patrick.net

tatupu70 says

existing communities already do everything they can to lure jobs.

You do that at the country level: take the execs of large tech companies/VCs and coordinate new development in one or two locations in smaller cities . Benefit for them: it's easier to attract people there and it's cheaper.

Heraclitusstudent says

Benefit for them: it's easier to attract people there and it's cheaper.

I don't see that one. As the business owner, I'm going to have to relocate all my employees--some (many?) for sure aren't going to want to move. Not to mention the cost involved to move them all.

I don't see how it's easier to attract people. Real estate is more expensive in larger cities because people WANT to live there. I think attracting them to the outskirts of small cities will be difficult.

Heraclitusstudent says

Even the SF peninsula is half empty. Just hills with nothing on it, except maybe a few cows grazing. It's just forbidden to build there.

I would think that with the right construction techniques, one could even built almost on top of the San Andreas fault.

zzyzzx says

I would think that with the right construction techniques, one could even built almost on top of the San Andreas fault.

Not for $250K

mell says

Exactly

exactly 'cuz the electorate put the GOP in charge of Congress starting in 2011.

So went the stimulus and further gov't attempts at fixing how fucked up things have become.

It's gotten so bad the Fed has had to step in and do what it didn't want to do.

the Bush flat period was just consumer debt getting out of control.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=sYp

Re Obama and Gini:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=sYt

interesting correlation.

The 1990s recession was tough on people, things didn't turn around until 1993.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=sYu

between the dotcom recession and the 2008 crash gov't spending went up 50%, from $2T to $3.2T

*and* the Gini trend flattened out..

Then when Fed spending got capped by the GOP in 2011, and the free money mortgage money spigot was still off, Gini resumes rising.

Plus rising welfare state outlays for food stamps and EUC aren't going to do a helluva lot to make Gini better.

"better" meaning down for our conservative friends who aren't clear on the concept.

Bellingham Bill says

4 years of recovery. Impressive.

Thanks Fed!

Dumb ass

Bellingham Bill says

certainly a continued deflationary drawdown scenario would have pushed interest rates down.

Hey dude don't bogart that joint

So the fed buying 85 billion dollars of dead MBS every month for the last year and a half, has no effect?

I find that hard to believe. If it has no influence, than why bother?

I won't pretend to know, so that's why I ask, but is it not fair to assume that the 1+ trillion they dumped at the dead MBS, has caused RE to inflate by 1T in aggregate?

Isn't that their goal?

Was up just a few km west of Stanford on 85 to see the Demos.

There are 100s of square miles of land just west of the 85 from a few miles north of 'Tino to north of Stanford.

Is this prime land for moderate density burbs - or is there a rare creature habitating there?

Entitlemented says

Is this prime land for moderate density burbs - or is there a rare creature habitating there?

Yes a bunch of dead flora and fauna that needs to be fracked.

I don't think the fed has had much of any effect on interest rates, other than possibly the opposite of what people think (instead of forcing rates lower, maybe they have slowly held them higher by warding off deflation). Rates have been dropping since I was born in 1981.

What would happen to the tens of thousands of baseball common cards that I have piled in boxes in my parents storage, if the fed was buying 85 billion dollars worth of 80's topps common cards?

I appreciate the discussions, and I ask questions because id like to better understand what's really going on. I won't pretend to know everything, but I certainly feel that its not above my potential to be able to understand. Its just a turn off when people get to calling one another stupid over the course of discussion.

Its my opinion that had the fed not poured over a trillion dollars into buying up zombie MBS, that in aggregate, housing would be worth less than it is today. How much less is up for debate

Consider that household debt has gone down Real Household Debt down 17% from Peak, Real Mortgage Debt down 21%

Read more at:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/02/real-household-debt-down-17-from-peak.html#ptKL2WfxPDp2ACSv.99

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=t1o

is an interesting graph.

it shows how we had the jobless recovery for two years, 2002 & 2003.

then in 2004 the real recovery that peaked at the end of 2007, 4 years.

Then le deluge, the Sisyphean return to the dotcom times, two full years of bad times, 2008 & 2009.

Then the recovery got going, and it's been 4 full years, giving us a similar shape to 2004-2008.

It's my thesis that $6T of new consumer debt got us out of the dotcom recession:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CMDEBT

and we've seen a $7T boost in the national debt:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEBTN

which has given us a similar tractor to get us job growth.

(the 2011/2012 FICA cut was a nice touch)

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/W068RCQ027SBEA

is total government spending.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=t1t

real (2013 dollars) per-capita (age 15-64)

This is pretty astounding actually, showing we're spending $28,000 per capita, one out of 2 average jobs (the median household income is $50,000 or so).

This is kinda scary stuff to me and I should stop making these charts.

Not knowing how screwed things are is a better condition.