patrick.net

rootvg says

If raising interest rates and cutting government spending are a recipe for Great Depression II, why didn't we have one in the mid to late eighties?

Well, you have to look at what was going on at the time. There is no single recipe that works all the time. The economic conditions of the mid to late 80s are vastly different than what is going on now. You agree, right?

Therefore the economic policies must be different.

rootvg says

If raising interest rates and cutting government spending are a recipe for Great Depression II, why didn't we have one in the mid to late eighties?

There was no cutting government spending in the mid to late 80s.

Edit: Another chart:

tatupu70 says

rootvg says

If raising interest rates and cutting government spending are a recipe for Great Depression II, why didn't we have one in the mid to late eighties?

Well, you have to look at what was going on at the time. There is no single recipe that works all the time. The economic conditions of the mid to late 80s are vastly different than what is going on now. You agree, right?

Therefore the economic policies must be different.

Volcker's actions between 1979 and 1983 set us up for the twenty year growth spurt that followed. Geez, everyone knows that.

I think we're going to get a new President and Congress and Fed chief who are going to do precisely the same thing. I think they have to.

thunderlips11 says

rootvg says

If raising interest rates and cutting government spending are a recipe for Great Depression II, why didn't we have one in the mid to late eighties?

Homo Economicus. Like Bigfoot, reported to exist in fantasy books, but never seen in the wild.

Here again, it's all about results. If you add up the number of years Republicans versus Democrats have served in the White House since World War II, I think you'll find Republicans come out very well.

Reagan's deficits were so bad because he had a Democratic House to deal with. That won't be a problem for the next guy. Paul Ryan is already meeting with various movers and shakers in both parties, on the sly. They know this president and this administration are dog shit. They can't come out and say it but his polls are what they are, and that means it's just over.

robertoaribas says

rootvg says

Volcker's actions between 1979 and 1983 set us up for the twenty year growth spurt that followed. Geez, everyone knows that.

rootvg: you really are the village idiot!

Volckers action was taken to stop spiraling inflation... It was not taken to 'spur growth' and in fact caused a nasty recession.

seriously, my dogs have a better grasp of economics than you do!

Volcker conspired with Reagan to stimulate the 1980-1982 recession to wring all the inflationary pressures out of the economy that had been hanging around since the late sixties when we had guns and butter. That allowed us to grow for twenty years afterward...and I think the next Fed chief (with the blessing of the White House) will do the same thing. He'll have to.

thunderlips11 says

There was no cutting government spending in the mid to late 80s.

Sort of depends as to what is meant by spending. Under Carter there were block grants to states given with no strings. When Reagan got in they had plenty.

What happens sometimes is that the federal government gives out funds but it can only be spent in that given way. So technically a federal plan might be so similar to a state or local plan but due to spending it crowds it out. It could be called cutting spending depending if you view government as different levels vs all together.

The labor participation rate is too low. We have more people than ever and a lower rate since the 1980s. Also, all women "need" to be working these days - most households are at least dual income.

We are potentially at the edge of a big change. We are certainly in a severe stagflation, with wages dropping and prices of food, gas and rent accelerating.

Its not going to end well. Enjoy every day and love life while you still have it.

Mick Russom says

The labor participation rate is too low. We have more people than ever and a lower rate since the 1980s.

I just read an interesting article about the labor participation rate and why it's lower now. The conclusion of a recent study was that the lower rate was due more to demographics (read older population) than long term unemployment. The authors further thought that the participation rate probably would not jump up as jobs came back and that the unemployment rate should drop faster than most expect.

Mick Russom says

The labor participation rate is too low. We have more people than ever and a lower rate since the 1980s. Also, all women "need" to be working these days - most households are at least dual income.

We are potentially at the edge of a big change. We are certainly in a severe stagflation, with wages dropping and prices of food, gas and rent accelerating.

Its not going to end well. Enjoy every day and love life while you still have it.

That depends. Economic conditions in the Rust Belt are much worse than they are in the Bay Area. They're not great here but they ARE better. DC is still vibrant due to all the government money sloshing around there.

Houston is positively nuts with the energy boom. When we left Texas in 2003, Austin didn't have any toll roads. Now it has (I think) three and they're building two more.

Dallas is on course to become another Los Angeles. I honestly believe The Metroplex will extend to the Oklahoma border within the next ten years. They're laying the infrastructure for it right now.

StoutFiles says

yes, there are jobs, but not at the same salary as they once were. That won't help the housing market

I love how we insouciantly write off this very serious question with, "glass half empty."

The media very disingenuously reports only one side of this issue: we added jobs. What kind of jobs? What are the recent trends in average income to compare with this job "recovery"? I'd be skeptical if they aren't talking about it, it must be because it's largely lower paying jobs.

Anybody have info out there? I can't find much to say either way.

Philistine says

Anybody have info out there? I can't find much to say either way.

Very simple. Try yourself getting into one of those highly paid positions and see what response you get. I bet more then likely you want face an interviewer.

Again with the Republican/Democrat argument? I'll solve the debate: they're both horrible. They also need each other, when people are tired of one failing they pick the other party hoping for better results. Both parties should be ousted.

StoutFiles says

Again with the Republican/Democrat argument? I'll solve the debate: they're both horrible. They also need each other, when people are tired of one failing they pick the other party hoping for better results. Both parties should be ousted.

It was always that way.

Have you ever wondered why there are two podiums in the House? Not one, not three...but two?

Washington hated parties and that's what it goes back to. The idea was to have two parties but close enough together that the country would always be basically headed in the same direction.

Bottom line, this isn't Europe. God Forbid that we turn into Britain or France. That's precisely what the Founders did NOT want.

This is also why I truly believe we're gonna be okay. It's the same people in charge, regardless...with a few exceptions during the last three years when we elected a thinly veiled rock thrower as President. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced he was put there to shepherd the bailouts. We gave him Bob Dole's health care plan from the nineties in return which the Supreme Court might throw out, doing our dirty work for us. They're good at stuff like that.

Nothing has changed in two hundred and thirty five years.

I started this thread because I believe we are at an infliction point and based on what I see today, the US economy has turned the corner. Isn’t that pretty good news for most American’s?

The February jobs report make that three solid reports in a row. There is no reason to believe March will not be better. Economic trends are very powerful. Just as firing leads to more firing, hiring trends have that same effect. The stock market has been screaming this all along.

There are two reasons why hiring is important, in addition to getting more people to work and contribute to the economy, it gets people who have already have jobs to feel safe about their jobs. Those how have wealth have more wealth. People who feared for their jobs in 2008 are now the same people who will no longer feel insecure about their jobs or may in fact demand raises and move to another company. It already happened in San Francisco/Silicon Valley as raises and bonus in 2011 are some of the highest in recent memories. 2012 will be an even better year for compensation.

All this really means is overall consumer confidence will be rising which leads to a little more spending and companies will be expanding thus have to hire more and pay a little more to retain what they have. Families who have been on the fence to buy a home will be off the fence to buy, in significant numbers which will move the market up. Seller’s will demand a little more or wait out their price a little more. That is already happening in the field level which will be reflected in the case shiller in about 3-4 months.

Here's what I know:

My contractor says he's getting busier.

The guy at the hardwood store says he's getting busier.

The lady at the carpet store says her guys are booked for the next month.

Those people don't have charts and graphs that came from some professor over at Berkeley but they're feeling better and they're making a little money again.

SFace says

I believe we are at an infliction point

We most definitely are at an infliction point:

dunnross says

The only solution is lower house prices.

Problem is lower home prices CREATES more debt! Because in order for homes to sell people have to sell at a loss, putting them in a bigger hole of debt. If Fannie or Freddie own the loan and the "owner" defaults, then YOU the taxpayer go into more debt.

Sure the new buyer will come in and have a smaller mortgage than they would otherwise, but you just transfer the debt load. It's not fixing anything.

There's a lot of bad unintended consequences to home prices falling dramatically from current levels. A better solution at this point is to concentrate on increasing wages. Just because it's "easier" to lower home prices doesn't mean it's better for our society. I would argue wages being stagnant for over a decade is the REAL problem.

Housing got way ahead of wages in 2003-2007, but now it's time to stop trying to squeeze blood from the turnip of the housing market and concentrate on ways to increase wages.

I would like to point out that many of the unemployment numbers cannot be relied upon at all.

When they increased the benefits from 6 months to 2 years that means there are a maximum of FOUR TIMES as many people on unemployment than previously possible.

I know if I got laid off I would milk the whole 2 years THEN start looking for work - you are crazy not to! (or you are broke and need the full income).

So if half the people on unemployment are like me (probably close to that) then the # is doubled. cant compare it to 'pre obama' numbers.

Wait did he mean inFLECtion point?

Philistine says

The media very disingenuously reports only one side of this issue: we added jobs. What kind of jobs?

Shitty jobs.

BoomAndBustCycle says

Problem is lower home prices CREATES more debt! Because in order for homes to sell people have to sell at a loss, putting them in a bigger hole of debt. If Fannie or Freddie own the loan and the "owner" defaults, then YOU the taxpayer go into more debt.

Wrong. Lower house prices reduces debt. Nobody sells at a loss these days. You just walk away. Walking away is the de-leveraging of debt. Higher house prices and lower interest rates increases debt, because new buyers are being convinced that it is OK to get into more debt, as long as their payments are low. This is how we got into this mess in the first place, and perpetuating it is only going to get us deeper into the hole. Now, if the owner "defaults", and there are no bailouts, the only one taking the loss is the bond holder, not the tax payer. So far, with all these bailouts, no bond holder has taken a loss, only the tax payer has. The gov't has done everything wrong leading up to the crises, and they are doing everything wrong to lead us out of it, by keeping the "hopium" debt spigot going. This policy will only delay the ultimate recovery. Welcome to Japan II.

BoomAndBustCycle says

Problem is lower home prices CREATES more debt!

Not for first time buyers.

dunnross says

Because in order for homes to sell people have to sell at a loss, putting them in a bigger hole of debt.

Also, even selling at a loss, doesn't increase debt. What increased debt was buying an overpriced house. Let's look at a hypothetical debt balance sheet when a distressed seller sells his house for a loss:

A debt B debt Total debt
A buys overpriced house for $1M putting 10% down +900K 900K
A sells house for $800K short-sale (takes $100K loss) -900K 0K
B buys house from A on short-sale for $800K with 20% down +640K 640K

As you can see, the sale of the house when the prices dropped 20% and stricter lending has resulted in a total debt reduction of close to 30% in debt.

wthrfrk80 says

Philistine says

The media very disingenuously reports only one side of this issue: we added jobs. What kind of jobs?

Shitty jobs.

dunnross says

Now, if the owner "defaults", and there are no bailouts, the only one taking the loss is the bond holder, not the tax payer.

"if there are no bailouts"... being the key sentence. If you think another big leg down in housing won't be followed by an equally large bailout, then so be it. I don't think the government has an option to stop the money spigot if the economy/housing takes a steeper downturn.

Where do most of the votes they need come from? Elderly Homeowners... They will cater government policy to them for another 20+ years.

Apple is adding thousands of jobs for Americans....in TEXAS where else?
They'll be making another post-apocalypse movie soon: "Escape from California".
Yeah, the weather here is nicer. We knew that.

BoomAndBustCycle says

Where do most of the votes they need come from? Elderly Homeowners...

Wrong.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-04/politics/exit.polls_1_exit-polls-obama-camp-john-mccain?_s=PM:POLITICS

clambo says

They'll be making another post-apocalypse movie soon: "Escape from California".

Starring Tony Manero as Apocalypsefuck.

The labor participation rate can change from a number of different factors.

1) Generational. As baby boomers retire they are less apt to need to work. Social security has penalties if you make too much money. So technically that doesn't really increase participation..it lowers it.

2) Technology. It isn't a bad thing but in some ways technology has replaced the concepts of doing certain tasks. 15 years ago I could find kodak fotomats in every town. Now it's replaced by a kiosk in a drug store or walmart. One reason why HP is doing bad is not many really print out photos anymore

bubblesitter says

Wrong.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-04/politics/exit.polls_1_exit-polls-obama-camp-john-mccain?_s=PM:POLITICS

All that said is the young voted for Obama.. The 18-24 year-old voter is still a minority compared to the boomer population.

The Obama vs. McCain vote wasn't the.. let housing prices fall vote vs. stop the bleeding vote.

And so far I don't think an Obama win will be bad at all for the housing market... He's not exactly Anti-Housing.

BoomAndBustCycle says

bubblesitter says

Wrong.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-04/politics/exit.polls_1_exit-polls-obama-camp-john-mccain?_s=PM:POLITICS

All that said is the young voted for Obama.. The 18-24 year-old voter is still a minority compared to the boomer population.

The Obama vs. McCain vote wasn't the.. let housing prices fall vote vs. stop the bleeding vote.

The 18-24 voters don't normally show up in huge numbers and they won't show up this time, either. ACORN is gone, George Soros' antics are out in the open now and Obama has a record to run on. Also, the average new graduate today is out of work. Engineering and sciences majors probably not so much but business and non-techs? For sure. A lot of Baby Boomers still have those jobs and they're not giving them up.

The race will be won or lost in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. It's always the same. Ohio has picked the winner since 1960 and there's no reason to believe it won't do so again this year. Ten years from now it may be different because it'll lose another one or two Electoral votes but that's eight years away.

clambo says

Apple is adding thousands of jobs for Americans....in TEXAS where else?
They'll be making another post-apocalypse movie soon: "Escape from California".
Yeah, the weather here is nicer. We knew that.

There is plenty of space in N. San Jose toFremont for Apple to occupy and hire, but certainly Texas gives them incentives to move jobs out of CA. R&D (Engineers). Accountants (CPAs), Financial an Planning Analysts (MBAs), and other operstions are in Texas.

Sources: Apple adds to Austin-area office space for Intrinsity chip unit, Aug. 4, 2010

Computer maker's lease of 55,000-square-foot building one of several local deals taking place, experts say

In one of the larger Austin-area office leases of the year, Apple Inc. will move its newly acquired Intrinsity chip-design unit into the Vista Ridge 2 office building on Southwest Austin's edge, according to sources familiar with the transaction.

Apple will lease 55,000 square feet, the entire building, which is near Capital of Texas Highway (Loop 360) and Lost Creek Boulevard. Intrinsity will move from about 20,000 square feet in Lake Pointe Center on Bee Cave Road.

The deal is one of several major lease deals in the local office market, which is seeing a number of companies quietly expand, including technology firms, local office brokers say.

Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Apple, said the company had no comment and did not respond to a subsequent e-mail the Cupertino, Calif.-based company's plans for expansion in Austin

In April, Apple confirmed that it had bought Intrinsity Inc., which at the time had 100 workers, many of them veteran chip designers. Industry analysts say Intrinsity designed key parts of a chip in Apple's iPad.

Apple had a significant presence in Austin before the Intrinsity acquisition, including customer service and accounting operations.

Apple doesn't provide information on its work force by location, Huguet said. Local tech industry observers estimate Apple employs more than 2,500 people in Central Texas.

Apple has more than 400,000 square feet of office space at Riata Crossing in Northwest Austin.

and nearly 2 years later...

March 9, 2012, 2:36 p.m. ET.Apple Plans To Double Texas Facilities, Invest $304 Million

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120309-712163.html

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--Apple Inc. (AAPL) plans to build a $304 million campus in Austin, Texas, doubling its presence there over the next decade.

The Cupertino, Calif., company said it will add 3,600 jobs in the next 10 years to its existing work force of 3,500 employees there. Apple said the move is part of a rapid expansion from 1,000 employees in 2004.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry's office said most of the jobs will be in sales, customer support and accounting for the area. In exchange, the state offered Apple a $21 million investment over 10 years through its business development efforts called the Texas Enterprise Fund.

"Apple is known for its bold innovation and game-changing designs, and the expansion of their Austin facility adds to the growing list of visionary high-tech companies that have found that Texas' economic climate is a perfect fit for their future," Perry said in a statement. "Investments like this further Texas' potential to become the nation's next high-tech hub."

Mean while back in Silicon Valley.. some still arent hearing it..

Fresh out of Texas U, you think they care their new job isnt in California ?

Smile everyone.. they are doing what could have been your job.

mdovell says

2) Technology. It isn't a bad thing but in some ways technology has replaced the concepts of doing certain tasks. 15 years ago I could find kodak fotomats in every town. Now it's replaced by a kiosk in a drug store or walmart. One reason why HP is doing bad is not many really print out photos anymore

A semiconductor or drive parts are and always have been made by machines for decades. It has always been impossible to create and test 1M+ circuits on a semi chip waffer (AMD, Intel,TI, Seimens, Toshiba etc). But what or who makes the machines which makes the semis mfg machines? No other machines..its all labor...Thats always been and will continue to me Man-Made.. From stepper to tester/prober machines (Applied, LAM, TEL, Varian, Siemens). Its not possible to automate such machine production.

thomas.wong1986 says

Mean while back in Silicon Valley.. some still arent hearing it..

Fresh out of Texas U, you think they care their new job isnt in California ?

Smile everyone.. they are doing what could have been your job.

The problem with Texas, especially for someone from California is the climate and then the culture. Austin is the most liberal major metro in Texas and there are a lot of relocated Californians already there but I suspect you'll find a lot of young kids going there, finding out it's too damn hot and too far away from the rest of the country and WAY too hot to stay there long term.

After the first year, I was sick every single day I lived there. If you're not raised around all that mold and cedar and God knows what else, the place won't work. You or your wife will end up with an auto immune disease you can't get rid of or (in our case) the allergist actually told me to get her the hell out of there as soon as I could. Six months after we moved to California, ninety percent of the symptoms went away and that's been ten years ago.

If you can go there as a new grad and keep your mouth shut about the backward fucking way they seem to do everything, you'll last long enough to build a resume and go somewhere nice. If you're a chronic bitcher or you can't keep from trying to sell those rednecks on how they do things elsewhere, forget it. Something bad will happen to you.

rootvg says

The problem with Texas, especially for someone from California is the climate and then the culture.

For many its not going to matter... if one candidate declines, there will be plenty others will accept. No different if it was IBM, Intel, Dell, HP or GE in any othe city or state outside of CA.

Typically, we only have 1000-2000 emloyees / per large employer working in the BA. for these large companies. Far many more are outside of the region. Those are the realities.

thomas.wong1986 says

rootvg says

The problem with Texas, especially for someone from California is the climate and then the culture.

For many its not going to matter... if one candidate declines, there will be plenty others will accept. No different if it was IBM, Intel, Dell, HP or GE in any othe city or state outside of CA.

Typically, we only have 1000-2000 emloyees working in the BA. for these large company. Far many more are outside of the region. Those are the realities.

It mattered for everyone I knew. Of all the people I worked with during the years we lived there, the only ones who stayed were those who couldn't go anywhere else because they had poor skills or grew up there.

It damn sure does matter. I was THERE. My politics are a better fit for Texas than California as I'm sure you've figured out by now but we were so sick so often than it didn't matter what kind of house we had. We lived in 2800 sq ft, solid brick, pool/spa in one of the nicest neighborhoods in Plano. The guy next door was a manufacturer's rep and the guy in back was a retired SVP of HR for Travelers Insurance and later Citibank. Anyone who made over $100K yearly salary and needed to be gotten rid of ended up being fired by him. He was a traveling HR manager and scalp hunter. You should have seen the inside of that guy's house. He must have made a ton of money over the years. He bought a new Cadillac and Corvette every three years. That right there told me he came from finance.

rootvg says

It mattered for everyone I knew.

AMD had a several thousand located in California back in late 80s. Today, around 700.. the rest 10,000+ of the headcount is in Austin and other parts of the globe. Symantec has under 1500 in SFBA, while the rest of the 17,000 is outside. For many outside of CA there isnt any issues. They are all too glad to have SV Tech jobs and live in much lower cost regions.

thomas.wong1986 says

SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--Apple Inc. (AAPL) plans to build a $304 million campus in Austin, Texas, doubling its presence there over the next decade.
The Cupertino, Calif., company said it will add 3,600 jobs in the next 10 years to its existing work force of 3,500 employees there. Apple said the move is part of a rapid expansion from 1,000 employees in 2004.

If we only had in the SFBA home prices same or somewhat close to Texas home prices, and a favorable business enviroment, oh the jobs we could grow in the Bay Area. Just think about it...heck even cheap homes in Modesto sounds good about now...

Anyone want to discuss "Fortress" prices, the weather, the eco system, which will feed home prices and keep your jobs here.... keep praying!