patrick.net

Rin says

Here's one more Debbie Downer on the next generation.

One of the brighter young adults I'd known in some time ... you know, the type with a 140 IQ/photogenic memory, wins essay contests, and all that jazz, well recently, he's disclosed his dream in life and that's to blog about Boston sports teams.

I mean WTF?! I do that on my free time and sometimes, even on the job.

Sure, he's not in the pipeline for the entry level management consulting (MC) or investment banking (IB) careers, like others with his academic accolades, but really, that doesn't qualify in my book as an aspiration in life.

So what's with this crowd? The guys with grades want to work for MC/IB or the Facebook/Google fluff 'net crowd. And if they're not in line for the fake monied careers, they opt to become another slacker.

Much of the over 30 crowd in the late 60s felt the same way about these kids:

Most of them got their shit together eventually.

Reality says

Was E32 750 really 4400lbs? Is that with passengers? Did the extra bank of 6-cyl bring another 1000lbs? I had an E28 5 series for many years, and it was only 2850lbs, about the same weight as the Z3 roadster that I leased for an employee in the late 1990's.

Don't know never ran mine (iL with the extra 5 inches) over the scale, I've seen numbers from 1850 to 1990 kg so best bet low 4000 somewhere. Lots of duals with the 5.0. Maf, computers, intakes, batteries, ac, etc.. The 850 weighed right around 4000 and it was much smaller.

100% of those 65 to 150 years of age are rotting in nursing homes.

Except me of course.

Their children returned the favored back to their "parents" when they kicked them out after turning 18.

New Renter says

From the NHTSA:

Air bags are the NHTSA's baby, lots of paper pushers jobs depend on "proving" air bags saving lives. Gee I wonder what the NHTSA would say?

Over half the cars in 2002 had airbags yet the number of people killed PER YEAR was about the same as 1994 when almost no cars had airbags. What don't you understand about the math involved in this? I put up the wrong ilnk before www.scienceservingsociety.com/p/155.pdf

I've seen these sorts of reports before. Last time I looked we don't live in China, Hong Kong, France, or Japan. We live in the US and as such the price of housing is seriously unaffordable when compared to the local median incomes. That's all that matters and has zilch to do with what's happening in Mumbai...

This country was founded by people fleeing EVERYWHERE ELSE. To come to the US to stake your claim, and enjoy freedom and actual affordable housing. Its worth less than shit to compare US housing prices, to housing prices for the rest of the world, if one is hoping to demonstrate affodability

Your statist addled mind is trapped in the death - or - oogoo paradox

tatupu70 says

My lord. I don't know how many ways to explain this.

Just one would do. I'm still waiting for you to even explain it once.

tatupu70 says

1--the movement doesn't only occur at the upper reaches. Look at post 4 from BAO. Did it only occur at the upper reaches in 1929?

My god are you ever thick. That's EXACTLY my point. Movement occurred over MUCH MORE of the range of the index in 1929 than it does NOW. NOW, it only moves at the upper reaches. Jesus Christ - how many fucking times do I have to say this??????????????????

This is what's so goddam annoying about you, Tat. YOU DON'T LISTEN! You only argue against strawmen.

tatupu70 says

2--If you want to compare stock indices over two time periods to see if they are behaving similarly, then you should use percentages. That's the best way to normalize gains/losses. The goal is to see how the value of an investment has changed over a time period, and percentages tell that story.

For the fifth time, that is what you SAY. I am saying I don't see the evidence for that being true. You do understand that simply SAYING something doesn't render it automatically true, don't you?

Perhaps it is true, but you have yet to demonstrate to me that it is.

tatupu70 says

3. You obviously use the entire index value because you are comparing to a set starting point. You want to see the change from that index starting point value.

The "starting point" would be zero, if you are using a percentage of the entire index value. My point is that zero is not in play. In the early 20th Century, the index fell down below 50. That has NEVER happened again. Why are you measuring movement on a scale from some fictional zero starting point that is for all practical purposes non-existent?

Look, if you think I'm wrong, just explain why. Don't explain why some strawman you made up is wrong, explain why *I* am wrong on THIS PARTICULAR POINT. I am perfectly willing to listen to your explanation; I just haven't heard one yet.

This is not "simple" at all. It may seem so to a simple mind like yours, but that is only because you haven't thought things through.

Many of those foreign cities are in their own speculative bubble, and in many 3rd world cases it's their virgin real estate bubble aided by low carry cost (no property tax), so yeah going a little crazy over there is par for the course.

By the way, just so we're clear, I don't believe in the "scary chart". I do think the stock market is due for a correction event, but not necessarily as dramatic as the 1929 crash. Some of you seem to be trying to argue against a correction happening by minimizing the movement with this "percentage" metric. All I'm asking is that you explain how this is a valid tactic.

Reality says

He may not be as silly in his decision as you think. If his talent is in content generation ("wins essay contests"), he may well be able to sell his popular blog in bits (via ad stream) or in whole for more money than punching in time every day at FB/Google.

If there weren't already, 3-5+ blogs per Boston team, I'd agree with you.
Most of the folks, who hang out in the Boston sports internet lounges are like PatNet, they have a real job out there, and then, this fantasy land of speculating about trade rumors, player injuries, whether or not Paul Pierce or Tom Brady are as good as Carmelo Anthony or Peyton Manning, are all pastimes.

New Renter says

Most of them got their shit together eventually.

From what I'd heard from the *Summer of Love* gang is that many, already had entry level tracks ready for them, between '64 and '69, by virtue of having a college degree. This "color of parachute" phenomena started after Nixon/Ford's stagflation, when all of the sudden, there were too many BA holders for starting jobs at let's say Prudential Insurance or Polaroid. Thus, getting *it together* was simply a matter of cutting one's hair and applying for a job, as in a bank loan officer, if one doesn't have any special talent or experience.

In addition, the cultural gap between the WWII gen and the Hippies were Glenn Miller (or Big Band) vs Rock 'n Roll. That's a rather large shift in general cultural tastes. How many kids would want to live in a parent's household, listening to that ancient stuff all day?

In contrast, today's kids, who're not gung-ho about competing for internship/CO-OPs, are more likely to become Boomerbang kids, while at the same time, they listen to Kurt Cobain with their parents. There's not much incentive to move out of the old basement.

My eyes are all the way open.

Sorry that you are such a victim of your own actions. I rather enjoy this country, you choose to be miserable

Tim Aurora says

You absolutely have no idea what seriously unaffordable means. Try living in Tokoyo or Mumbai or Shanghai

or NY, SF, or LA.

Tim Aurora says

You absolutely have no idea what seriously unaffordable means. Try living in Tokoyo or Mumbai or Shanghai

They find what they can afford...
People in the US have different expectations.

"Do not complain all the time."

You should have listened to edvard before he bought a house in spring 2012. He was constantly whining and bitching about real estate in the Bay Area, and how he was going to save money and moving out of here, blah blah blah. Before he bought a house here, he talked up Austin, TX and some other cities. Now, he's trashing Austin every time someone brought it up as the next Silicon Valley, etc.

Had he missed the bottom of the housing market, he would have whined and bitched even more. This guy hasn't lived oversea so he doesn't appreciate how cheap real estate in the Bay Area compared to other 1st world countries. This is not bad at all so bear with him.

"..US is one of the most affordable places in the world."

Well of course if buyers are willing to allow sellers to make a larger profit, commissioned salespeople to make larger commissions & mortgage holders to make more interest on larger loan amounts.

Great business model for buyers.

Homeboy says

My god are you ever thick. That's EXACTLY my point. Movement occurred over MUCH MORE of the range of the index in 1929 than it does NOW. NOW, it only moves at the upper reaches. Jesus Christ - how many fucking times do I have to say this??????????????????

This is what's so goddam annoying about you, Tat. YOU DON'T LISTEN! You only argue against strawmen.

My lord. I've listened and patiently explained everything to you. And, as usual, you fly off the handle.

OK--here goes. You are 100% incorrect that there is less movement today than in the past. Volatility is increasing, not decreasing.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/580701-are-stock-markets-becoming-more-volatile

One only has to look at the Nasdaq in 2000 to prove it. It decreased from 4572 to 1172 in a few years. Is that only moving at the "upper reaches"?

http://finance.yahoo.com/charts?s=%5EIXIC#symbol=^ixic;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=;

Homeboy says

For the fifth time, that is what you SAY. I am saying I don't see the evidence for that being true. You do understand that simply SAYING something doesn't render it automatically true, don't you?

Perhaps it is true, but you have yet to demonstrate to me that it is.

What exactly are you looking for? I've showed that percentages allow you to know exactly how your investment performed. If your investment went up 3%, you are 3% richer. If it went down 3%, you are 3% poorer. Percentages allow you to compare apples to apples
Homeboy says

The "starting point" would be zero, if you are using a percentage of the entire index value

The index was never at zero--it started at 62.76. So, zero would never be a starting point.

Homeboy says

Look, if you think I'm wrong, just explain why. Don't explain why some strawman you made up is wrong, explain why *I* am wrong on THIS PARTICULAR POINT. I am perfectly willing to listen to your explanation; I just haven't heard one yet.

This is not "simple" at all. It may seem so to a simple mind like yours, but that is only because you haven't thought things through.

I'm still not sure what you are trying to say. One the OP, the starting point is July 2012. If you want to look at the whole life of the index the starting point is May 26, 1896. Whatever starting point you pick, you measure the % gain (or loss) vs. that point. That is how you normalize the gains from different time periods or from different stocks, or different indices.

And if you want to see how much more valuable an index has become--percentages tell that story. If the stock or index is up 3%, owners have gained 3%.

No offense--but it is simple.

E-man says

This guy hasn't lived oversea so he doesn't appreciate how cheap real estate in the Bay Area compared to other 1st world countries. This is not bad at all so bear with him

I've lived overseas a lot. Which 1st world countries are you talking about that makes BA real estate look cheap?

Tim Aurora says

You do not have to live in SF. Move out to Atlanta, Charlotte or Austin. Nice warm weather, good winters and a mighty big yard.

Warm but humid. Great BBQ though.

tts says

That is why those charts showing productivity increasing while wages stagnate are so important. Proof positive that working harder and "taking responsibility" are anything but economic cure alls:

That is a national average BTW. There is nowhere to move to in the US that allows you to avoid the reality that chart shows.

Exactly the problem. I know it's long, but worth the time: http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/ethos/ I like that it offers a solution.

Tim Aurora says

You do not have to live in SF. Move out to Atlanta, Charlotte or Austin. Nice warm weather, good winters and a mighty big yard.

E-man says

You should have listened to edvard before he bought a house in spring 2012. He was constantly whining and bitching about real estate in the Bay Area, and how he was going to save money and moving out of here, blah blah blah. Before he bought a house here, he talked up Austin, TX and some other cities. Now, he's trashing Austin every time someone brought it up as the next Silicon Valley, etc.

Let me help correct some of your assertions. Yes, I'm not going to deny that back in the day I bitched a lot about Bay Area real estate. But I'm going to give you some more details so next time you might not feel compelled to mis-paraphrase.

First of all, the housing market sucked back then. I mean really sucked. Any house at all was around 600k+ in my area or more. If you threw in interest rates at that time, there was zilch affordability. Back then it made absolutely no sense to buy and it was ridiculous given the rather decent income I make. So for starters, the market was TOTALLY different than today's even though we're now back in a new bubble that seems to be tracking the same as the previous.

Yes- Austin, Raleigh, and a few others were on that list as possible relocation cities. I spent about a year making some aggressive efforts to land a job in Austin. I even visited it a few times. Yes- Austin is nice. The food is great. The people ere awesome. Overall I liked it. But the job situation was not ideal and the pay was not fantastic. I also found that real estate wasn't exactly cheap if you added in their high property taxes. So it made less sense when I went through that experience. I don't "Trash" Austin. I simply explain my experiences having actually gone there and seen what the deal is.

At about that same time interest rates fell dramatically, we had a lot of savings, and at one point the rates dropped so low that the cost of a mortgage on a decent house actually had parity with our rent. Then it made sense to buy and thus we did.

It would say that in hind site it was maybe one of the best financial decisions we made. But that outcome wasn't planned nor do I count on the home's appreciation for my financial well-being. I'm also not saying that moving elsewhere someday isn't out of the question either because while I like the Bay Area, certain aspects of its hurried lifestyle is a pain in the ass.

But to conclude, yes- I like many people bitched about BA real estate but it was because the housing market was totally insane and when it makes no mathematical sense it can be outright frustrating.

Tim Aurora says

So, you had a choice and I bet many others like you do too. But the reason the property prices and rents are so high in San Fransisco is exactly for that reason. ( and of course the weather is nice too). It has high paying jobs which no other place in the world has.

So either live with it or move out. It is not that people do not have an option

I've been here long enough to say that there isn't a defined reason why the Bay Area is as expensive as it is. Its a number of factors. The takeaway for me after having gone through the dot-com crash, the housing bubble and crash, the recession and the new housing bubble we're in is that its a crap shoot. Its all about a very narrow window of opportunity before things start to suck again. Had we not bought when we did, we would probably have vacated because who knows how long this bubble will last?

curious2 says

but mainly the issue was about domestic politics incluuding specifically the intentions of the Democratic party as shown by their actions which speak louder than words.

I think you made a good point earlier about how the health care law passed on party lines, so the anger should really be focused on the Dems that refused to support some of the better options rather than on the Republicans.

I just didn't understand why you chose to pick a fight with the definition of 1st world or difference between universal health care and single payer.

For a while I was proud to call curious2 my very own personal troll, he would follow me around saying stupid shit about me because of this one time when I had little tolerance for his stupidity.

He's sure to chime in as a response to this about what a fool I am for using the ignore feature to not see 99% of his posts, but occasionally read one that references me from the front page.

PErhaps he's becoming your very own troll now.

I would think of it as flattering, that he's so interested in you.

marcus says

For a while I was proud to call curious2 my very own personal troll, he would follow me around saying stupid shit about me because of this one time when I had little tolerance for his stupidity.

Wait, curious george is my personal troll I thought. How many people does he follow around? Very creepy.

Lol not one word of this thread has made any sort of a logical argument as to why US housing prices should be compared to prices in socialist shitholes.

edvard2 says

the new housing bubble we're in is that its a crap shoot. Its all about a very narrow window of opportunity before things start to suck again. Had we not bought when we did, we would probably have vacated because who knows how long this bubble will last?

Exactly. We also don't know when it sucks again, whether the bottom would be higher or lower than today.

tatupu70 says

My lord. I've listened and patiently explained everything to you.

Nope. Not at all. Everything you have "explained" is already patently obvious, and you have explained NOTHING I asked you to explain.

tatupu70 says

One only has to look at the Nasdaq in 2000 to prove it

Are we talking about the NASDAQ?

tatupu70 says

Whatever starting point you pick, you measure the % gain (or loss) vs. that point.

Percent of what?

Comparing the DJIA of today versus even 30 years ago is meaningless. It used to consist of "industrial" stocks, you know, MAKING MONEY in America. Alcoa, US Steel, etc.

Now, many of the companies in the index are service and marketing companies. Home Depot comes to mind. The higher the dow, the more foreign goods these companies are churning, driving the numbers up, but the underlying economic activity in the USA is less skilled and paid American workers moving and selling the stuff, and a small number of CEO and investor class people actually collecting an increasing profit from it.

As for the chart comparison 1929 to now, what are we supposed to compare here? One could call two huge bear traps on the current chart, if we are ONLY to consider the graph Homeboy posted, out of every other context.

Homeboy says

Nope. Not at all. Everything you have "explained" is already patently obvious, and you have explained NOTHING I asked you to explain.

It is patently obvious--I agree. That's why I'm having so much trouble understanding what you don't get.

Homeboy says

Are we talking about the NASDAQ?

lol--you're kidding, right? So, your contention is that the DJIA only moves in the "upper reaches" but the Nasdaq isn't so constrained?

Homeboy says

tatupu70 says

Whatever starting point you pick, you measure the % gain (or loss) vs. that point.

Percent of what?

% Gain or Loss in the index. I think you're just trolling at this point, so I'll be done now.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

There is no reason at all that an abandoned ranch house in Detroit should not cost at least as much as a townhouse in Kensington. Get real!

I would think more. Much more.

Tim Aurora says

But get this, Santa Barbara is 3 times more affordable than Beijing, Shanghai and Mumbai.

So you expect actors from Bollywood to be moving to SoCal soon?

I guess its news to Realtors in the USA BRIC nations economies are booming...

Tim Aurora says

Also, this is the reason why Chindians are buying property in US

no...more like they might be hiding embezzled government funds. and they wrongly believe they will get away with it. Or another question is how do you allow a member of the Communist Party own US property since they are not allowed to entry and hold residence this country.

Tim Aurora says

But the reason the property prices and rents are so high in San Fransisco is exactly for that reason. ( and of course the weather is nice too). It has high paying jobs which no other place in the world has.

Once you get into Tech, you find your not the only kid on the block and Tech employers are global with distributed workforce... which we compete and sometimes loose to DRAM Business is all Japanese control... it was otherwise only true in the 80s we had all our workforce locally, the number of employers and employees is shrinking...

ah the weather... or the other side of the coin... lack of water ! While it may be true the East is suffering a cold blizzard... they are getting far more rain and water which we (CA) could do with...

Bob, if you aren't merely a toxoplasmotic troll, why can't you answer my question, i.e. why can't you produce any evidence to support your false accusation? And what impelled you to comment on this thread, which was about domestic politics, when your only comments have been to troll me, without even attempting relevance to the OP? Surely a healthy person with the intellect you claim to possess could think of something better to do - go find a cure for cancer or something if your t. gondii will allow you a break from swimming with sharks and driving sidewise at 80mph and trolling for fights all over the world.

Perhaps there is a lesson about the OP after all. With the preponderance of fight clubs, voter allegiances fall along the divide and misrule lines of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Of the hundreds of PatNet users, less than 1% troll me, and they don't even agree among themselves about much if anything else. Yet, in what's left of their infected and decaying minds, they are "everyone". (To quote their patron saint, "My name is Legion: for we are many.") The moment I make the mistake of indulging one of them, the gang's all here, like junkies hoping for their fix. The Republicans are having a civil war about whom they hate most, and the "Texan" Cruz is their Bob, who also boasts of having real estate in Texas. The lucky "winner" will be allowed to join them at their fight club convention, until such time as they decide they hate him more.

mell says

tr6 says

mell says

I suspect the dollar will continue to weaken as they can't stop printing in order to keep the market at these levels and gold will rise.

Dollar is hitting records against some EM currencies. If liquidity is removed by taper, dollar might continue getting stronger.

On full taper towards zero I can see that happening, also likely any short maket bloodbaths will strengthen the dollar. But I cannot see it gaining significant strength against the EUR, I think while rangebound for now the EURUSD will eventually go to 1.40+.

We crossed 1.37 in the EURUSD. Dollar down and gold up - keep printing, piling on debt and burning the country down.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/asian-stocks-steady-dollar-wobbles-001354042.html

Gold is viewed as a safe haven particularly when the dollar was sinking back in 2005 - 2007. Look at how well GLD did since 2004. When it became overbought then investors dumped it, as its annual rate of return was average 20% per year. I believe it is a good buy when its 10 year average annual rate of return is within the range of 8 to 12%.

Looking at VGPMX (Vanguard Gold and Precious Metals Fund) with the annual rate calculator on buyupside.com, the average annual return for this fund is

8.36% from 1987 to 2014
14.69% from 2001 to 2014

I choose 2001 because that is when the Federal Reserve loose monetary policies started. One could reasonably assert that the stock market gains leading up to the peaks in 2007 and possible 2014 were due primarily to Federal Reserve policies. I heard about 4 months ago on CNBC a panel saying that 1/2 of the stock market gain is due to the Fed policies.

Any comments about this ?

I never thought gold could correct anywhere significantly below $1300. It definitely has been weaker than I thought with briefly breaching $1200, but now that the Fed is caught with their pants down printing into oblivion gold has resumed its uptrend and the dollar is in the toilet, with the EURUSD heading towards $1.38 as we discuss. Way to ru(i)n an economy ;)

Tim Aurora says

And Atlanta, a flourishing city with job is one of most affordable places in the world. Go look for yourself.

have you been to Atlanta? I went a lot when I lived in the region. It sucked back then. It sucks even more now. Go visit and get back to us...

Tim Aurora says

I live here in Atlanta and love it. Lush and Green. Good weather, snows once in a while. Good Airport, close to the hills .

And best of all lot of tech and finance jobs.

The freeway system there is a nightmare. I just always felt that Atlanta was basically like a Southern version of LA without any of the positives and all the negatives. Its problem is that it grew too fast and all of the residential areas were built way outside of the city. I remember whenever we went to the beach and had to drive through ATL everyone in the car had to be quite as Dad drove through it on the 12 lane freeways. Even here in the Bay Area, the traffic is never as bad as ATL. Not by a long shot.