Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Trump is supporting intolerance to muslims, and increased power to security agencies. The more we destroy our own country's values in response to fear of terrorism, the more they won.
Private insurance statistically pays out less than it takes in. None of your individual examples change that, or explain how SS could pay out more than it took in overall.
Private insurance also readjusts the premiums it charges annually to compensate for what it pays out. Just go ask anyone who just got their health insurance renewal for Obamacare and they see the HUGE jump to cover all the newly enrolled of the past year.
Exactly. If the SS fund is on track to go bankrupt, they should raise revenues or cut benefits NOW (or 10 years a go). Boomers still in work, Gen X and Millennials should be compensating for the gap. Instead they are kicking the can down the road which is essentially taking more from future generations to give to Boomers followed by X'ers.
The 70 million additional souls in the US by 2035 is the overriding demographics. All those boomer homes will get absorbed. Except in the frost belt.
and you got these numbers from where? Most projections are in the almost 40 million range by 2050 with 25 million being immigrants. So the 25 million new immigrants, who are mostly poor, are going to buy most of the 70 million boomers houses? I don't think so.
Where are you getting 40 million by 2050 from? The projections you linked have 175.4 million Births, 41.2 million immigrants = 216.6 million "new souls" by 2015. Subtract 128.4 million deaths = 88.2 million *net increase*. Not only will take over all the boomer's houses, they will also need homes for 88 million more.
Problem is, all house prices go up so equity doesn't help much to 'move up', unless one considers moving to a cheaper area 'moving up'...
True, but not so simple. Moving up requires equity to cover selling costs of your current home and for buying a more expensive home. If you have good equity growth you can move up without a lot of liquid savings. If you have 0 equity growth then you will need to save up longer to move up. If you have equity decline you may not be able to move up at all.
That said, in California it is not a good idea to "move up". You lose your Prop 13 advantage, resetting property taxes to market prices. You are far better renovating and extending your home. If you have to move then it is better to rent out your home. If you have to sell, it is better to renovate and extend the home before selling to make it sell at a higher market price, covering more of your "move up" cost.
"The pending sales index was 109.4 on a seasonally adjusted basis. A reading of 100 corresponds to the average level of contract activity in 2001, or “historically healthy” home-buying traffic, according to the NAR."
Wouldn't purchase applications also be affected by the lack of supply? Also if the market has above average % cash buyers, doesn't this lower mortgage apps too? Can't buy a home with a mortgage if there's no home to buy with a mortgage.
Btw I just bought a house, so I'm about to transform from a perma housing bear mogwai, to a house cheerleading gremlin.
The average individual will live a happier life if they avoid debt.
Research had shown, if you are not yet wealthy but want to be someday, never purchase a home that requires a mortgage that is more than 2x your total annual income. Better yet, pay cash for it.
Here's a (true life) scenario:
Neighbor (A) bought a 3BR SFH in Bay Area Penninsula for $900k in 2012 with 20% down ($180k cash). He has PITI around $3500/mo, with $1400 of that for principal. The home is now worth $1.3M. He now has over $600k equity and $2100 monthly outflow for housing.
Neighbor (B) rented, and now has a rent of $4500 for the same kind of 3BR SFH. His $180k cash grew 30% (post-tax) in three years, now worth $235k.
(A) has over double the wealth, and half the cost for the same house, and the cost is going down over time. (A) will be able to buy a 2nd house faster than (B) will buy his 1st. When (B) does buy he'll be saddled with higher property taxes than (A) for the life of owning the home.
My research has shown, if you are not yet wealthy but want to be someday, you better have good timing when you purchase a home.
Example, I did a quick search for a similar sized house in the OP. Here is what $190K buys you here versus 3.4 Mil in Palo Alto:
Which mortgage do you want to pay??
Palo Alto is one of the more extreme examples in the Bay Area. People don't pay $3M to live in a tiny shack, it's just for the location. They pay $3M for the shack to knock it down at put up a fancy custom home.