patrick.net

edvard2 says

Whu? Sorry but that makes zero sense. Seeing as how SF is having a veriafiable boom, was barely scratched during the recession, and at this point has such a huge demand for housing due to the extreme amount of young professionals looking for work that now Oakland is also experiencing a sort of boom on its own as those people from SF move in, I fail to see how those areas have declined...

walk down So of market.. hideous back in the 1980s to 2000 (even to year 2010)...
where was the boom ?
.

today, how much in concessions did the city make to LURE business into the city ?

Tax exemptions proposed to lure Twitter to SF's Mid-Market

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/tax-exemptions-proposed-to-lure-twitter-to-sfs-mid-market/Content?oid=2169268

Any other company that pays payroll taxes -- those with payrolls above $250,000 -- would also be eligible for the exemption, according to the proposal, which was announced just before today's board meeting and introduced by Kim at the meeting.

Correction: Several of them have a good work ethic, but several don't.

thomaswong.1986 says

walk down So of market.. hideous back in the 1980s to 2000 (even to year 2010)...

where was the boom ?

.

today, how much in concessions did the city make to LURE business into the city ?

Tax exemptions proposed to lure Twitter to SF's Mid-Market

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/tax-exemptions-proposed-to-lure-twitter-to-sfs-mid-market/Content?oid=2169268

Any other company that pays payroll taxes -- those with payrolls above $250,000 -- would also be eligible for the exemption, according to the proposal, which was announced just before today's board meeting and introduced by Kim at the meeting.

I can find any part of any city across the country and make the exact same claim. That doesn't mean the whole city is doing poorly financially. Not sure what point that was trying to make other than more pointless rhetoric for a point that too was also equally void of factual basis. Next...

edvard2 says

. If its cheaper or more advantageous to make an engine elsewhere, then why would you make it in the US if that proved to cost more and eat into company profits?

are you sure its about profits or Govt regulations ? what else did the Founder of Sun say about the State of California (see above) ?

here is what Apple CEO said...again much of their products are from BLUE states, who are pro business.

BRIAN WILLIAMS:
Why can’t you be a made-in-America company?

TIM COOK:
You know, this iPhone, as a matter of fact, the engine in here is made in America. And not only are the engines in here made in America, but engines are made in America and are exported. The glass on this phone is made in Kentucky. And so we’ve been working for years on doing more and more in the United States. Next year, we will do
one of our existing Mac lines in the United States.

BRIAN WILLIAMS:
Let’s say our Constitution was a little different and Barack Obama called you in tomorrow and said, “Get everybody outta China, and do whatever you have to do. Make these, make everything you make in the United States.” What would that do to the price of this device?

TIM COOK:
Honestly, it’s not so much about price it’s about the skills, et cetera. Over time, there are skills that are associated with manufacturing that have left the U.S. Not necessarily people, but the education system stopped producing them.

Read more at http://www.cultofmac.com/204907/tim-cooks-interview-with-nbc-rock-centers-brian-williams/#OmdzW7iHTRQwhZLx.99

thomaswong.1986 says

are you sure its about profits or Govt regulations ? what else did the Founder of Sun say about the State of California (see above) ?

You are trying to tie politics to overall manufacturing, which isn't going to fly. Manufacturing is one of the most internationally connected industries in the world.

I'll give you a perfect example. The current Buick Lacrosse. Believe it or not I am sort of a car nut so I read up on these things. The Lacrosse exterior was designed at one of the Detroit design studios. Why? Because the studio in question has had a long history and extremely qualified expertise in overall exterior product design. Makes total sense. The interior on the other hand was designed in a Shanghai studio. Why might you ask? One reason is because in China, Buick is the best-selling import brand and it is sold to a more upscale consumer. As such the interiors had been typically more upscale than the American models. So the interior was designed in the Shanghai studio. The car's powertrain was developed in Germany by one of GM's European divisions.

As you cans see, all of these decisions were made for purely logical, logistical, and obvious reasons: One studio had expertise in one area, another studio in another. Could the entire car have been designed entirely in the US? Sure. But would that have meant as good of a product in as timely of a manner? You see, as I previously mentioned before in business, money, NOT politics talks. Decisions are made for financial reasons.

We can't make everything in the US. It would be virtually impossible. Some countries have tried - as in some of the former communist blok countries- but as seen, these were enormous failures.

edvard2 says

I can find any part of any city across the country and make the exact same claim. That doesn't mean the whole city is doing poorly financially. Not sure what point that was trying to make other than more pointless rhetoric for a point that too was also equally void of factual basis. Next..

SF-Oakland liberal anti - business bashing policies have not worked for decades. they certainly have woke up one day to see Santa Clara rise far above them economically..

You think the raise of California a global economic power came form San Francisco prime or Santa Clara County ? The two have been separate and opposite poles politically and economically for decades.

You try to open a Plant in California .... you can talk to Apple CEO or any other former SV company founders with some past experiences... its all the same.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/steve-jobs-biography-obama_n_1022786.html

"You're headed for a one-term presidency," he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly.

As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them.

Jobs also criticized America's education system, saying it was "crippled by union work rules," noted Isaacson. "Until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform."

Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.

thomaswong.1986 says

TIM COOK:

Honestly, it’s not so much about price it’s about the skills, et cetera. Over time, there are skills that are associated with manufacturing that have left the U.S. Not necessarily people, but the education system stopped producing them.

If you believe that, you are much more naïve than I imagined. I work in manufacturing and there is no shortage of workers with the skills. There may be a shortage of skilled workers that will work for the wages Apple wants to pay... And that's why they go overseas.

edvard2 says

We can't make everything in the US. It would be virtually impossible. Some countries have tried - as in some of the former communist blok countries- but as seen, these were enormous failures.

you missed China and Japan in your above comments.. and it has worked.

thomaswong.1986 says

In the SFBA ... look at SF and Oakland.. huge cities with skilled people large
population been around for 100s of years.. what have they done over the past 50
years but decline economically.

And yet, by your own admission, home prices in the SFBA have not been declining for the last 50 years now have they?

So if the local economy is so directly related to home prices as you so often want to allude (coupled with your now severely outdated price chart), why haven't house prices in the SFBA been falling for the past 50 years???

So as I see it, you must either do one of the following Thomas either

(A) retract that comment that the SFBA economy has been declining in the last 1/2 century

or

(B) concede that the direction of home prices have little to nothing to do with your view of what constitutes a declining economy.

Incidentally, if you do respond to me, please respond directly to the points raised above. Please do not respond with your usual line of rambling, stream of conscious type retorts that address neither A or B above.

Consider this a test of your intellectual honesty and cognitive capacity here Thomas. So if you ever wish to be taken even remotely seriously here, please do what you can to respond to the points addressed. Good luck...

edvard2 says

You are trying to tie politics to overall manufacturing, which isn't going to fly.

like any long term tech veteran will tell you .. its all about MFG.. even SW companies are tied
to Manufacturing.. SW for CAD is tied to mfg as is supply chain software.

overall mfg fuels the middle class and allows many to go beyond mfg. Heck there were many Engineers/Marketing/Finance-Accountant who cut their teeth on the mfg floor.. later to get degrees from night classes and go off into other professions. it was not unusual to see
this in Silicon Valley during the economic boom years.

IT SIMPLY WORKS..

CDon says

And yet, by your own admission, home prices in the SFBA have not been declining for the last 50 years now have they?

So if the local economy is so directly related to home prices as you so often want to allude (coupled with your now severely outdated price chart), why haven't house prices in the SFBA been falling for the past 50 years???

they have been relatively flat adjusted for inflation. we did not have irrational behavior of RE as we seen since 2000.

thomaswong.1986 says

SF-Oakland liberal anti - business bashing policies have not worked for decades. they certainly have woke up one day to see Santa Clara rise far above them economically..

You think the raise of California a global economic power came form San Francisco prime or Santa Clara County ? The two have been separate and opposite poles politically and economically for decades.

Sorry, but wrong again. The overall Bay Area, including those areas not attached to the Santa Clara areas, are some of the most affluent areas in the country. As mentioned in a previous post, I am from a rural, southern part of the country. If you want to see poor, then I suggest taking a trip sometime and seeing what that is like. We're talking not just poor, but in some cases absolute poverty. When I was in high school and middle school, some of my classmates lived in old buses and RVs.

The Bay Area is so ridiculously rich compared to the majority of the country. And so when I read your previous comments, which were in some weird way trying to say that the Bay Area was in decline, that's pretty counterintuitive to reality.thomaswong.1986 says

you missed China and Japan in your above comments.. and it has worked.

Nope. We export a TON of manufactured goods to not only China, and Japan. Got anything else or shall I keep disproving your points?

thomaswong.1986 says

like any long term tech veteran will tell you .. its all about MFG.. even SW companies are tied

to Manufacturing.. SW for CAD is tied to mfg as is supply chain software.

overall mfg fuels the middle class and allows many to go beyond mfg. Heck there were many Engineers/Marketing/Finance-Accountant who cut their teeth on the mfg floor.. later to get degrees from night classes and go off into other professions. it was not unusual to see

this in Silicon Valley during the economic boom years.

IT SIMPLY WORKS..

Its WORKING still. Again- I am really trying to understand whatever point you seem to try to be desperately making over and over because so far I don't see any facts. Just political opinion.

CDon says

(A) retract that comment that the SFBA economy has been declining in the last 1/2 century

which economy ... San Francisco or Santa Clara County... like I said.. they are the opposite and have not been connected from the 60s to year 2000.. Have you seen much of SF during the 80s and 90s ?

edvard2 says

Its WORKING still. Again- I am really trying to understand whatever point you seem to try to be desperately making over and over because so far I don't see any facts. Just political opinion.

30 years in the field.. i been here.. as have many others and observed the changes..
I did not need some New York City journalist pumping bull shit lies..

thomaswong.1986 says

30 years in the field.. i been here.. as have many others and observed the changes..

I did not need some New York City journalist pumping bull shit lies..

I've also been in the field for quite some time, not as long as you, but long enough to see transitional changes. So things change. Yeah? What else is new? Not sure what New York journalists have to do with this...

edvard2 says

Sorry, but wrong again. The overall Bay Area, including those areas not attached to the Santa Clara areas, are some of the most affluent areas in the country.

there was NEVER a OVERALL BA Economy.. get over that. The so called affluent areas are all in Marin. Not in SF and not in Santa Clara.. we in SC did ok but we were not over the top rich until the Tech IPO bubble created many wealthy people.. but that was a Ponzi scheme.

What happened to the other people who forked over $300 a share for Yahoo or Ariba stock in late 90s ? Are they AFFLUENT as they saw their wealth drop by 90% ...

When did you ever see a tech stock bubble before from Santa Clara County based companies... NEVER..

thomaswong.1986 says

there was NEVER a OVERALL BA Economy.. get over that. The so called affluent areas are all in Marin. Not in SF and not in Santa Clara.. we in SC did ok but we were not over the top rich until the Tech IPO bubble created many wealthy people.. but that was a Ponzi scheme.

Of course there is. There are all sorts of indexes and reports regarding the overall Bay Area and its economy. So no need to get over something that doesn't need to be "gotten over". And all the affluent people live in Marin? How long have you lived here again? Hello..... the average house in the majority of the BA is around 500k. So are all of those people dirt-poor who are buying them? Last time I looked you'd better be making somewhere in the neighborhood of about 150k or so in order to buy a house like that.

Again- I am curious what point you are trying to make because thus far.... there have been none. Next...

edvard2 says

I've also been in the field for quite some time, not as long as you, but long enough to see transitional changes. So things change. Yeah? What else is new? Not sure what New York journalists have to do with this...

NYC journalist have painted the worst lies ever spoken about SFBA.. they have transplanted their preconceived liberal ideas on the west coast. None had any experience, yet read by many national and intentionally.

the only journalist with real sense was Mike Malone.. and he has done lots of work over the decades that runs counter to what these East coast journalist have written.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Malone

edvard2 says

And all the affluent people live in Marin? How long have you lived here again? Hello..... the average house in the majority of the BA is around 500k. So are all of those people dirt-poor who are buying them? Last time I looked you'd better be making somewhere in the neighborhood of about 150k or so in order to buy a house like that.

how do you explain home prices pre-bubble being as low as 100-200K ? Our bubble started with the other bubble in Stocks/IPOs of the late 90s.. the tech stocks were way way over valued and well beyond any rational fundamental valuations.

can you point to prior decades as we had inflated IPO/Tech stock prices. Cisco/Tandem/HP/Intel.. have they also had irrational prices in the 70s and 80s ?

had we not had a Tech stock bubble of the late 90s,,, there would not be a "affluent' south bay or housing bubble. Today, unfortunately many think the late 90s were the standard.. which
it wasnt.. its a Ponzi scheme.

thomaswong.1986 says

CDon says

(A) retract that comment that the SFBA economy has been declining in the last 1/2 century

which economy ... San Francisco or Santa Clara County... like I said.. they are the opposite and have not been connected from the 60s to year 2000.. Have you seen much of SF during the 80s and 90s ?

Either one really. As per your precious chart, SF AND Santa Clara home prices have been moving in lockstep continuously since 1975.

So again, given that this is the case, if (per your contention) that SF has been in a state of economic decline for 50 years, and Santa Clara has not - how can you possibly explain home prices moving in lockstep for the past (at least) 38 years?

Also, for the record, I appreciate what has thus far been direct and straightforward answers. We shall see if or for how long you are able to continue to focus on the issue at hand.

thomaswong.1986 says

NYC journalist have painted the worst lies ever spoken about SFBA.. they have transplanted their preconceived liberal ideas on the west coast. None had any experience, yet read by many national and intentionally

NYC journalists have nothing to do with me or this conversation. Almost everything I have said have come from my own personal, real-life observations as well as from what comes from historical texts.thomaswong.1986 says

had we not had a Tech stock bubble of the late 90s,,, there would not be a "affluent' south bay or housing bubble. Today, unfortunately many think the late 90s were the standard.. which

it wasnt.. its a Ponzi scheme

Then that must be one hell of a long-lasting Ponzi scheme then, seeing as how the tech boom has more or less been going on now for well over 20+ years its current form and in that time, well housing prices have risen dramatically. Sure- there was a housing bubble and lots and lots of irrational spending and so on. But the fact of the matter is that after all of that was done, prices are STILL high, and what's more, the economy is doing very well, so well, that its among the healthiest in the country.

Once more, you have failed to make a point so far. Please make whatever point you are trying to make because otherwise I am seeing nothing that is really valid.

edvard2 says

Again- I am curious what point you are trying to make because thus far.... there have been none. Next...

perhaps YOU can explain why a bunch of RED state rural hicks living in Santa Clara County help create a booming economy from nothing more than dirt which included manufacturing and services industries from 1960 to 2000 while the BLUE state progressives from San Francisco - Oakland ( The Gateway to the Orient ) managed to destroy pretty much most of the they inherited from economic heroes a century past.

edvard2 says

Then that must be one hell of a long-lasting Ponzi scheme then, seeing as how the tech boom has more or less been going on now for well over 20+ years its current form and in that time, well housing prices have risen dramatically.

you tell me the Price Earnings of many Silicon valley based companies from 1970s to mid 90s.. and compare that to late 90s and even today with some so called Media companies like facebook and linkedin.

If you know the number you would know we did NOT have inflated stock Prices as we seen recently. NO ONE was foolish back than to overpay for such a high risk. Must be hard to understand this.

Had we avoided the irrational exuberance of the late 90s and today.. there would be no Housing Bubble in South Bay.

Besides.. ask the many after 2000 as they saw their inflated stock drop by 90 %... so whats different today vs then ?

edvard2 says

NYC journalists have nothing to do with me or this conversation. Almost everything I have said have come from my own personal, real-life observations as well as from what comes from historical texts.thomaswong.1986 says

most of what you said.. is no different an narrative we all have read over the past decade.
much of it is inflated and untrue. had anyone of these journalist worked in SV SFBA then the so called history would be different.. i dont blame you.. but do do blame the media for such misinformation.

CDon says

Either one really. As per your precious chart, SF AND Santa Clara home prices have been moving in lockstep continuously since 1975.

if one was to believe in what the media has portrayed SFBA to be.. one would expect much higher prices decades and decades ago... but that is untrue.

its not SF and Santa Clara only.. but rather all 9 counties had similar RE pricing for a long long time.

my precious chart ...

thomaswong.1986 says

CDon says

Either one really. As per your precious chart, SF AND Santa Clara home prices have been moving in lockstep continuously since 1975.

if one was to believe in what the media has portrayed SFBA to be.. one would expect much higher prices decades and decades ago... but that is untrue.

its not SF and Santa Clara only.. but rather all 9 counties had similar RE pricing for a long long time.

my precious chart ...

That's correct. So again, if (per your prior contention) one of these 9 areas (SF) has been in a 50 year period of decline - and another of those areas (SJ/Santa Clara) has not, why have home prices in both moved in lockstep for the past 38 years? How can this be?

Again, thusfar, I appreciate what has been honest and straightforward answers.

Observation: The integral of the area under the curve above x 33 Million homes is about $5T dollars. $5T ~ the malinvestment of subprime, and other "Innovative" and No Down loans.

Take the rest of the day off Thomas.....

Thomas - if you do take the rest of the day off, lets recap where we are in this discussion.

1. Your original contention:

thomaswong.1986 says

In the SFBA ... look at SF and Oakland.. huge cities with skilled people
large population been around for 100s of years.. what have they done over the
past 50 years but decline economically.

on the other hand, drive 40-50 miles south to Santa Clara.. the opposite is
true.. Economic boom from 1960s to 2000...

My response (referencing your 9 area FHFA chart):

CDon says

if (per your prior contention) SF has been in a 50 year
period of decline - and SJ/Santa Clara has experienced a 50 year boom, why does the chart
show home prices in both areas moved in lockstep for the past (at least) 38 years? How can this
be?

I (and certainly many others who appreciate honest straightforward answers) look forward to hearing from you in the morning.

I don't think facts matter to Tom Wong.

CDon says

That's correct. So again, if (per your prior contention) one of these 9 areas (SF) has been in a 50 year period of decline - and another of those areas (SJ/Santa Clara) has not, why have home prices in both moved in lockstep for the past 38 years? How can this be?

prices were not widely dissimilar in the bay area in the past.. prior to the huge run up in late 90s.

here is an article from prime SF when homes were around 150-200K

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/27/realestate/live-work-law-for-artists-roils-san-franciscans.html

A report released this month by the National Association of Home Builders put San Francisco's median residential price for 1996 at $285,000. With prices beginning at $175,000 to $200,000, lofts are the cheapest nonsubsidized units on the market, according to David Becker, a broker with Ritchie Commercial Real Estate. They are, nonetheless, still too expensive for the artists for whom they were intended, Ms. Hestor said.

.
.
.
And the real question is Where were people like you back in the 90s ... dont you remember any of this.. or were you somewhere else... Laughable..

CDon says

CDon says

if (per your prior contention) SF has been in a 50 year

period of decline - and SJ/Santa Clara has experienced a 50 year boom, why does the chart

show home prices in both areas moved in lockstep for the past (at least) 38 years? How can this

be?

I (and certainly many others who appreciate honest straightforward answers) look forward to hearing from you in the morning.

and I will answer you again.. we did not have miss-pricing of stock or homes as irrationally as we saw post late 90s bubbles.

had you over paid for Cisco stock in early 90s when it went public.. many would have laughed at you and called you a fool.

had you over paid for a home in the early 90s given the correction we saw across california.. many would have laughed at you and called you a fool.

And today we have new batch of fools who rather over pay for so called tech stocks and houses.

And how long have you been in the Bay Area ? How long before you learn the reality of prices ?

CDon says

1. Your original contention:

thomaswong.1986 says

My response (referencing your 9 area FHFA chart):

Show me the boom that happened in the 1960s 70s 80s and 90s in San Francisco or Oakland ?

Where were the huge Semiconductor plants in San Francisco or East Bay,

Which part of Oakland had Intel and Apple R&D offices..

Thomas - unfortunately after 2-3 posts of honest somewhat to the point answers, you have now reverted to your usual nonsequitur, flailing about, stream of consciousness type, non response.

Lets try this again.

1. at post #151 you said that for the past 50 years, SF has been in economic decline, while at the same time SJ has had an economic boom.

2. Given number 1, how is it (per your chart) that prices in both areas have moved in lockstep for the past 38 years? How can this be?

Again, this is a test of your cognitive capacity and intellectual honesty. So if you do rise to the challenge, please do not include an answer that include tangents (e.g. price of Cisco stock, an article about artists lofts in 1997...) you get the idea.

Acceptable answers address items 1 and 2 above, and little else. Can you do this thomas? Can you reconcile the obvious conflict between items 1 and 2 above? I guess we shall see.

CDon says

1. at post #151 you said that for the past 50 years, SF has been in economic decline, while at the same time SJ has had an economic boom.

show me the great industries that have emerged from SF County over the past 50 years ...
1950 to 2000. there should be lots.. right ? Compare that to Santa Clara..

CDon says

2. Given number 1, how is it (per your chart) that prices in both areas have moved in lockstep for the past 38 years? How can this be?

as I have stated.. we did not have mispricing of homes as we seen in recent years.. How difficult is that to understand... or did you expect home prices to be extremely high back even in the 70s adjusted for inflation.

Unprecedented housing bubble... even in SFBA

Robert Shiller - On Home Prices Always Going Up

http://www.youtube.com/embed/d__GPqOVNbE

CDon says

Acceptable answers address items 1 and 2 above, and little else. Can you do this thomas? Can you reconcile the obvious conflict between items 1 and 2 above? I guess we shall see

there is no conflict.. there are certainly many who have been brainwashed into thinking home prices have always been high.. and somehow SF prime is connected to wealth of Silicon Valley.
and certainly many are too greedy to see the ponzi game of late 90s stock bubble..

CDon says

Again, this is a test of your cognitive capacity and intellectual honesty. So if you do rise to the challenge, please do not include an answer that include tangents (e.g. price of Cisco stock, an article about artists lofts in 1997...) you get the idea.

typical.. dont bring in historical facts cause you huckersters cant explain or reconcile the lack of inflated past real Tech stocks or home prices. those past market prices were absent of hype and therefore ignored... you cant spin it you cant lie over it.. what else would a huckerster say but to ignore them.

Thomas - if it moves the ball forward, let me go ahead and concede each and every non-response in your favor. To wit:

I have no idea of any "great industries" that emerged from SF county

I concede, there was not "mispricing" of homes back before the bubble.

I concede, there are many "too greedy to see the ponzi"

I cannot explain or reconcile why prices didn't inflate in the past.

So point to you on each on every one of these items. So lets put all these into the asked and answered column now shall we?

So again, now that all those tangential issues have been resolved in your favor, we still have this conundrum, to wit...

1. at post #151 you said that for the past 50 years, SF has been in economic decline, while at the same time SJ has had an economic boom.

2. Given number 1, how is it (per your chart) that prices in both areas have moved in lockstep for the past 38 years? How can this be?

I mean, if one area was booming while the other was declining, then surely home prices in the booming area would go up while home prices would crater right?

And again, I ask this primarily as a way to show us all your intellectual honesty and or cognitive capacity - one or both of which will be clearly called into question if you continue to flail about in such an unresponsive manner. For example, an acceptable answer would be:

"gee, I guess I was wrong, given that we know that home prices are strongly tied to economic performance, perhaps, SF was somehow, someway doing pretty well along with SJ. Otherwise, prices could not have moved in lockstep the way they clearly did for the past 38 years as shown in the chart"

OR

"hmm, well since I am quite certain that SF did in fact suffer economically for the past 50 years, given that prices in SF moved in lockstep with the economically prosperous SJ, I guess home prices really don't have much to do with economic performance"

Again these are just examples - any number of other answers that address (1) your earlier contention that SF and SJ moved in opposite economic directions for the past 50 years and (2) the chart showing home prices in both areas move in lockstep for the last 38 years would be acceptable. Can you address these?

You thusfar seem too angry and or emotional to give me a cogent response. Would it help if I gave you a hypothetical (plugging in the same variables) if it was some other city than your hometown? Would it help if you stopped, slept on it, and responded in a more responsive manner in the AM?

Again, sorry to seem condescending here, but this is really simple stuff here Thomas.