patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,249,735 comments by 14,902 users - Ceffer, The_Deplorable online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 24 - 45 of 45 Search these comments
I went to Yellowstone and hiking in Grand Teton, but kept thinking there is no comparison to Yosemite and Tahoe.
You've obviously never made it to Oregon then.
rufita11
2013 Jul 25, 8:39am
I went to Yellowstone and hiking in Grand Teton, but kept thinking there is no comparison to Yosemite and Tahoe.
You've obviously never made it to Oregon then.
Been to Oregon quite a bit actually. I especially liked Eugene because it reminded me of Berkeley. But, I have never been to Crater Lake, which is still on my list of things to do in the next two years.
Vallejo, Benicia, San Pablo, Richmond, west Oakland, Hayward, Fairfield, Manteca. Vallejo homes are very affordable but it does look economically depressed. And I am not sure what the future holds for that community. Looking for communities with the most appreciation potential to sell at a later date. Any advice will be appreciated.
when were anyone of these cities NOT economically depressed ?
The future is the past.. what was it like in the 90s, 80s 70s ???
How long should one wait for the price to fall again? 3, 5 or 10 years?
Waiting for the next downturn?
What makes you guys think you will be able to recognize the next bottom when you completely missed the meltdown.
FIrst of all, there was no complete melt down. There was a correction from a HUGE bubble. Meltdown? really? Secondly, I dont think people are saying they want to buy at the bottom, they just are not willing to buy at inflated prices, which are two completely separate things.
when were anyone of these cities NOT economically depressed ?
I have not been in the area that long to know what is was like for those cities during the 70s & 80s. I do believe that the economic condidtion of neighborhoods change from time to time. So if you have any helpful suggestion it would be appreciated. If you are just going to talk doom and gloom then you can keep your advise to yourself.
How long should one wait for the price to fall again? 3, 5 or 10 years?
Waiting for the next downturn?
What makes you guys think you will be able to recognize the next bottom when you completely missed the meltdown.
FIrst of all, there was no complete melt down. There was a correction from a HUGE bubble. Meltdown? really? Secondly, I dont think people are saying they want to buy at the bottom, they just are not willing to buy at inflated prices, which are two completely separate things.
Will the Bay Area ever be a place to purchase a home at non inflated prices? I do not think so simply because the Bay Area is an employment hub. I could see that being the case if it were the central valley or Texas. It just my opinion. If it were my way all homes would be free.
Will the Bay Area ever be a place to purchase a home at non inflated prices? I do not think so simply because the Bay Area is an employment hub. I could see that being the case if it were the central valley or Texas. It just my opinion. If it were my way all homes would be free.
Its more of a HQ hub but majority of hiring is outside of Bay Area. Intel, HP, Cisco, etc etc all hire more and have larger operations outside of SFBA. My former employer who had 10,000s of employes in Santa Clara is now based in Austin.
Apple is expanding to include 3000 employees in Austin. Seagate has massive R&D in Minnesota.. yet its local HQ is much smaller.
Its too expensive to hire in SFBA.. it was not the case pre1998. It was much more reasonable...
Vallejo homes are very affordable but it does look economically depressed.
Bankruptcy will do that.
The poor bastards who lived in Dickensian England didn't have access to millions of firearms and instant information subsystems like the Internet and cellular communications. Why do you think people in the Middle East are rioting? They're not gonna sit there and take it up the ass while Keynesians like you drive up food prices into the stratosphere.
curious2
2013 Jul 25, 5:57pm
talk to me how prices tanked from 1988 to mid 90s...you keep getting this delusional idea that bubble prices are somehow legitimate...
For the first half of American history so far, periods of inflation and deflation tended to offset each other, resulting in stable prices. That isn't the case anymore.
In the century prior to the Fed, prices actually fell slightly, due to increases in productivity and confidence in the USD. In the century since the Fed began promoting a stable currency, the USD has lost more than 95% of its value. The $ creators at the Fed have decided to prop up housing prices, "easing" vast quantities of $$$ into the SFBA market. Therefore, housing prices increased.
It isn't a question of legitimacy, it's a matter of data. If the people creating the USD decide to use that power to prop up the price of something else instead, that other thing will get propped up. If the Fed decided to prop up the price of rag dolls, then rag dolls would be a safer investment than the USD. I don't believe their propaganda about this being good for the economy; houses aren't intrinsically a better store of value than rag dolls would be, but I don't blind myself to the data.
On top of that, you are continuing your historical ignorance. The coal mine owners of the 19th century were not "Robber Barons"; none of them had the market power like industrialists of the new and rising industries of the time like Steel making and oil. That's the reason why some of them tried to cut cost by hiring child labor. Child labor was socially frowned upon long before the laws came along. You don't see the real Robber Barons with high margins hiring child labor.
Historical ignorance? Really?
Child labor was common until WWI, the gilded age started in 1870. The FIRST child labor law was passed in 1916. Go look up the pictures made by people like Lewis Hines who did a lot of documentation on child labor in the early 1900's. There is a wealth of photographic history that clearly shows children, some as young at 8, working in almost every industry all over the country. Working, not picking up coal or searching for scraps.
Mr History, perhaps you were not aware, but many of the industries of the gilded age were vertical monopolies. Carnegie for example owned the steel mills, coke and coal properties, iron ore properties, a fleet of steamers on the Great Lakes to move coke/coal/ore, a port town on Lake Erie, and a connecting railroad. So in fact frequently the "coal mine owners" WERE the robber barons.
Child labor is still common today for exactly the same reasons as the gilded age. Generating high profits by paying wages so low every family member has to work to survive. It's just been off shored.
Not deliberately after he became a rich "Robber Baron.
Vote for the most silly statement of the year. Carnegie wasn't involved in hiring of any type as the owner of huge industries. Or in operations. That's like saying Nike didn't "deliberately" use child labor because they didn't know who the subcontractors hired.
Please feel free to produce some documentation that Carnegie had a policy of no child labor in the industries he owned.
Vote for the most silly statement of the year. Carnegie wasn't involved in hiring of any type as the owner of huge industries. Or in operations. That's like saying Nike didn't "deliberately" use child labor because they didn't know who the subcontractors hired.
That's just reality on the ground. The US Navy and Army signed up many recruits who falsified their age during WWII. Do you consider the army and navy as gross violators of child labor laws?
Please feel free to produce some documentation that Carnegie had a policy of no child labor in the industries he owned.
The fact that they were on the leading edge for adopting mechanical coal breakers spoke more loudly than any paper policy.
SJ
2013 Jul 27, 2:49am
I have come to exactly the same conclusion! With a high six figure income, I maxxed out 401k already but cannot stomach paying most of my paycheck for house in the RBA. Looking at Sacramento and commuting 1-2x a week instead when my lease expires next summer. At least I will own a place and have more room than my cramped 1 BR apartment for same or less money!
rooemoore
2013 Jul 27, 4:55am
With a high six figure income, I maxxed out 401k already but cannot stomach paying most of my paycheck for house in the RBA.
I'm guessing you mean five figure income.
No it is not the reason. Two or three incomes are necessary to make ends meet because of debt burden. That's the biggest chunk of a typical family's expenditure: the student loans, the mortgage, and tax burden (which is a debt/rent for being alive and have income; the money also mostly goes to service public debt and public obligations to unions).
Absolutely.
The debt burden was a lot lower. The stay-home spouse also didn't get taxed for her work done at home, unlike all the taxes piled onto restaurants, house cleaners, nannies, day-care, etc. etc. on top of taxes on her wage income. In many ways, the liberal agenda of getting the women into work force did in fact work out to be a huge tax boom on the family.
Also true.Reality says
They are able to take a far larger cut of the money supply because they are allowed to leverage with the FED covering their tail end risk (aka covering their asses).
The worst of it all. Picking winners and losers, "good" and "bad" debt is ruining the economy. No skin in the game for the middle-men, hit and run. It becomes a game of being best connected, closest to the money supply and best back-stopped (no risk). Slice and dice and resell that crap downstream, too late for the suckers to realize that profit was made without the production or invention of anything tangible/useful.
SJ
2013 Jul 27, 8:49am
Santa Rosa, Petaluma and Livermore are WAY less expensive for real estate based on what I see. Same for Gilroy if you want to live that far out.
Santa Rosa, Petaluma and Livermore are WAY less expensive for real estate based on what I see. Same for Gilroy if you want to live that far out.
"live that far out".. its an odd statement to make. Far out from what ? San Francisco ... hardly any reason.
actually many have done really well over the decades...regardless of "how far out" they lived there.
Exactly 18 months later and my investment has more than doubled. I plan on waiting 2 more years to sell or rent, probably sell. My attitude is the same in that I wanna pull out with max dollars, wait for the crash (like you plan on doing), and then I'll get back in with approx. 200k for a home closer to the beach in Southern California. I don't care if I'm 30 mins away as long as I can still get that cooler weather. I'm hoping that 400k condos drop to the 200k level at the time of the next crash. Whatever the case may be, I'll be ready with cash in hand. Yay me! : D
I wouldn't congratulate myself until I'd sold whatever shitbox it is that you've bought.
« First « Previous Comments 24 - 45 of 45 Search these comments
Folks, you've all been great with your feedback.
I've decided to quit looking for a house.
I will wait until the next recession hits.
My bet: From today to the bottom of the next recession, I will be able to save faster (or make my money grow faster) than the total house appreciation in places like Los Altos and (obviously) San Ramon.
So no more posts from me. (except for a couple of really funny weird experiences with some other RE agents that i worked with after I fired the first 2 agents :-) )
Happiness to all. Wether you own a house or not, the true secret of happiness lies within your objectives, working hard towards them, learning from failures in trying to achieve them, and becoming a better person in the process (and hey, maybe you will also get your objectives achieved! That's a plus!)