patrick.net

the Fed’s primary objective (in practice, not on paper) is to ensure full employment of the US.

Who says that? On paper, the Fed has a dual mandate or price stability and full resource utilization. In practice, it needs to maintain health in the financial system. It will not give a shit about employment.

the Fed’s primary objective (in practice, not on paper) is to ensure full employment of the US.

If you mean by full employment an unemployment rate equal to the computed structural unemployment, then I might agree as a tertiary goal of the Fed. The problem is that the definition of structural unemployment is controversial. There is structural unemployment caused by minimum wage, caused by collective bargaining contracts, caused by corporate wage efficiency, and caused by "unexplained" inefficiencies in the employment market. Some people think 5-6% is a reasonable number, others argue the real number is closer to 15% or even 20%.

Randy,

yeah I meant full employment doesn't really mean FULL employment in the sense of definition, but in a sense of keeping enough people off the street so that we don't end up in turmoil.

Peter P,

In the end, the existence of government is to keep the society stable through various means of social engineering like tax, medicare, social benefits, etc. If Fed's worry is REALLY inflation, Maestro Greenspan would not have artificially kept the interest rate so low for so long. The R word and the D word is what Fed is afraid of the most, not because the stock market is down or whatever, but because it will pose a threat to the very existence of our government. This is particularly the case for America, we have guns, and, we have a dwindling middle class and a greater divide between the rich and poor. America, is a rich version of Latin America. If we didn't have the reserve currency status, we would have gone broke multiple times.

Sunnyvale_Renter, thanks for your support. I just don't think housing bubble or any bubble is a concern for the Fed as long as they are sustainable, till the end of the Fed's chairman's tenure. Let the next chairman worry about the R word and the D word.

Randy, I must be talking and typing at the same time, here I'll try again.

What I meant by full employment isn't referring to the economic definition of full employment of 4 or 5% "accepted" unemployment. It merely means keeping enough people off the street so that we can all live happily ever after.

I guess it is natural for most people who are disgusted by this Re bubble (renters and owners) to wishfully hope for Fed to target the RE bubble - raise interest till it bursts. Well, I think the Fed has bigger fish to fry than the Re bubble. America's financial situation has been on a decline for years, I don't like Bush, but he merely accelerated the process, he was too stupid to be the instigator.

I lately found something really whacky about our economy, It seems like America has turned into a giant bank, this is our national industry, one-trick pony industry. GM, Ford, and other major manufacturers of anything all have a financial arm, and this financial arm is usually the most profitable part of the business. Then, Americans can buy anything 0-down, from homes to cars, furniture to jewlery, you name it, we 0-down everything. And, while most of the businesses are losing money in the last quarter, investment banks are having record revenue and record profit. Now we don't have main street any more, we will have a wall street in every town. It is like, we are nothing but a bunch financiers passing bucks to each other, and this is a far bigger problem than just the RE bubble, the RE bubble is just a symptom of a deep-rooted structural problem of our economy.

Since housing price is not even a part of core CPI, and Fed's "stated" purpose is to fight inflation, why will it target the RE bubble? America imports most of our oil, the spike in oil price is caused by the lack of processing facility, does hiking interest rate help putting more processing facility online or offline? It doesn't make sense for the Fed to halt the oil price spike through hiking interest rate. It is fighting something much larger than its stated purpose, that's my intepretation.

Back to the topic, visualising the bust.

Expect to see lots of homeless, especially in SoCal. They will camp out in particularly nice parts of town where the public infrastructure is good, along lakeside sidewalk, in public park space, near big shopping mall, or under the freeway. It is rather sad to see plenty of those in Tokyo every time I go there, sometimes you see a whole family living under the freeway out of a box. I am pretty sure we will see far more here.

ReyEstate,

Pure negligence or pure truth? You and your 1 poster aren't really worthy of a response and as we ask all die-hard RE Bulls, if you are so gung-ho about the CONTINUED upside potential of BA ReyEstate what are you doing here? Shouldn't you be closing your next big deal on a 560 sq. ft. condo for 1.3 mil? Rey, we weren't always this popular (please to note our reader count) but we've always tried to be visionary, looking toward the horizon. What would you suggest we do?

Help u with foreclosure,

Is that through the United Christians Fund? Oh, and welcome!

If the so-called bubble has indeed burst, then why are you asking your readers to visualize the housing bubble bust? Shouldn’t this be an observation?

Are you looking for a gold star for clever semantic parsing? Even relatively fast corrections in real-estate take some time to unfold. Real estate does not exactly qualify as a liquid market.

By the way, did you secure permission from this blog's owner before including its logo on your own under the title PURE NEGLIGENCE? Doesn't the CAR give you some basic guidelines to follow when propagandizing?

I wonder if reyestate is feeling quilty and sending his readers to patrick.net? I am also really confused, the first post is by annon. "propagandist in the media"? Are blogs media?

Are blogs media?

We have a regular poster named newsfreak. Perhaps that qualifies us.

Randy H,

Good point! Come to think of it the site does have a certain brand recognition factor. Besides we have our reputations to think of! I suppose to Bulls anything other than blind faith in RE qualifies as "negligence".

Help u with foreclosure,

Do you actually handle Loss Mitigation or is that just your sense of humor? Either way I like it!

DinOR,

I sent you an email about a week ago. Did you get it?

Are blogs media?

Oops, I guess they are! Just one of those people that stayed blonde after the age of 14. I will leave the blogging up to you smarties from now on!

The Federal Reserve has no intention of preserving all of the recent gains in home price values, said Federal Reserve board governor Donald Kohn on Thursday.

"If real estate prices begin to erode, homeowners should not expect to see all the gains of recent years preserved by monetary policy actions,' Kohn said in a speech prepared for delivery to a European Central Bank forum in Frankfurt, Germany.

In his remarks, Kohn attacked the popular 'Greenspan put' theory that Fed policy would always protect investors from sharp asset market drops while doing nothing to restrain these markets when prices rise.
"This argument strikes me as a misreading of history," Kohn said.
"Conventional policy as practiced by the Federal Reserve has not insulated investors from downside risk," he said.

"He told me that there were only 5000 permitted and being constructed at the moment"

5000 is still somewhat remarkable considering SF's obvious geographical limitations.

surfer-x
I strongly recommend not using the words vigorously, fondle, and breast in your request for test subjects-- it just sounds painful.

As for the other bust: I keep seeing posts suggesting moving into gold or cash or offshore for other investments. What about just having a diversified portfolio that includes some of the above, but also has US investments?

SFWoman-In my experience, it is the women who talk about ideas, books, and culture who reveal their "elite" background the best. I mean, goodness, it is rather tacky to talk about money in polite company. That is how I see the "classes" breaking out. I know it sounds catty, but those who talk about shoes, bags, cosmetic experiences, fancy vacations, fancy schools, over the top consumption-- they are the ones who reveal their "lower" origins the most. When the person has to call out the distinction of class, that's when their insecurity about their place in it is made most obvious.

Sassy Says:

"SFWoman-In my experience, it is the women who talk about ideas, books, and culture who reveal their “elite” background the best. I know it sounds catty, but those who talk about shoes, bags, cosmetic experiences, fancy vacations, fancy schools, over the top consumption– they are the ones who reveal their “lower” origins the most."

In my experience talking about shoes, handbags and cosmetics only revels a persons gender and sexual orientation. I can't think of a single female or gay guy (from any background) in SF that does not spend a lot of time talking about shoes, handbags or cosmetics...

Randy H,

No actually I didn't and I apologize. HARM has my email and I'd look forward to getting yours as well. Many thanks!

Prices crash..I buy a decent 4 bed 2 bath (instead of 3/2 that I wanted) about 1800 sq feet for $385,000 with 6.8% 30 year fixed mortgage and 30% down.

You may have to prepare for 8% interest rate just in case.

I would love to see another thread on economic and Fed policy. I could learn a lot.

I'm not quite up to the intensity of such a thread just now, even when tempted by tall, thin women with natural hair color, who smartly avoided augmentation.

DinOR,

I emailed to your verizon email. If that's not it, email me from my blog when you get a chance.

even when tempted by tall, thin women with natural hair color...

In my humble opinion, what makes SFWoman so attractive is her keen intelligence, wide range of interests, depth of insight and curiosity about life. She would be "hot" regardless of social stratum or physical attributes.

"I was told by a couple of friends that 20,000 units were to be erected in the next couple of years. Let’s see.

20K units in SF? I thought they weren't 'making any more land' over there (not counting that Marina fill).

Elsewhere in the world, price/sqft is used to compare housing price. Why is US using median housing price instead of price/sqft?

Not necessarily true. Often median price and median income are used. By doing the ratio, you get an immediate indication of affordability. On a large, heterogenous sample this is a fair measure due to a randomisation effect, if you are going suburb by suburb, it's a bit less reliable, as the release of a block of new luxury apartments or houses will skew the figures, as somebody else pointed out. Also, they are building new houses 50% larger than some years ago, so that's another variable to consider in some cases, and, indeed, average house sizes vary from country to country. Further, units of measure and currencies change from country to country - Britain would be £/sq ft, France €/sq m, Oz $/sq m, etc...

the Fed’s primary objective (in practice, not on paper) is to ensure full employment of the US.

There is structural unemployment caused by minimum wage, caused by collective bargaining contracts, caused by corporate wage efficiency, and caused by “unexplained” inefficiencies in the employment market. Some people think 5-6% is a reasonable number, others argue the real number is closer to 15% or even 20%.

I think there is structural unemployment solely due to a lack of demand for labour by employers, don't you? Saying a bare minimum wage (which hardly anyone gets anyway) is causing unemployment is like saying the presence of air traffic controllers is stopping the airlines working efficiently and stopping planes from roaming freely around the skies... Either you need your toilet cleaned or you don't, refusing to pay someone $5 an hour to clean your toilet because it's too much is the height of eco-rat insanity. Anyway, haven't illegal immigrants effectively dismantled the minimum wage system? Not that even they would take the presumed $2 an hour you are offering - it would be better to sell drugs at those rates - I know I would...

I think there is structural unemployment solely due to a lack of demand for labour by employers, don’t you?

There is a lack of demand at a price that is much higher than the fair price of labor.

Saying a bare minimum wage (which hardly anyone gets anyway) is causing unemployment is like saying the presence of air traffic controllers is stopping the airlines working efficiently and stopping planes from roaming freely around the skies…

Huh?

Either you need your toilet cleaned or you don’t, refusing to pay someone $5 an hour to clean your toilet because it’s too much is the height of eco-rat insanity.

People rather have dirty toilets at $5 an hour. See, the minimum wage system is promoting dirty toilets!

Anyway, haven’t illegal immigrants effectively dismantled the minimum wage system?

Let's look at it his way, illegal immigrants created unemployment in this country because they have an unfair advantage of working below minimum wage. They have the absolute economic advantage of NOT GIVING A SHIT about the law.

Different Sean,

I was just enumerating the neoclassical models for structural unemployment. There is probably marginal unemployment caused by the minimum wage, even though I believe that the minimum is ethical and virtuous. Nonetheless, there would be more (extreme low quality) employment if it did not exist.

Collective bargaining, on the other hand, is known to cause structural unemployment. In fact, any not-easily-broken labor contracts, including service worker contracts and even high-knowledge worker contracts, all add to structural unemployment because they put stickyness to wages and inhibit employers from reacting quickly to labor market changes.

Wage efficiency is, in my opinion, the cause of most higher-end structural unemployment -- the kind that affects college educated workers. There are actually many theories comprising this "meta" theory, but they all collapse to "it is more efficient for companies to pay higher-than-market wages for some time after the labor market softens". This causes a long tail of structural unemployment, much like we have today. It also causes dramatic salary discrepencies. Thus the PhD, MSE, MBA, BSEE, etc. who gets $200K per year for the same exact skills that his 6+ months unemployed doppleganger just accepted a $110K a year job for.

Mankiw has a good summary of this in Macroeconomics.

There is probably marginal unemployment caused by the minimum wage, even though I believe that the minimum is ethical and virtuous.

I am not sure if it is ethical. It is perhaps popular for obvious reasons but I still think it creates inflation and unemployment.

Up in Santa Rosa my friends who use the landscape and light construction laborers (illegal I am sure) over on Fulton Road pay $12-$15/hour. They aren’t undercutting the minimum wage.

Then $12-$15 is probably the fair market price.

My point is that minimum wage will not help.

Bush's guess worker program is probably a good idea because it opens up the "hidden" labor market to all employers, instead of just those who are willing to break the labor law. But anyway, getting rid of the minimum wage system is essential. I believe the living standard of workers in general will go up more if there is no minimum wage.

so 'unemployment' is bad, but paying people below subsistence levels is good? once again, self-contradictory stupidity. don't we want decent employment up at decent wages so you don't need welfare? you guys never refer to the dignity of the individual or to the need for a living wage when you make these bizarre neo-classical assumptions. You put inhuman conditions on other people that you would never accept for yourselves. Nice to be in that position. But completely immoral.

What is the price of labour anyway? What arbitrary market force says that I can get $100 an hour to be a crack C++ programmer to program video games (essentially a luxury item), $25 an hour to do systems development/business analysis in MS-Access/VBA, when C++ is much less efficient in terms of outcomes but the skills are rarer. A mortgage broker can make $250K a year working from home just by filling out a few forms. A doctor saving lives and making responsible and liable decisions every moment may well make much less than this. A nurse may make $40 K to monitor vital signs of patients, while the pony-tailed 20-something video game programmer makes $100 an hour. The lying politician who is doing nothing for the public is making good money, as well as taking kickbacks. Michael Jackson made something like $600 million for singing and dancing a bit. Maybe there is something deranged in the way the market values labour and rewards people? Why are you such market fetishists?

You guys overlook all the massive surplus incomes many people make, the money they waste on boondoggles and status symbols, and choose to try to penalise a new serf class instead. Utterly shameful.

Peter P said

You may have to prepare for 8% interest rate just in case.

I think HeliBen will actually start reducing short term rates at the end of this year. The Contrarian Bill Fleckenstein has been saying that on MS Investor site for some time now. That does worry me a lot.

On the long term, the 10 year treasury rate dropped below 4.7% today again. It seem to have found a support there - or resistance if you look at yield. The 10 year T note is one real tease. God knows when it will jump to 5% ? :-(

So it seems interest rates MAY NOT help in killing this bubble. So that leaves us with what ? Only panic and change in psychology ? Unless the secondary MBS market somehow disconnects itself from the treasury market, and actual mortgage rates rise anyway.

I hope we don't get that dreaded "elevated plateau" which supposedly has happened in UK and Aus.

SFWoman Says:

"Up in Santa Rosa my friends who use the landscape and light construction laborers (illegal I am sure) over on Fulton Road pay $12-$15/hour."

I pay from $15 to $20 an hour cash to the people that do yard work and clean apartments for me. They work their ass off so I don't ask their immigration status, but if we assume that they "might" be illegal and are not paying federal, state, social security and Medicare taxes like the rest of us at $15-$20 an hour they are taking home as much as a legal tax paying worker making $60-$80K a year...

You guys overlook all the massive surplus incomes many people make, the money they waste on boondoggles and status symbols, and choose to try to penalise a new serf class instead. Utterly shameful.

If the market values certain things, what are you going to do about it?

If being a mortgage broker makes so much more than a doctor, then over time more people will go that "easy" route. Market adjusts itself.

if you guys resent paying people even $5 an hour, and worship the outcomes of a 'perfect market system', which has never existed anywhere in reality, then you have no right to be on this site complaining when 'the market' prices you out of a house. if the market is always right, and you can expect no social justice component, then you have no right to your own dwelling either - if a landlord can exploit you for life, leaving you to rent in retirement and live off catfood, then so be it. Thus spake the market, and you will just have to accept it, sorry. The market is never wrong. And the market is a reified person like God or the blind Lady of Justice. We can't have one standard of expectation for you and another for unskilled labour and people at the bottom. So we need to close this site immediately. And forget those who say the measure of a country's ethics is how it treats its poor.

Up in Santa Rosa my friends who use the landscape and light construction laborers (illegal I am sure) over on Fulton Road pay $12-$15/hour. They aren’t undercutting the minimum wage.

exactly - so if even illegals are getting over minimum, the presence of minimum doesn't affect the (un)employment market, but it does provide a statutory safety net to avoid extremes of exploitation. it also serves to flush out the sociopath ideologues.

i know someone in DC who was paying legal unskilled labourers $9 an hour to dig out basements. they would probably get double that (in relative currency terms) as an award wage condition in Oz, where income differentials are flatter. for some reason she couldn't keep them. this was a broker making $250K a year who bought loads of properties directly before the boom, some incredibly cheaply, seeking to refurb and develop them further. she finally ended up turning the whole project over to a builder using subbies, who would probably pay their workers better.

if you guys resent paying people even $5 an hour, and worship the outcomes of a ‘perfect market system’, which has never existed anywhere in reality, then you have no right to be on this site complaining when ‘the market’ prices you out of a house.

I don't know... I am not complaining here. But we certainly need to discuss what to do about the coming bust, if and when there is one.

Different Sean,

I'm not making ehtical claims when I refer to neoclassical macroeconomics. The problem of harmonizing the pressures of economics realities with social outcomes is a time-honored conundrum, and one we're not likely to resolve on a blog. Of course you already answered your own answer about why C++ game coders make more than a VBA hack (although I would posit there is usually a skill differential too). It's supply and demand. One is closer to a commodity than the other. Kind of sucks when figuring out who "deserves" what, and which efforts contribute more to the overall fabric of humanity, but it's the way it is, and wishing won't make it otherwise.

By the way, do you work for a game company? If so, I'd like to converse with you sometime about technical feasibilities of dynamic economic systems in MMOGs.

As to minimum wage laws: I think they are a necessary cost of running a virtuous society, even with the implied inflation and unemployment. We kind of cheat in the US though, because we have porous borders and tolerate illegals. In much of mainland Europe, minimum wage laws have wreaked real economic strife, well measured and studied. But, their people believe it's in their moral interest to do so, despite the costs. And I agree with them, so long as it can be paid for. (This is an open question in Europe today, as they can't pay for much they demand in terms of societal structure).

exactly - so if even illegals are getting over minimum, the presence of minimum doesn’t affect the (un)employment market, but it does provide a statutory safety net to avoid extremes of exploitation. it also serves to flush out the sociopath ideologues.

The idea is to allow legal guest workers so that they can be taxed and accounted for. This way, extreme exploitations can be avoid.

But, their people believe it’s in their moral interest to do so, despite the costs. And I agree with them, so long as it can be paid for.

It makes sense... Well, minimum wage is infinitely better than welfare - at least people will have to work to get it.