lobbyist entice our treasonous leaders to sell their core values to the highest bidder.
Am I going in the right direction?
Steve:
The last time I bought BCs, I think they were $7/month. That was about 10 years ago. Has the price tripled over the past 10 years? I wonder if that’s in line with the trajectory of all medical care.
The last time I bought BCs, I think they were $7/month.
i heard less than a year ago they were available for about $9/month.
If you’re paying cash (ie no insurance coverage), it’s about 30 a month (for the cheap “generics”). The 7/10 dollars you guys were paying were likely subsidized with your drug plan.
I have seen the insurance companies increasing the copays for birth control pills over the last 10 years or so.
But the patent thing is ridiculous. Birth control pills are: a little bit of estrogen and a little bit of progesterone. Those hormones are cheap to manufacture and the only reason these pills are still on patent is because the drug companies tweak a dose here and there and then say it’s a new pill.
“the cheapest birth control pill pack is about 30…”
At Walmart it’s $8/month.
A lot of drugs are protected by patents, so many of them are in the realm of monopoly pricing. Birth control is a little better than most (not much) because there are a variety of methods (pills, norplant, shots, IUDs, permanent surgical methods, barriers of various kinds, other?). You get a bit of competition between the methods even when the drug companies make a tiny change in the formulation to extend their patent protection on their particular product. Still way too expensive. My NYC gyn used to pass out the sample packs that the drug companies gave her. I’m guessing that she gave them to me because I looked less well off than most of her very wealthy Upper East Side patients. If I saw her once a year, I would get six months of pills for free as I walked out the door. Otherwise, it was $30 a month.
You’re offering support fot tj’s argument here. The government grants patents to pharmaceutical companies, which makes the cost of drugs much higher than they would otherwise be.
No, I’m not. He is saying that providing birth control for “free” (it is only free to the end users, not the insurance companies doing the purchasing from the manufacturers) will increase the prices enormously. I acknowledged that patent protection gives us our currently high prices, but that doesn’t mean that increased demand (more people who can afford to pay for it because it will be covered by their insurance) will combine with some sort of mythical restricted or steady state supply (only thing that TJ could possibly have been referring to when he said that the price would skyrocket) to explode the prices.
The manufacturers will make more, compete with each other on prices to the private (profit seeking, cost minimizing) insurance companies that will be covering the cost. Could there be a short time period before the manufacturers adjust to the new demand when they will try to up the price? Could be. Corporations are risk averse when it comes to expanding manufacturing because it is capital intensive and they probably want to know a bit more about how much new demand there will be before they expand. And I would put my money on the big insurance companies to resist any attempt to up the price. They have negotiating power that individuals don’t have. But it will all come back to some sort of market balance. That balance is distorted by the patent system and will continue to be distorted by it, but that has nothing to do with the ACA.
Oh, and there are a few more alternatives to the BC methods I listed above. Abstinence is one. Having lots of babies is another.
There are various types of birth control, some more effective than others: http://imgur.com/gallery/ZFvwW68
I was being facetious. The granting of patents could be considered to be government interference in the free market which increases the cost of medicine. It also has a number of other perverse effects. Dean Baker writes about this quite a bit on his blog.
OK. Sorry. I agree with you. The facetious didn’t get through. And Dean Baker is correct.
There is a reason for patents in a world where backward engineering someone else’s good ideas are a lot easier and cheaper than getting and developing the good idea yourself, but the complete redo back to day one of the running of the clock on protection given to drug companies for the the tiniest change in the formulation is absurd.
Obamacare offers free bc pills for one reason….it’s a way to get young single women to vote Democrat. You have to be very naive to not see this.
monopoly pricing power? OK. Want to provide some proof of that?
Read up on the colchicine fiasco, sponsored and enforced by the FDA:
“More on Colchicine Controversy
The recent FDA decision regarding colchicine is unspeakable fraud and mindless “leadership” on the part of the FDA (“Exclusive Colchicine Deal Unfair to Patients,” January 2010, p. 13).
It’s another example of how “the rules” or “the policy” generates tunnel vision and a complete abandonment of intelligence and common sense.
A 10-fold increase {actually much more than that} in cost to use the same drug we’ve been using for decades or longer {more than a few centuries, in fact}?
It’s more of the recent trend in government: to put a new label on an old product {and not just in the medical field} and call it improved…Steven A. Older, M.D.”
This isn’t true, TJ. Your attempt at a talking point is utter B.S.
Elasticity is one of the core concept of economics. Simply increasing one cost, such as labor inputs, does not have an easily predictable effect on other parts of the economy. Conservative and Libertarian economists hold this view more than any others I have read.
You simply can’t predict what will happen based on knowing one or two inputs for a complex labor arrangement. The marginal effect of a $1 or $2/hr increase in low end labor (that accounts for a small % of workers) is pretty unlikely to cause large changes in aggregate demand or overall labor costs, though. Labor inputs are a relatively small % of fully loaded unit costs of a Big Mac, for example.
Your attempt at a talking point is utter B.S.
your attempt at a counter is utter BS.
Elasticity is one of the core concept of economics.
what elasticity? panty hose?
Simply increasing one cost, such as labor inputs, does not have an easily predictable effect on other parts of the economy.
sure it does. you can price yourself out of a job by insisting on too high of a wage.
Conservative and Libertarian economists hold this view more than any others I have read.
what ‘view’ are you talking about?
You simply can’t predict what will happen based on knowing one or two inputs for a complex labor arrangement.
raising the minimum wage isn’t a ‘complex labor arrangement.
The marginal effect of a $1 or $2/hr increase in low end labor (that accounts for a small % of workers) is pretty unlikely to cause large changes in aggregate demand or overall labor costs, though.
it will cause less people to be hired. fewer will get on the job training. fewer will get on the first rung of the labor ladder. and you should talk about demand when you don’t know what it is.
Labor inputs are a relatively small % of fully loaded unit costs of a Big Mac, for example.
so you’re saying that it’s ok if only a few aren’t able to get jobs. margins are thin. don’t kid yourself that big macs won’t have to cost more.
Nah. If min wage went up, then there would be fewer people on public assistance. As of now, “the taxpayer” is subsidizing min-wage workers (and illegals, of course).
Is the taxpayer subsidizing the company, or is the company keeping the worker from having to live entirely on the public dole? It sounds like you’re getting your fundamentals a bit backwards… Someone else is completely free to come in and hire these workers to do a job at a higher rate… Why aren’t they? Sound like that is the problem to focus on.
As long as there are too many customers in line for one person to check out in a day, then Wal*Mart will hire another cashier. If they can hire them for $7/hr, then they will. If they have to pay $8/hr, then they still will. Currently, the taxpayer is subsidizing Wal*Mart because their full-time employees still make less than the welfare max. The min wage should be some reasonable number, calcuated through a formula that makes sense. It should not always be a knee-jerk “no” whenever anyone suggests that the min wage should be increased.
As long as there are too many customers in line for one person to check out in a day, then Wal*Mart will hire another cashier.
yep, and the cost will be justified by the business.
If they can hire them for $7/hr, then they will. If they have to pay $8/hr, then they still will.
they could already pay them less if they wanted to. there many many applicants for every job opening. if they could get more elsewhere, they would take it.
Currently, the taxpayer is subsidizing Wal*Mart because their full-time employees still make less than the welfare max.
if they can get more on welfare, why aren’t they on it?
The min wage should be some reasonable number, calcuated through a formula that makes sense.
one of its legs are both the same.
It should not always be a knee-jerk “no” whenever anyone suggests that the min wage should be increased.
there should be NO minimum wage whatsoever.
tj:
Do you keep up with the news much? Wal*Mart has an “employee training”, where they teach their full-time employees how to get welfare. If it weren’t for the welfare, the workers would be homeless.
If it weren’t for
the welfarehaving a job, the workers would be homeless.FIFY
Wal*Mart has an “employee training”, where they teach their full-time employees how to get welfare. If it weren’t for the welfare, the workers would be homeless.
more pablum. if it weren’t for policies like welfare we’d have a healthy economy where the workers wouldn’t need welfare.
I don’t think that people should have full-time jobs, yet still qualify for welfare. Either the min wage needs to go up, or the welfare qualification limit needs to go down. Currently Wal*Mart is being subsidized by welfare.
Either the min wage needs to go up, or the welfare qualification limit needs to go down.
neither. either one is a drag on the economy.
You just heard 3 different takes on walmart *NOT* being subsidized by welfare, you put your fingers in your ears, went “NEENER NEENER I CAN’T HEAR YOU”, and said “Currently Wal*Mart is being subsidized by welfare” .
you aren’t winning any access to the “who should be taken seriously” list. If you disagree, you have to back up what you think with reasoning, logic, and facts. Otherwise just sit at the kiddie table and drink your juice.
I think we need to limit immigration so wages go up naturally responding to supply and demand. Government creates the problem with open borders and people think the answer is rely on government so fix the problem with a minimum wage? No, a wage higher enough to live on will destroy many of these jobs. Companies will automate. Another thing that will happen is better employees even some retired employees will come back into the labor pool to get the higher paying jobs. It will be interesting to see how many of the employees for SeaTac will be employed within a year. I suspect many will be canned very quickly since if an employer is going to pay fifteen dollars, they are going to hire a fifteen dollar employee. The employers can probably make due with two employees for every three employees they had but were $7 plus quality employees.
Auto correct again. so fix= to fix
Nah. If min wage went up, then there would be fewer people on public assistance.
there would be more.
As of now, “the taxpayer” is subsidizing min-wage workers (and illegals, of course).
and you want to subsidize it more by raises the minimum wage.
Climate change expert sentenced to 32 months for fraud John Beale is set to be sentenced by a federal judge on Wednesday, Dec. 18.
The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change was sentenced to 32 months in federal prison Wednesday for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job.
He perpetrated his fraud largely by failing to show up at the EPA for months at a time, including one 18-month stretch starting in June 2011 when he did “absolutely no work”
Question: Ever wonder how many of these Government guys forget to show up for work and nobody notices??? Yet they screw the retired veterans out of a 1% COLA in the current new budget. Just incredible.
one of our new federal bigwigs just banned teleworking effective in january.
apparently, there are some employees located near his new office that he has never seen physically present in the office in the last two months.
I worked for a company that stopped direct deposits for one pay period and made everyone show ID to pick up their paycheck.
A few went unclaimed.
And if he’s old enough for a pension, he keeps it.
” Ever wonder how many of these Government guys forget to show up for work and nobody notices??? ”
If 1/2 the government workers in all fields suddenly stopped showing up I doubt anyone would really notice. That goes for the “important stuff” too, like police/fire/etc. If they had 1/2 the people, they prioritize their manpower more to achieve the best possible result with limited resources. Now they simply give a mediocre result and complain for more resources.
Nobody would notice until the day their house was burning down or getting burglarized.
If 1/2 the government workers in all fields suddenly stopped showing up I doubt anyone would really notice.
If they were laid off permanently, the US economy would notice the adverse results very rapidly.
Question: Ever wonder how many of these Government guys forget to show up for work and nobody notices??? Yet they screw the retired veterans out of a 1% COLA in the current new budget. Just incredible.
I had the unenviable experience of working at a government hospital on an Indian rez, centuries ago. At one, some of the civil service lab techs were always MIA at least 15 minutes before the theoretical end of their shift. Some of the docs at the hospital learned how to run the lab equipment (forbidden by regulation, but the custom of lab techs leaving was also forbidden) so they could run critically needed blood tests at any time. The entire region of the USA where this happened, was known to have and to continue to tolerate this kind of behavior.
That being said, I don’t see a justification for COLA this year.
“Median New Home Sales Price Drops 4.5 Percent”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2013/12/04/new-home-sales-price-drops-4-5-percent
Get what you can for your house today because it’s going to be much less tomorrow for years to come.
Dowwwwwwwwwwwwn We Go!
“The Main Problem Is The Price”
http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/?p=8091
ALWAYS.
“The price” is massively inflated 250%+ over long term trend irrespective of location.
“The price” represents crushing losses from which you’ll never recover in your lifetime.
Considering we’re profitable building new structures anywhere in the country at $55/sq foot(lot, labor, materials and profit), why pay more than $35-$40/sq ft for a 20+ year old house?
“Crumbling short term housing demand across what are normally high volume selling months combined with long term demand at 14 year lows tells us that housing prices have a very long way to fall.”
No question. The only thing holding housing prices at these grossly inflated levels is fraud.
“When is housing massively overpriced? It’s quite simple. When the price of the house is in excess of the cost to build (lot, materials, labor and profit), less depreciation for a used house.”
Exactly. No need to confuse it. Our cost to build a SFR is right around $55/sq ft, with profit.
“The deflationary spiral rages on…… whatever you do, stay out of debt and hold onto your cash.”
You better believe it mister.
“Buying a house is an adventure in depreciation discovery and slavery.”
It’s a very painful adventure. Just asked the millions of joe 6 paks who throw good money after bad on a rapidly depreciating house, month after month after month.
i have so much money left over after ‘throwing money away on rent’ every month that i don’t know where to throw it.
You could buy a modern tv.
Throw some my way. Or donate your excess to our benefactor Ben Jones, who wants a bigger house, garage and state of the art furnace - he said so today!
“Remember what I told you? Debt is bondage”~Suze Orman, November 09, 2013
“…..consider buying stocks…. inflation will gnaw at the purchasing power of your money.”
Suze Orman - O magazine Jan 2014 p 144
Julia, did you have your junk removed to be in solidarity with Chelsea Manning?
There is no “inflation”. Learn the definition before you use it.
“Home Ownership is a money pit.”
~Bill In LA
You better believe it. Especially considering current resale housing prices are 3x higher than construction costs(lot, materials, labor, profit).
Colleague of mine today advised me to realize a 400% gain on former company stock. Considering. Surprising? Yes and to me too, for myself considering it.
Last time some colleague gave me advice about doing something of little risk, he told me to buy municipal bonds in 2001. It was great advice, as it reduced the risk in my portfolio, and I have been buying huge amounts monthly up to July of this year. Still buy $300 per month worth while before it was over $1000 per month.
Yes capital gain tax will be insane, but I would be well under the income level that would add an Obamao surcharge of 3.8% on my long term gain.
Proceeds will go to T-bills. You know, a 400% gain minus taxes suddenly earning 0.137% per year a few years is not harsh.
My 401k since January 1 2009 gained an annual 17.8%
Stock bubble overdue for a repeat of 2009.
2014 January I will sell some (little or most or all) of the former company stock. Good problem to have. The amount in today’s dollars is worth a new Audi R8 plus a Mustang 5.0 liter Laguna Seca GT both brand new.
stocks are undervalued at these levels.
You should take out a second mortgage and use the borrowed money to buy up as many of these undervalued stocks as possible while you still can.
Remember, leverage is your friend and equity in one’s house is money that is just sitting there going to waste.
People are smart. Stop being a dummy and join the ranks of smart people.
never let your equity go to waste. if the house falls in value you can have it back.
Since the stock market always goes up, no matter what, it is always undervalued, no matter what the current level.
Are taxpayer dollars being used to prop up a rigged stock market?
Does quantitative easing qualify as “taxpayer dollars” in your view?
well since the FED is basically the treasury market I have to wonder whats going on.
The FED buys the treasuries from the 21 primary dealers, not directly from the govt to make things look legit.
So where does the primary dealers get the treasuries to sell to the FED? on the open market I take it.
So with the govt selling treasuries, issueing debt, they get cash in return. the primary dealers are the middle men.
They must have the cash to buy the treasuries first and then turn around and flip them to FED. The FED prints the money to buy the treasuries from primary dealers. we have talked about some of that printed money being in excess reserve accounts.
It seems the real money being made by the primary dealers is in flipping those treasuries. its like a gift from the taxpayer. also the govt has more money to spend to keep economy growing.
I still feel like there is this feeling that the QE money goes directly into stocks. I just dont think that is the case. some of the profits from flipping the treasuries certainly does. The primary dealers have to come up with the money to buy those treasuries initially. where they are getting that money is still in question to me.
It seems the money in QE is really profits from flipping treasuries and money to the govt to keep spending and paying bills. The govts ability to spend more helps support an artificially high GDP rate.
This whole stock rally still reeks to a lot of people. They feel it is rigged by insiders.
“Housing is a depreciating asset and a loss, always. Your losses are magnified tremendously if you finance it.”
BINGO
If you take on mortgage debt at current massively inflated housing prices, you’ll enslave yourself for the rest of your life.
“Debt is bondage.”~Suze Orman, May 11, 2013
In other words, don’t buy housing at these massively inflated prices. Don’t Be A Debt Donkey®
“Crumbling short term housing demand across what are normally high volume selling months combined with long term demand at 14 year lows tells us that housing prices have a very long way to fall.”
No question. The only thing holding housing prices at these grossly inflated levels is fraud.
so is it a buyers market or sellers market? are housing prices going to crash again?
The correction already began.
If the Federal Reserve is going to start tapering its asset purchases, then mortgage rates are going to increase at an accelerating pace. Combine that with the timely exit of the institutional investors from the housing market, and I think there must be another crash. Hopefully a good one this time.
current banner ad on hbb pimping for big oil:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Shell/shellletsgo?utm_source=gdn&utm_medium=300×250&utm_content=20_topic_300×250_us&utm_campaign=CX_Global_general_letsgo_yt&x=source~gdn_us_topic_300×250_topic_pr&gclid=CIuKwZOxvLsCFWRk7AodYi8AUw
whats the problem? the adds help pay the bills.
i clicked it = money for ben jones.
the ad is corporate greenwashing, as if big oil gives a sh1t about anything but making the 0.1 percenters richer.
I really think they have to give the perception they are green to stay in business. If you aren’t green the media will make you out to be an evil polluter.
Did you see what happened to one of the duck dynasty guys?
OMG!
Arizona Fellow, you just proved the goon to be correct. You conflated homosexuality with “Big Green”.
I’m McLovin’ that gold price dropping like a a glass-jawed Joe. Come on silver, hit $10 you sonnabeach.
jeez I remember silver was 50 bucks not that long ago. I guess people started taking some profits?
Come on silver, hit $10
Well played. Mademelook!
The morning after a drinking binge is never fun!
In fact, it’s better to just keep drinking than to ever have to experience the morning after in a sober state.
It’s better to take an Ibuprofen, drink a glass of water, drink some juice, eat an egg and a banana, take a shower, and then take a nap.
But what if you’re already late for work?
December 18, 2013 7:02 pm
Reality dawns for artificial world created by Fed activism
By FT Reporters in New York
General Views Of Trading At The NYSE
In the five years since the US Federal Reserve instituted emergency borrowing rates and began buying huge amounts of bonds, Wall Street has boomed, but the broader economy has recovered far more slowly.
The question now is whether the rally in equities to record highs and a solid recovery in home prices thanks to the Fed’s various renditions of quantitative easing will provide the foundations for a stronger economy in 2014.
“QE got rid of the headache, but we are hooked on the painkiller now,” says Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank. “It’s time the Fed moved away from having created an artificial world and allowed the economy to stand on its own.”
Half a decade of activist central banking has made an artificial world seem normal, however. The process of getting back to more traditional definitions of “normal” interest rates and economic activity will pose new challenges for investors, businesses, consumers and policy makers alike.
Low interest rates have helped companies and some homeowners refinance their debts at cheaper borrowing levels, a boon for the long-term health of the economy. Cheap finance has also fuelled an impressive recovery in car sales, housing and, in conjunction with a soaring stock market, helped private equity firms turn around some companies and exit their investments through initial public offerings.
But low interest rates also penalise the ranks of savers, at a time when the baby boomer generation is retiring and relies heavily on fixed incomes. Before the financial crisis, a retiree could lock in a 5 per cent savings rate by owning a five-year certificate of deposit from a bank. That rate now hovers around 1.3 per cent with little sign of it rising back to a level that will boost income.
The ready availability of cheap credit also delays the natural cycle of corporate bankruptcies, which results in a more efficient use of resources across the economy.
“QE has pushed up asset prices and enhanced income inequality, that’s a structural weakness for the economy,” says Chris Watling, chief market strategist at Longview Economics. “QE has also held back the long-term health of the economy as we have not seen the normal pattern of business deaths that is part of the creative destruction process.”
…
If you don’t have any assets this recovery has done nothing but make you poorer.
Cash and PM are the only assets. Everything else is deflating or in bubble mode ready to collapse.
What do gold bugs have against well-fed tapirs?
Any remaining question about whether quantitative helped to inflate the PMs bubble should be cleared up by now.
Dec. 19, 2013, 4:53 a.m. EST
Gold falls to June lows as Fed taper sinks in
By Barbara Kollmeyer and Shawn Langlois, MarketWatch
MADRID (MarketWatch) — The announcement of the Federal Reserve’s January tapering plans sent gold prices on a volatile ride that saw the front-month contract push into positive territory before giving it all back, plunging on Thursday to levels not seen since June.
Continuing selling from Asia, gold for February delivery (GCG4 -2.89%) tumbled $32.60, or 2.6%, at $1,202.10 an ounce in the early hours of Europe trading. The contract hit a low of $1,198 an ounce, trading under that key $1,200 level for the first time since June. March silver (SIH4 -4.46%) was hit even harder, down 78 cents, or 3.9%, to $19.28 an ounce.
A day earlier, gold prices settled at $1,235 an ounce on the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange, up $4.90, or 0.4%, before the Fed news.
“Gold is a hedge against mismanagement of currency, and if the Federal Reserve is perceived to be doing a good job, then demand for gold will diminish,” said Atyant Capital Global Opportunities Fund lead portfolio manager Vedant Mimani.
…
“quantitative easing”
Yes and this economy is doing so well:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jobless-claims-at-highest-level-since-march-2013-12-19?link=MW_story_latest_news
In the end manipulation always loses it is just a question of when. The perfect time for me would be after all the call options I have written expire in January. Then, we can have the parabolic move up in gold.
China thanks Obama for the early Christmas present:
http://www.mining.com/chinas-government-likely-behind-countrys-gold-hoard-report-65070/
BTW, the Fed has the whack a mole problem as it tries to hold down gold prices, people are turning to oil to protect themselves from inflation. Does Obama really want to increase gasoline prices?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=CLF14.NYM
Brent crude which has taken over for WTI as the world marker is now above $110 a barrel.
Thats serious news…I have heard none of that tis morning…
“The claims report is a good barometer of how many layoffs are occurring in the economy but it reveals little about hiring patterns. Other labor-market indicators, particularly the critical monthly employment report, show that hiring has accelerated over the past few months”
Due to Holiday hiring ??
By the way Hi-Z, I ask the guy about the janitorial job @ $60k…It is a union and the starting pay is right at $50,000. but you move quickly to $60,000….I guess there is short probation period to make sure they are satisfied with you on the job…
What does it portend when the 30-year Treasury yield dips below the 10-year Treasury yield? I’ve been watching the yield curve for over 25 years and this is the first time I recall ever seeing this condition.
Dec. 19, 2013, 8:47 a.m. EST
Treasurys extend slide after jobless claims rise
Stories You Might Like
Gold falls to June lows as Fed taper sinks in
Rebalancing 101: How to keep your portfolio healthy
How strong is gold’s “Wall of Worry?”
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Treasury prices moved lower Thursday, despite a climb higher in jobless claims. The number of people applying for unemployment benefits rose by 10,000 to 379,000, the highest level since March. After the data, the benchmark 10-year Treasury note (10_YEAR +1.63%) yield, which rises as prices fall, was up 4 basis points at 2.932%. The 30-year bond (30_YEAR -0.26%) yield fell 1.5 basis points to 2.899%, and the 5-year note (5_YEAR +8.80%) yield rose 6.5 basis points to 1.642%.
…
Inversion.
Look out below.
Normally an inversion encompasses the full durational spectrum from 3mos out to 30yrs.
This time is different, as last I checked, the 3mo T-bill yield was pinned to the mat.
And the mat is the very location the 30 year appears to be trending.
I’ll heed the indicator anyways.
However, your point is taken. The expectations hypothesis, which gives a first approximation to the future direction of interest rates, suggests that T-bond yields are expected to be higher over the next ten years than for the subsequent twenty years. When you factor in the risk premium that is normally priced into relatively longer-term bonds, the expected drop in yields gets even bigger.
would you loan someone money at 3% when inflation is at 10%? the treasury market is the the most manipulated game in town.
It is a house of cards.
look in the mirror today and admit you are broker than 5 years ago.
would you loan someone money at 3% when inflation is at 10% ??
Its even worse than that…Would you save money @ .005% when inflation is @ 10%….
I am firmly in the camp that what was done starting in September of 2008 was necessary…It was the least worse of some very bad even catastrophic choices…
With that said, the unintended consequences of all this policy may take many years to play out…Although there are pockets of strength, I see stagflation front and center the consequences of which are still unknown…
The Two America’s drum has been beating for some time and each day we see data that supports that thesis…Its going to play out over the next year but I will go on record that Tax Overhaul will be a front & center issue in the 2016 Presidential Campaign and, it won’t be friendly to the 1%rs….
It is a house of cards.
I agree. The easiest explanation on why 30 year bonds carry a lower interest rate that the ten years is the Fed has been buying more of the longer maturity. Fundamentals have very little to do with any of the markets. The markets are distorted by government intervention. Having no true price signals was a major reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union. We are playing with fire and we are going to get burned.
Today 4-year TIPS sold at a negative interest rate:
Description: 4-Year 4-Month TIPS
Term: 4-Year 4-Month
Series: X-2018
Interest Rate: 0-1/8%
High Yield: -0.375%
Price: $103.227104
Allotted at High: 35.43%
Accrued Interest*: $0.26717
Total Tendered: $40,602,702,200
Total Accepted: $16,000,012,200
Issue Date: 12/31/2013
Dated Date: 10/15/2013
Original Issue Date: 04/30/2013
Maturity Date: 04/15/2018
CUSIP: 912828UX6
—–
I can’t get my head around this. There was a time when I regularly bought 2 to 5 year Treasury paper, but no more.
5 years ago for me. I will keep my cash in TBills because ten year rates could go way up very fast. I won’t bite until 5%. And even then, a slow trickle into the ten years.
The post-QE3 hangover period is shaping up to be a bummer.
Dec. 19, 2013, 9:00 a.m. EST
Stock futures extend losses on data; Facebook drops
By Anora Mahmudova and Barbara Kollmeyer, MarketWatch
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — U.S. stock futures added to losses on Thursday after weekly jobless claims rose to the highest level since late March, and gold prices fell sharply a day after the Federal Reserve opted to begin tapering its bond purchases.
Shares of Facebook Inc. fell in premarket on news of a share sale. Oracle Corp. rose after results late Wednesday, while a handful of other companies reported results.
Futures for the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJH4 -0.42%) eased 47 points to 16,062, while those for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index (SPH4 -0.33%) fell 6 points to 1,799. Futures for the Nasdaq-100 index (NDH4 -0.43%) were down 13 points to 3,495.50.
…
The markets are signalling that the dollar has a long, healthy life ahead of it as a reserve currency.
Dec. 19, 2013, 9:26 a.m. EST
Dollar climbs further on Fed-taper updraft
By Saumya Vaishampayan and Michael Kitchen, MarketWatch
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The dollar rose broadly on Thursday, propelled by the Federal Reserve’s long-awaited decision to slow its monetary stimulus.
The Fed said Wednesday it would cut the size of its monthly asset purchases to $75 billion a month, beginning in January. The central bank tempered its announcement by emphasizing that interest rates would remain low “well past” the time that the unemployment rate falls below its 6.5% threshold, further emphasizing the idea that tapering isn’t tightening.
The euro eased to $1.3666 from $1.3693 late Wednesday, and the British pound slipped to $1.6343 from $1.6398.
While the unwinding of Fed stimulus is generally seen as positive for the dollar, RBC Capital Markets senior currency strategist Sue Trinh said the overall forward guidance offered by the central bank actually pointed to a longer stretch of quantitative easing than many in the market expected.
“Now we know that tapering will begin in January, with likely cuts of $10 billion/meeting, which would bring the program to an end in mid-December [2014]. So not only will QE end a bit later than was previously expected, but the Fed will also buy more than it would have” if it had waited until January but announced a $15 billion-a-meeting taper, Trinh said Thursday.
The ICE dollar index, which compares the U.S. dollar with six other currencies, rose to 80.614 from 80.477 late Wednesday. Likewise, the WSJ Dollar Index increased to 73.94 from 73.79.
…
Hey whac:
I think it’s a good decision for the Federal Reserve to tapir without tightening. This will allow interest rates on MORTGAGES to increase, without causing interest rates on commercial debt to increase.
The markets are signalling that the dollar has a long, healthy life ahead of it as a reserve currency.
You base that on one days trading? Wow.
Dan:
It’s the day following an important announcement by the Federal Reserve, which has been discussed profusely in the media, and has been expected to affect the long-term value of the US dollar.
And you don’t think the Fed can manipulate the value of the dollar for one day? Really are you that naïve?
weird
Wow crazy stuff. I expect to see zero buyers of 30 years.
hope and change from the washington post
‘republicans are rightly outraged this morning because new white house counselor john podesta compared the gop to a ‘cult worthy of jonestown’ in an interview earlier this fall that politico published today. podesta has since apologized.
beyond this flap, there is some important news in the piece about podesta: he agreed to the job on the condition that he be allowed to oversee an aggressive climate change agenda via executive action.’
Too late now if you haven’t dumped your FB stock shares.
Dec. 19, 2013, 7:47 a.m. EST
Facebook falls 4% premarket after share-sale news
LONDON (MarketWatch) — Shares of Facebook Inc. FB -2.52% slid 4% in premarket trade on Thursday after it said it plans a public offering of 70 million Class A shares, with 27 million coming from Facebook. The remaining 43 million will come from major shareholders, with the majority — 41.35 million shares worth about $2.3 billion — offered by company co-founder Mark Zuckerberg to meet tax obligations.
…
talk about some great fools buying that garbage and enriching a few.
more hope and change from the washington post
‘duck dynasty’s phil robertson has been benched from his family’s reality show following homophobic comments he made in a gq interview, a&e confirmed late wednesday.
the patriarch of the network’s hit show and self-proclaimed ‘bible-thumper’ called ‘homosexual behavior’ a sin, equating it with other sins like bestiality and promiscuity.
a&e said in a statement ‘his personal views in no way reflect those of a&e networks, who have always been supporters and champions of the lgbt community.’
Lame duck dynasty?
Obama has a reality show?
I had occasion to visit the South last summer, which is where I first saw all the Duck Dynasty merchandise. I, like many others, thought it was parody band for ZZ Top had to ask someone what it was. A TV show about quacking duck lures? I figured it was some regional show and the merchandise was only offered in stores in the South.
Then I saw the same DD merchandize at the CVS on DuPont Circle. DuPont Circle???
wtf peepul. No wonder they banished the homophobe.
This really pisses me off…..I tell people the only time i go to church is when i get paid for it…like videotaping a wedding….
And yet all he said was homosexuality is illogical….not that its evil, your going to hellll and be damned for eternity….just illogical.
Even that made me think…my view is when you get that tingly feeling and get really excited over someone, there are a few percent that happens to with the same sex. What causes it? who knows?
Ive watch a bunch duck shows and this what religious people should be doing. living their lives quietly, not going door to door demanding you believe in heysoos..or anyone else.
http://www.caintv.com/ae-suspends-duck-dynastys-phil
How is starring in a reality t.v. show living your life quietly?
Hope and Change from Fox News dot com
“Sarah Palin was one of many of the show’s fans to take to social media after news hit that Phil Robertson had been indefinitely suspended by A&E following his controversial statements about homosexuality in an interview with GQ Magazine.
Palin went on Facebook to voice her reaction, charging that the suspension is an attack on freedom of speech.
“Free speech is an endangered species,” she wrote, alongside a photo of herself with the cast of the show. “Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.”
The First Amendment protects people from the prosecution by the government, not the actions of A&E Network.
Or did the government throw Phil Robertson in jail and we missed it?
A married, heterosexual gym teacher at a tony Upper West Side private school was fired because his lesbian supervisor disapproved of his “traditional family status,” the canned teacher claims in a new Manhattan lawsuit.
http://nypost.com/2013/12/18/lesbian-boss-fired-teacher-over-traditional-family-suit/
See above wikipedia profile of Andrea Dworkin.
Andrea Dworkin.
Stoltenberg was life partner to Andrea Dworkin for thirty-one years (eventually marrying), although he considers himself gay.
So did he consider her to be a man?
I agree Oxide. As a libertarian I have no sympathy for a private business firing someone whose opinions they dislike. It is not a violation of constitutional rights unless his boss is the government.
But A&E isn’t free to decide who to employ on their TV shows? Palin is traitin’ to the 1%.
lets hope americans will stop watching A&E and it goes broke…..
I was master control and video tape op for A&E and Discovery channel when it was at Group W in Stamford ct…
I disagree with the guy’s views, at least as these articles report(I have never seen that show to have context on how he lives). It seems ridiculous for A&E to ban him from his own show for stating an opinion that is most likely in line with how he lives. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that a show about gun-toting southerners was never a bastion of enlightened views in the first place. Mocking someone’s idiotic views is much more effective than silencing the person, which won’t work anyway.
Joe on this point we do agree. While it is technically true that the first amendment does not apply to this matter, it is also true that the spirit of the first amendment is exactly the last sentence of Joe’s post. I have usually found that people that need to silence their critics do not have the most cogent argument.
Mocking someone’s idiotic views is much more effective than silencing the person, which won’t work anyway.
———————–
If you include taking them off a show viewable by approximately everyone in the world with the world ’silencing’, then ’silencing’ in this case is much more effective than mocking.
Mocking doesn’t work anyways - they are laughing all the way to the bank. Oxide just said his wares are available in Dupont Circle in DC. Is that a location that duck hunters regularly purchase hunting supplies?
Fame = money in today’s society. Even Miley Cyrus has figured that out. He is more famous today then he was before the firing. He will sell more merchandise now than before and make more money. Yea, they really punished him.
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic.
For those who don’t know, Dupont Circle is heavily urban and, for decades, has been heavily gay. That’s why I so stunned to see DD stuff there.
Fame = money
=========
No it is not. Fame has to be managed and retained just like anything else. This bump will be temporary unless he makes nice with his boss or is powerful enough to go on his own. There are tons of shows that are tossed on the dustbin of history and there’s always another to replace it.
Do you have and still listen to the CDs of the past American Idol winners? Do you kids still sleep in their Power Rangers jammies?
You are dreaming if you are thinking he is just going away quietly. He will be speaking to many congregations and making people even more resistant to thinking of the gay lifestyle as consistent with Christian values. Rejecting his message but not doing any thing to him and in fact preventing his firing would have shown gays to be acting more Christian than the Christian. His rejection of the lifestyle but not seeking any harm to any individual, “hating the sin but not the sinner” shows him to be the far better human being.
Someone from Baltimore that agrees with you:
http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils/
One thing that you have to consider, Joe, is that there was a possibility that the show’s sponsors might start to pull their advertising. The network’s idea to cut Phil Robertson immediately was a way to to prevent that sort of thing from even getting started.
On the other hand, leaving him on the show would probably have been good for ratings.
Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.”
I think that there is nothing more intolerant than getting someone fired because you do not agree with their personal opinion. Should gays be fired if they say they do not like fundamentalist Christians or they object to something they believe in?
As I wrote above, the network was probably concerned about losing advertisers. It’s just business.
more hope and change from the washington post
‘duck dynasty’s phil robertson has been benched from his family’s reality s
Etc., etc. A greater problem is indicated by the failure of WaPo to put the news of the 32-month prison sentence given yesterday to the highest-paid EPA employee on the front of its website.
More smoke and mirrors.
How are your bitcoin (Bitcoin?) investments faring?
December 19, 2013, 2:53 am
Chinese Bitcoin Investors Fret as Value of Virtual Currency Plunges
By AUSTIN RAMZY
New curbs on the use of Bitcoins have contributed to a sell-off.
Jim Urquhart/Reuters
The virtual currency Bitcoin has taken a sharp tumble in value since Chinese regulators moved to restrict its usage. That has created no small amount of grumbling among Chinese Bitcoin buyers, who have been some of the most enthusiastic investors in the digital money.
“The drop in Bitcoin’s value in the last few days has been terrible, I’ve felt really uncertain,” an investor surnamed Chen told The Securities Times, a Chinese financial newspaper. Mr. Chen said he had bought five coins recently at a price of 3,100 renminbi, or about $510, apiece. On Wednesday the value dropped to three-quarters of that. “I thought I’d make a little short-term investment,” he said. “I didn’t think I’d lose money.”
On Wednesday, BTC China, the country’s largest Bitcoin exchange, said it had been told to stop accepting deposits in Chinese currency. The announcement was the latest in a series of steps that have restricted the ability to buy and use Bitcoins in China. The country’s leading third-party payment processors were told on Monday by the central bank to stop accepting the currency, according to Chinese news reports. And on Dec. 5, the People’s Bank of China and other regulators ordered traditional financial institutions in China to stop Bitcoin transactions.
Those moves have raised widespread doubts in China over the virtual currency, which saw values climb to 7,395 renminbi, or $1,218, on Dec. 1. After dropping to 2,300 renminbi late Wednesday, the price for a Bitcoin quoted by BTC China recovered slightly to around 3,000 renminbi by Thursday afternoon.
Chinese economists had warned investors about the risks inherent in the virtual money.
“When it comes to Bitcoin, early on I said that ordinary people should stay far away from it,” Yi Xianrong, an economist with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, wrote on his Tencent Weibo microblog after the central bank began making moves to restrict Bitcoin in early December. “It’s not a real currency — it doesn’t have a guarantee of creditworthiness. The risks are very high, and if ordinary people play the market they’re on their own. The central bank announcement told us what would happen with people who thought they were going to get rich quick and just got burned.”
…
Sooner or later… eventually…. everyone will learn.
Do not trust an economy founded entirely on credit and debt. You’re going to get burned if you do.
“Sooner or later … eventually … everyone will learn.”
Lol. You should write stand-up. Some people NEVER learn.
Which, IMO, is good.
“Do not trust an economy founded entirely on credit and debt.”
+1 FWIW, I’ve got my “They Live” sunglasses.
Great movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijC4R1uXDaE
Not working: Maybe this one will:
http://vimeo.com/43298360
I agree even if it was meant to be a parody of the Reagan era. I hope you are not out of bubble gum.
I want a pair. Where do you get them?
Lola sells them. It’s the only way he can look at his Messiah.
They Lieb!
Dec. 19, 2013, 8:30 a.m. EST
Jobless claims rise to highest level since March
By Jeffry Bartash
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - New applications for U.S. unemployment benefits rose last week to the highest level since late March, but the increase probably reflects typical holiday-season ups and downs instead of any discernible change in a labor market that’s shown clear improvement lately. Initial claims climbed by 10,000 to 379,000 in the week ended Dec. 14, the Labor Department said Thursday. Just three weeks ago, claims had fallen to as low as 305,000.
…
Hope and Change linked from Drudge Report
“A content editor on Reddit’s science forum wrote Monday that the site has banned climate-change skeptics, and asks why more news outlets haven’t done the same.
Climate-change believers accused skeptics of being bought by “big oil,” while the skeptics accused believers of being on the take from “big green.”
First they ridicule you, then they ban you, then….
I wonder if anyone has a list of “Big Green” companies. If so, I would like to do a literature search of scientists who have published global warming articles (beginning in the 1960s, I believe), and then challenge anyone to find a connection between those scientists and “Big Green”.
Government is the big green and virtually all the scientists promoting AGW have rich governmental contracts.
Really, environmental scientists are getting rich by working for the government? And this has been going on since the 1960s? Can you tell me which scientists these are? I never met a wealthy environmental scientist, other than those workinging for oil companies, but I never met one of those either, since they’re mostly in Texas. Every environmental scientist I have ever met has been somewhat poor.
Why did the government decide in the 1960s to invent this big lie called “global warming”?
I might even waste my own time by doing some research to demonstrate that there is no connection between the scientists who have been collecting/reporting these data and any type of “big money” whatsoever.
the 0.1%ers thank dan for his support.
they mint a lot of rich scientists at the colorado school of mines:
http://careers.mines.edu/Salary%20Survey.html
and they aren’t getting rich going to work for the government.
“I might even waste my own time by doing some research to demonstrate that there is no connection between the scientists who have been collecting/reporting these data and any type of “big money” whatsoever.”
You do that and you might not like what you find. Where do you get the belief that the global warming theory was developed in the 1960’s? It is much older than that. However, the models that claim a certain rise in ppm causes a certain temperature rise are quite new and completely ignore the natural cycles and thus have proven to be completely inaccurate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/18/november-2013-global-surface-landocean-temperature-anomaly-update/
“the 0.1%ers thank dan for his support”
No, because most of the 0.1% want world government and want to use global warming as an excuse for world taxation. Bloomberg and Soros are just two of the many examples. Environmentalist should stop wasting their time on a beneficial gas and try to do something about China’s pollution which is contaminating the world. Of course, any trade sanctions on China would work against the 0.1%. Rather you know it or not you are working for the 0.1%.
Dan:
You are a walking conspiracy theory.
Yes, just like the time I stated that the unemployment numbers had been fudged just before the election and explained why and how it is easy to do since it was based on surveys. I remember the tin hat comments. Funny thing now we know they were fudged.
Ignorance is bliss until it isn’t. Both Russia and China understand what we are doing even if the average person on the street or this blog does not:
http://news.goldseek.com/GATA/1387469721.php
goon squad: “A content editor on Reddit’s science forum wrote Monday that the site has banned climate-change skeptics, and asks why more news outlets haven’t done the same.
That’s too bad. As people debate these issues - Intelligent Design, anthropogenic climate change, death penalty, abortion, central planning, government intervention into markets - they hone their thinking and argumentation skills over time.
“A society cannot be both ignorant and free.” - Thomas Jefferson, summarized.
More Hope and Change linked from Drudge Report
“The Energy Department is predicting gasoline-powered vehicles will continue to dominate the market through 2040.
The agency predicts that in 2040, 78 percent of all cars and trucks will run on gasoline, down from 82 percent last year.
It predicts just 1 percent of total sales will be plug-in hybrids and 1 percent full electric vehicles in 2040.”
Does the report explain the rationale behind the prediction, other than “invest in oil companies now”?
Burning less oil and gas is socialist, European, effeminate and possibly gay.
Real American exceptionalists don’t drive Prius, they drive this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_nuts
I remember the International Trucks model CXT: http://thefuntimesguide.com/images/blogs/randy_international_cxt_truck.jpg
Real American Exceptionalism:
1. Blowing half of every workday screwing around on blogs.
2. Getting paid big bucks for doing so at taxpayer expense, then laughing about it.
3. Complaining about how fat everyone else is while many work two jobs in support of your salary.
4. Supporting socialized medicine.
5. Substituting environmental fanaticism for religious fanaticism.
Now THAT’s the real American exceptionalism!
Did I tell you I’m getting a promotion and a raise?
And that I spent two hours today training one of my federal colleagues who has been here 8 years longer than I have?
You’ll be seeing less of me soon enough, my boss knows I need more to do and with the promotion I’ll be working on more complex and time consuming projects.
Regards,
goon.squad.ctr@xxx.xxx.mil
Goon:
this could be a game changer if it can be mass produced, imagine 10 times the mileage of today’s electric car…..
http://inhabitat.com/tobacco-virus-could-increase-lithium-ion-battery-capacity/tobaccomosaic-ed01/
The agency predicts that in 2040, 78 percent of all cars and trucks will run on gasoline, down from 82 percent last year.
What about diesel cars? It seems like half the cars in Europe are diesels.
Most likely that explains the 3% reduction after you subtract the 1% for electric/hybrid. But for the most part the economics do not work. Yes, they burn about 20% less fuel. But in my area diesel runs almost one dollar a gallon more than gasoline. I can fuel up for Costco at 2.82 but diesel is running about 3.80. Thus, a diesel vehicle is more expensive without even considering the upfront costs.
Thus, a diesel vehicle is more expensive without even considering the upfront costs.
The devil’s in the details. When my 1983 F250 diesel was still running 22-25mpg empty, it cost less fuelwise than my 2001 F150 gas truck running 12-15 mpg empty, even considering the much higher price of diesel. The 1983 truck cost me $11,000 new & was built like a tank - it hit a deer at 70 mph & had little damage. I used it to drive all over the country with a big old slide on camper, and it got 13 mpg doing this - from the front, it looked like a semi tractor, hence the poor fuel economy. I last took it on a long road trip in 2005, since then the high price of diesel ruled out long trips. My ‘83 diesel is just about worn out now & not worth the expense of fixing, so I use the 2001 instead for my truck work. The old diesel engine would easily run a million more miles with minor upkeep, but not so for the rest of the truck. New diesel pickups are ridiculously expensive now. Replacing a full set of fuel injectors costs nearly as much as my entire truck did in 1983. New diesels are now designed in such a way as to cost more and get poorer fuel economy.
It predicts just 1 percent of total sales will be plug-in hybrids and 1 percent full electric vehicles in 2040.”
If you exclude fuel cell vehicles I think that is right. But it is too low if you include them. As far as vehicles such as the Volt, I said years ago that it would flop. Had many on the board that disagreed. Funny for the most part the same people that disagree with me about AGW.
I recall that many here agreed that the Volt is too expensive at this point. I don’t there’s anything technically wrong with the car, it’s just too damn expensive and will stay that way until batteries become cheaper.
Regular hybrids are cheaper since they have fewer batteries. It’s still a niche market as there are now much cheaper cars that get 40 mpg on the highway. Toyota has sold over 1 million Prius in the US and about 3 million worldwide.
Colorado:
The “cheaper cars” to which you refer are tin-can junk-type cars that don’t last very long. Once you factor in the quality of the ride and life expectency of the car, they are not a good deal. Besides, they don’t get 40 mpg average. More like 32. Prii get over 50 mpg average.
Look like 2013 has been very good to folksy gramps.
I heard on the radio this morning that the average rent in the Bay Area on a 2-bedroom apartment is now $3,300/month. Is that true? If so, I’m glad I moved. Prices on houses never got low enough for a normal human to afford, so I’m glad I’m not stuck there now. My lord.
its ll that tech money finding a home I guess. I wouldn’t live down there.
I don’t know…. There are a whole lot of rentals in the bay area for $1200/month on craigslist.
Why would you buy it when doing so drives your monthly nut up to $5000+?
look like some real palaces available there for under 1200:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa?catAbb=apa&query=&zoomToPosting=&minAsk=&maxAsk=1200&bedrooms=&housing_type=
Fixt
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa?catAbb=apa&query=&zoomToPosting=&minAsk=1200&maxAsk=1300&bedrooms=&housing_type=
OK, the average is definitely NOT #3,300, but there are some that ask even more. Most are below $1500.
I’m glad I’m not stuck there now. My lord.
I know, it’s absurd. I have colleagues over there, dual income couples with 200K+ incomes and all they can afford to buy is a condo.
In my little burg they could afford a McMansion on a golf course.
Is that true ??
Well the “Bay Area” is big so I would think using the word “average” would not be accurate…But hearing that some two bedroom units cost $3300. per month is not surprising at all….I do know for a fact that the biggest two bedroom two bathroom units that were built recently in downtown Mt. View are going for $4,000. per month…
Mountain View is a ghetto and always will be.
I think that depends on WHERE in the “Bay Area”. I rented up to just a couple of years ago in one of the more attractive cities (mid-Peninsula). The 3bd HOUSE was $3,300 (although once we moved out, the rent was jacked to $4k).
A 2bd apartment at $3,300 I would guess needs to be among the more attractive places in the Bay Area. I’m certain you could find something for less if you didn’t want to live in the best parts.
Dec. 19, 2013, 10:00 a.m. EST
Existing-home sales fall 4.3% in November
By Ruth Mantell
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Sales of existing homes slumped 4.3% in November, a third month of declines, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.9 million, on higher mortgage rates and low inventory, the National Association of Realtors reported Thursday. November’s sales pace, the slowest since December, was below the estimate from economists polled by MarketWatch, who had expected a pace of 5 million, with sales pulling back after buyers rushed over the summer to lock in low mortgage rates. The sales pace in November was down 1.2% from the year-earlier period, the first annual drop in more than two years. The median sales price of used homes hit $196,300 in November, up 9.4% from the year-earlier period, supported by low inventory. November’s inventory was 2.09 million existing homes for sale, a 5.1-month supply at the current sales pace.
We have 25 million excess empty and defaulted houses and collapsing demand and we’ve got low inventory? LOLZ
So here we are…. speculators and a few suckers holding onto melting ice cubes they paid too much for in 2013(not to mention the suckers from 1998-2012), sticker prices at 40% above replacement costs(lot, labor, materials and profit) and they characterize the charade as a recovery.
Thanks but no thanks.
Is M. slith banned or not? I was happier when he was banned.
slither’s economic cheerleading is as retarded as eddie’s posts back in the day that the wait times for a table at applebee’s were evidence of a growing economy and rising house prices.
some time ago slithers posted an anecdote about a waterpark in eastern washington state being busy as evidence of a strong economy.
Who is M. slith? You mean Mr. Smithers? (I do like RAL’s name for him, though, for it is rather fitting.)
yes
Why was he banned? I don’t rememebr that.
Two observations:
1. More proof the MID doesn’t “save” enough money to be worth it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/12/18/mortgage-interest-deduction-saves-middle-class-taxpayers-all-of-51month/
2. A large new apartment building near me is advertising its “Walk Score” (a 75) in large font on signs up and down the block. This is a big selling point in my area, which is very dense and has limited parking garages. On street parking often requires a 2-3 block walk or else parking along the waterfront, which allows parking from 6pm-8am. There’s a new outdoor shopping mall along the harbor which has a Target (not a super store, but a smaller one) and a Harris Teeter. Plus there is a Safeway within walking distance as well, maybe an 8 min walk. The only people getting screwed by the walkability are retired people, bc their property taxes will go up bc the place has become overrun with 20s-30s white people which continues to drive prices and rental rates. Then again , Maryland has homestead tax credit so prop taxes can only inc by 4%/yr on owner occupants.
When I posted the walkscore link on here it was mocked by many.
The defense of clown-car driving is almost cultish. I don’t live anywhere near downtown, but do live in a neighborhood that was developed pre-WW2. As a result, it is integrated into the city grid and built out in a pattern consistent with former streetcar lines, and not in a pattern of 6 lane cross streets every mile with a jumbled mess of sprawl and cul-de-sacs contained within each square mile box.
Walk score is underrated–it’s a big fat untaxed benefit if you’re a homeowner. Each mile people drive costs $.40-.50 when you divide it out over long periods of time, and that’s before you look at health effects, stress, or put a value on time. My area’s walk score is only about 68, which saddens me, as we still drive for some errands. The apartments I mention are in an area with a 75–they essentially never need to drive, except when they want to. And they are 3-4 blocks from a very large park (Patterson Park), a half dozen dog parks, a 7-mile waterfront prominade stretching all the way to Ft. McHenry, a half dozen marinas, plus all the shopping anyone would ever need. Less than 10 pts makes a big difference.
They’re also adding a subway line in the area, which should increase walk scores more, even though the subway will come above ground in the area I’m talking about, kind of like NYC subway or DC Metro outside of downtown. As part of the project, they’re eliminating the parking lanes along the waterfront streets and adding better pedestrian crossings and signage.
I am two short blocks from a major bus line into downtown. About 3/4 mile away is the light rail line, with direct routes to Littleton and downtown, and connecting routes through the Denver Tech Center corridor and to the Jefferson County municipal complex in Golden. In 2018 we will have a connecting route directly from downtown to the airport. There is also a proposed high speed rail project that would connect from Fort Collins to DIA to Colorado Springs. A ski train paralleling I-70 has also been discussed for years, but it would be very expensive to build and may never become a reality.
Are you doing daily biking yet? Or mixing biking & transit at least? Since September, I’ve only driven to work 1x (federal holiday so mass transit not running), and gotten a ride to the train 2x (snow).
Those 3 days I brought home some clothes, took in new clothes, and brought home some bulkier items. When I bike, I limit what I carry. I rarely carry clothing b/c I found a cheap dry cleaner just north of K St in a marginal ‘hood.
Unfortunately I am mostly clown-car commuting for now. Driving to work takes 25 minutes, driving home takes 35 minutes. Most of November I was car sharing and got to experiment with public transit and bike to work. Going bus only is 90 minutes in the morning and an hour and 45 minutes in the afternoon. Biking into downtown is less than 20 minutes but the bus to the east side is 55 minutes from downtown. Denver has an excellent network of bike paths but biking a direct route to my office is too dangerous. Other than commuting to work, I can get around my neighborhood without needing a car.
I have made the anti-mustachian decision that I will not move to the east side. The east side is farther way from all my friends here and from everything fun I like to do outdoors. I want to get another job within a few years and it’s location will be a key consideration.
By at least trying to de-car your commute (like you have), you’ll get some idea of the tradeoffs and what job location might work for you when you’re out there looking. Buses have too many stops and starts, so it would be good if you could get to a bike-only or bike-to-light-rail situation. The worst clown car drivers are the ones who view it as necessary, not worth changing, or even enjoyable (???).
In 2018 we will have a connecting route directly from downtown to the airport.
Pshaw. Only 15 years after us.
A ski train paralleling I-70 has also been discussed for years
Well, touche then. We’ll never have that!
Well, bully for you, goon.
Guess what? Lots of people can’t come close to affording to live in “walkable” areas. Such areas are largely gentrified nowadays and expensive.
BTW, it’s not the “walk score” being mocked. It’s the smug, holier-than-thou attitude that goes with it. As in, “aren’t I grand…everyone should live their live my way.”
You realize you can live in areas just outside the gentrified ones, right? 80-90% of the benefits at much lower costs. You can also buy when an area is only starting to show signs of upswing. Near me, that means you start seeing white kids out walking around, CrossFit gyms opening up (not a fan of them, just noting they’re an indicator), and new businesses. If you follow land sales and building permits you can see it coming a few years ahead.
People here seem to think that white middle class people should be afraid of minorities. The opposite is actually true. The arrival of young white people with a college degree and jobs is the one thing drug dealers and bangers can’t do anything about. It means lots of people out walking around, heavier police protection, better city services, better lighting, and people with a vested interest re what’s happening in their neighborhood.
It could also be mocked from the opposite point of view. Anyone who’s lived in a walkable neighborhood should know what’s required without needing a walk score. The details of what Joe posted about the apartment building are more important than the score. The fact that you can walk to a supermarket and a pharmacy in less than 10 minutes is really what makes the neighborhood walkable. Ideally, places like post offices, hardware stores and public transportation would also be pretty close.
I enjoy having all of the above within close proximity. And this is a non-hipster neighborhood. From what I’m told, it was a bit rough 20-30 years ago. And mybuilding is more diverse than Denver as a whole, whites, Hispanics, blacks, Asians all live here, although the neighborhood is majority white and estimated 25% Hispanic (American and foreign born).
Ideally, places like post offices, hardware stores and public transportation would also be pretty close.
For, P.O. & city-run exercise facility is 20 minutes, hardware 35 min., bus stop 1 min., pharmacy 5 minutes with some food, full service supermarket 20 min. All on foot, much faster by bike.
What I really like is having a university 12 min away by car with parking $1/hour. I could take the bus, but it would be 3-4 hours round trip. I can take university courses without paying tuition.
Liberace!
lib needs to correct his nickname, it’s ‘cruising’ for some downlow, not ‘prowling’.
see definition number 2:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cruising
That sure sounds likes our Liberace.
The insane claim about ‘white Santa’
Exclusive: John Rocker on latest from a ‘left-wing scrooge trying to ruin it for everyone’
http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/the-insane-claim-about-white-santa/#0DYcKjHKcxYOyx4x.99
What’s Uncle/Aunt Fed and Uncle Sugar going to leave under the tree for their favored sectors this Christmas?
“Yeah, we know that in theory that central planning doesn’t work. But boy, does it make us and our colleagues wealthy.”
The 2014 budget that was past does 2 huge things for students/young people. I predicated this before, when I was telling oxide what a good idea it is:
1. PAYE will be extended to ALL borrowers, regardless of whether they have loans originated before Oct of 07. This means a borrower can only be made to pay 10% of his/her “discretionary income” (AGI minus the poverty line) in loan payments. It also shortens the repayment period from 25 yrs down to 20 yrs. No matter what the balance is at the end of that, the loan is forgiven.
2. The tax bomb associated with PAYE (bc huge amounts of interest and principal are forgiven) will be removed. So someone who has $50k of unpaid principal and interest does not have to declare that as income in the final yr of PAYE.
See: http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget14/justifications/s-loansoverview.pdf
So it encourages people to take on more debt and discourages them from maximizing their income? Don’t get me wrong there are many worse programs than this. However, it will increase tuition costs and raise the deficit when we are bankrupt as a country. We need to develop programs that minimize the use of government subsidies and raise people incomes and thus their taxes.
http://www.mining.com/web/the-mirage-called-a-us-economic-recovery/
If the student loans are for degrees in areas where there are skill shortages it might be justified. But too many of those forgiven loans will be for degrees that have no economic justification pick your “studies” program. STEM graduates will pay back the loan without the subsidy. Thus, taxpayers are paying for people to get degrees in areas where we do not need the graduates so it is hardly helpful.
Related item, from a link that will soon post.
Here’s what is really happening in the U.S. economy that keeps me skeptical.
First of all, jobs growth in the U.S. economy has been center stage for some time. I agree that the unemployment rate has gone down, but I ask where the jobs were created. In November, for example, we saw the unemployment rate in the U.S. economy reach seven percent, and it sent a wave of optimism across the mainstream. Sadly, a major portion of the jobs created for that month were in the low-wage-paying industries. Mind you; this has been the trend for some time now. (Source: “Employment Situation Summary,” Bureau of Labor Statistics web site, December 6, 2013.) In periods of real economic growth, you want equal jobs creation, which we are clearly missing in the U.S. economy.
Secondly, Americans really aren’t better off than they were before—incomes are declining. Consider this: between 2007 and 2012, the real median household income in the U.S. economy has fallen by more than eight percent. In 2007, the median household income registered at $55,627. In 2012, it declined to $51,017. (Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis web site, last accessed December 13, 2013.) In times of real economic growth, you want to see increasing incomes.
Thirdly, more and more individuals in the U.S. economy are seeking the help of food stamps. In September, there were more than 47.3 million Americans on food stamps. This number has grown significantly over the past few years. (Source: United States Department of Agriculture, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service web site, December 6, 2013.)
Yet another nanny state progressive lie exposed.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100251229/passive-smoking-another-of-the-nanny-states-big-lies/
Passive smoking – another of the Nanny State’s big lies
The Telegraph
December 18th, 2013
“Passive smoking doesn’t give you lung cancer. So says a new report publicised(sic) by the American Cancer Institute which will come as no surprise whatsoever to anyone with a shred of integrity who has looked into the origins of the great “environmental tobacco smoke” meme.”
“Was the smoking ban a good idea? Arguably, in some ways. It means that when you come home from a crowded gig or club, now, your hair and clothes no longer smell of stale smoke; it forces smokers to smoke less than they might otherwise have done because nipping outside for a fag is so inconvenient.”
“Against that, though, you have to set the enormous damage which has been done to the pub industry – and indeed to the atmosphere within pubs and clubs. More worrying still, though, is the ugly precedent it has set for the arbitrary confiscation by the State of property rights.”
“It should have been left up to individual institutions – private members clubs especially, but pubs and restaurants too – whether or not they wished to allow smoking on their premises. Punters would then have been free to choose whether or not they wished, on any given evening, to sacrifice their unalienable right not to be exposed to other people’s deadly tobacco smoke.”
“That is how free societies work. Free people make free choices.”
Smoking bans and excessive taxation have never been about health, it has always been about control, punishment and forcing others to live a life chosen by angry do-gooders.
I would still prefer to not have to inhale someone’s nasty second hand smoke. It stinks.
I would still prefer to not have to inhale someone’s nasty second hand smoke. It stinks.
I have walked out of many smelly public establishments for the same reason. Before nonsmoking restaurants became popular, I ate out very seldom.
Long ago I met a woman months after the first time I met her, both times were at some business function. She asked me when I quit smoking. I told her I had never been a smoker. She told she thought I had been a heavy smoker, because on our first meeting, I reeked of stale cigarette smoke. Then I remembered that shortly before our first meeting, I spent a few minutes in a smoky room…
A side effect of my dislike is that I do not visit friends & relatives at their homes, if they smoke inside. I make exceptions during warm weather days if & only if we can sit outside while we visit. I have never told them this policy of mine, and none has ever asked me about it.
Well then that second hand smoker on the comercial is just a big Liar isn’t he. You know, the disabled dude who can’t work where there were smokers and he can’t dance anymore even though he used to be pretty good at it too. Like that SSDI collecting Walrus was ever John Travolta.
Those comercials crack me up, I mean what were those people smoking Chernobyl menthols? I get it, smoking is not good for you, but I have known a lot of smokers and none of them were losing limbs at 22. That one lady who wakes up and puts her whole head on out of a box on her dressing table? These people were genetically predisposed to some bad sh#t before they ever took their first drag.
You cannot convince a fitness swimmer that breathing secondhand smoke is harmless. Not this one. There is a market for smoke free areas. Howerpver if all aircraft and all restaurants allow smoking I will simply not fly nor dine out.
Probably not a good time to be the party of big government:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166535/record-high-say-big-government-greatest-threat.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All
Due to Obamacare the ground is moving under progressives but they do not realize it. This is from the Gallup link that is about to post:
The latest update comes from a Dec. 5-8 poll. Gallup has documented a steady increase in concern about big government since 2009, rising from 55% in March 2009 to 64% in November 2011 and 72% today. This suggests that government policies specific to the period, such as the Affordable Care Act — perhaps coupled with recent revelations of government spying tactics by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden — may be factors.
Currently, 21% name big business as the greatest threat, while 5%, a record low, say big labor. The high point for big labor was 29% in 1965. No more than 11% of Americans have chosen big labor since 1995, clearly reflecting the decline of the labor movement in the United States in recent decades.
The historical high choosing big business, 38%, came in 2002, after a series of corporate scandals rocked major corporations including Enron and Tyco. Also at that time, Americans may have been less willing to choose government given the rally in support for government institutions and officials after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Americans were also more likely to view big business as a big threat during the recent recession, with more than three in 10 choosing it in 2008 and 2009, a time when many large corporations, including financial and automotive companies, failed or were in danger of failing without government intervention. But fewer Americans now view big business as a threat — the current 21% is the lowest Gallup has measured since 1983.
The questions in polls like that are not particularly useful. There are polls which ask question about specific issues. Many of them show the American people to have quite social democratic attitudes about the major problems confronting the country.
You may not like it but these broad philosophy polls are quite useful in catching trends. Obama was elected when faith in business was low and faith in government had increased. He would not have even gotten by Hillary with this feeling in the country.
I don’t dislike the poll. I’ve just observed over the years that more specific polling questions result in answers that paint a different picture of popular opinion. The graph shows that the big government has always been considered to be the biggest threat. At the time that Bill Clinton was reelected in 1996 the concern about government was higher than it had ever been before. I don’t know how you determine what level of concern expressed in that poll represents a critical threshold.
For example, this link refers to a poll that shows that in increase in the minimum wage is supported by a margin of more than two to one:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/most-back-minimum-wage-hike-policies-to-address-the-wealth-gap/
Also, I don’t recall much in the way of policy differences between Obama and Hillary back in 2008. I think that her health care plan actually had a larger government role than the one that he was proposing during the primaries.
‘big government has always been considered to be the biggest threat’
The poll I thought most interesting was the “buy every gun and bullet in the country for month after month poll”, cuz it required more than answering a few questions on the phone.
You know, I think the NSA is toast. People aren’t buying all this ’spying to keep you safe’ when what people are really worried about is Unca’ Sam.
People aren’t buying all this
I’ll buy what you’re getting at when Congressional incumbents start losing their bids for re-election. In droves.
Hmm… maybe I should stay in Florida, but live somewhere other than Pinellas.
Whoops, meant for the FL thread.
So.. uh… anyone heard from Fxr?
Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%
Alex Newman
New American
December 19, 2013
Self-styled “global-warming” guru Al Gore (shown) and a gaggle of supposed “climate scientists” have egg all over their faces — big time. In 2007, 2008 and 2009, Gore publicly and very hysterically warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.” Citing “climate” experts, the government-funded BBC hyped the mass hysteria, running a now-embarrassing article under the headline: “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’.” Other establishment media outlets did the same.
Well, 2013 is almost over, and contrary to the alarmist “predictions” by Gore and what critics refer to as his “doomsday cult,” the latest satellite data show that Arctic ice cover has actually expanded 50 percent over 2012 levels. In fact, during October, sea-ice levels grew at the fastest pace since records began in 1979. Experts predict the expansion to continue in the years to come, leaving global-warming alarmists scrambling fiendishly for explanations to save face — and to revive the rapidly melting climate hysteria.
In September, meanwhile, data also showed that sea ice levels in Antarctica had expanded to record levels for the second year in a row. Of course, by now, virtually everyone who has been following news about “global warming” — now more often referred to as “climate change” owing to public-relations concerns — also knows that global temperatures have not risen for some 17 years. The spectacular lack of warming demolished all 73 of the “climate models” used by the United Nations to push its controversial theories.
al gore.. the idiot’s idiot.
Obama now is saying that they are going to allow people who lost coverage to buy “catastrophic” plans for 2014…under what authority they are going to allow it, my understanding is that the ACA only allows such coverage under certain circumstances…
What a mess.
For those who think this is the first step to a single payer, do you honestly think that America is going to allow even MORE power flow to the government with respect to healthcare after this fiasco? I think that people feel the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of bigger government.
yes, i think single payer will pass. there are enough people who really think it will be a good thing. it seems we have to learn everything the hard way. over and over..
they have wasted so much money on this circle jerk.
the biggest problem with healthcare is cost.
2000 for a room charge in a hospital is a little over the top.
There is a lot of distrust toward the healthcare industry cause of the greed.
‘do you honestly think that America is going to allow even MORE power flow to the government ‘
It will be facilitated by some extraordinary events happening. Use fear to get people to fall in line. Strange anecdote today. I realized that sociopaths are real:
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
Yes, honestly. But there is a limit. Government does not and cannot know the limit of slavery that its subjects can take. There will be a spontaneous small group of people who provide a catalyst for revolt against the state. Cynics say the new boss is always the same as the old boss. Wellin 1776 he new boss was not the same as the old boss. So there goes that prune-eating grouchy old fart theory. There will be a libertarian revolution again on this planet in the future. And it will again be successful.