We can thank fucktard Bush and the Republican-supported corporate oligopoly for this. Remember the economic implosion of 2007-2008? Obama wasn't in office yet. Why anyone would support a party that wants to make everyone poor except corporate executives still baffles me. Is it the false hope they spread that one day, maybe you too will be one of the elite and benefit from their policies?
The answer is to punish parents in some way for raising delinquents. This will help Hispanics as well, who tend to pop out 10 kids and let them roam wild and join gangs.
I am totally on board with increasing capital gains, but he should make the limit higher than $500k/yr and should make the limit related to cost of living in an area.
Half of Los Angeles is also Hispanic. Coincidence? No. Hispanics tend to crowd many adults into one house or apartment.
Everyone knows the rich are getting richer at the expense of everyone else. Yet the Republicans, the biggest panderers to the rich, just took control of Congress. America is fucked (unless you're rich).
It is easier for a politician, either Democratic or Republican, to cajole 1 rich guy swimming in disposable income for donations than 100 middle class folks who increasingly have trouble covering their bills. This is why the trend will continue no matter who is elected, unless laws change to remove the incentive to cater to the rich. Politicians will continue to distract from this by grandstanding about abortion and gay marriage, things that affect people's day to day life much less than the massive income gap and disappearing middle class.
Government pensions should either be eliminated or given to all citizens. What makes government workers so special that they deserve a pension and others do not? It used to be they would get crap pay in return for sweet benefits, but now their salaries are comparable.
No, they should micro trade stocks and TRULY contribute to the economy.
Correction to your title: "U.S. is so over owner-occupied homeownership". Unless it is government run housing, someone will own the property, generally corporations and the wealthy. To me, this is not a good thing no matter how you try to spin it.
BTW, the rent control proposal was shot down by the San Mateo city council shortly after it was presented. I'm sure it will rear it's ugly head again and in other cities.
Interestingly, this San Mateo study is spearheaded by the immigrant community there, who are getting priced out of the more ghetto areas by gentrification. Why the hell would San Mateo want to stop gentrification of these areas? Do they really want higher crime, higher welfare costs, worse schools, and lower property values (with less tax revenue)?
Were you smoking weed when you posted this?
Types like homeboy make it impossible to discuss racial issues. If you bring up facts like blacks and hispanics commit more crime, African and Latin countries are mostly third world, and so on, they storm off like babies having a tantrum. We are just supposed to drink the KoolAid that race has nothing to do with anything.
Chinese buy in Oakland to become slumlords or to bet on the housing bubble, not to live there. API scores are way too low in Oakland for Chinese, we are talking schools scoring mostly 1/10. Property values will plummet next downturn as a result, as happened last time.
John Bailo, it is quite easy for you, living in your all white fortress, to spout on about the wonders of black neighborhoods, as you have no worry of having to experience living in one. If you were living in East Oakland, you would be singing a different tune.
I posted something about Oakland side-shows a few months ago. I would not live in a community where this happens. There were a few people who were pro-Oakland and not fans of the post.
Yes, the Oakland shills (like Carolyn C) are quite vocal online, desperately trying to boost their property values so they can unload and get the hell out. The SF forum on city-data.com is actually moderated by an Oakland shill and you are not allowed to post anything negative about Oakland on that forum or you will be banned. I see they are starting to infect this site too, perhaps emboldened, but fortunately Patrick allows rebuttal.
In response to the article posted...
It's valid point and it's true only if economy in general is doing well and people have jobs.
It is pretty unlikely to have stagflation. In the 70's, it was a unique combination of events that caused it (oil embargo combined with the fall of the gold standard). If the economy remains sluggish, rates probably won't go up much.
Rates usually go up during periods of high inflation. Under high inflation, houses become a more attractive place to put money as property has intrinsic value that rises with inflation. Also, high rates discourage those locked into a low fixed rate mortgage from selling.
What about the kids that have to go to and from school through the alley. What kind of danger will the kids be exposed. Just so a couple of self absorbed pigs can feel elevated. Discusting!
Oh god, playing the "poor innocent children" card. If a woman is poor, gets knocked up, and has a baby, that is her problem. It doesn't give her the right to a penthouse suite in Trump Tower.
Why should people care about the stock market? Stock prices are based on little more than computerized micro-trades and/or irrational speculation. Implement a rule where you must hold a stock for one day before selling and maybe the market will return to being a reflection of fundamentals a bit more. This will never happen, of course, because the criminals on Wall St. who own the politicians would no longer be able to manipulate the market for their gain as easily.
What a dumb article. "Economic segregation"? LOL. What will the author of this want next, free Ferraris for the poor?
Buying in Oakland is a risky proposition - values plummeted there much more during the downturn than other parts of the Bay Area, so expect a repeat next time around. Not to mention you have to put up with the crime, terrible schools, lack of police, etc, etc.
From an owner-occupier point of view, I think the answer depends on where you think rents are headed. As it stands, the insane prices are matched by insane rents (at least on the SF Peninsula). The cost of renting and the cost of buying are pretty evenly matched at the moment.
I was renting a 2 bedroom place 2 years ago for $1700/mo. Now it is going for $3500/mo., more than double. The price to rent it has gone up more than the price to buy it in the past few years, thus it is actually a better deal to buy it now than before. However, if rents plummet then you lose if you buy.
Summary of the video - it is much better for EPA to be a gang-infested ghetto than to have techies move in and gentrify the place. And why did they interview a black person, is it to play into the big bad whities oppressing the blacks theme that has been shoved down our throats for the past decades? EPA is 70% Mexican, mostly illegals, perhaps that is a less sympathetic angle.