patrick.net

Bap33 says

I think he buys in the area he lives in. Bay / Delta, but I could be worng.
I do not know how directly his living wages are tied to rental prices. I am 100% sure he’ll answer any question you may have about pretty much anything.

LOL that anyone places so much stock in something an anonymous person on the internet says.

No wonder real estate forums are so ripe for trolling.

...i finally registered because of this issue.

re: not needing a Bachelor's... my kid sister is searching Craigslist for jobs she can do while getting her associate's degree... and found an Office Manager job listing that required a bachelor's(!). I've done office work, and I can't imagine how a bachelor's would make you better at filing or scheduling or answering phones-- but because employers *can* ask for it they *do*... it's kind of like education-inflation, yes?

I'm researching all this stuff now as my oldest child is in first grade and the amount of soul-crushing make-work is frightening. I don't know whether it's better to encourage him to learn how to take orders or to question them. I checked out the local charter school, and it was beautiful-- and the parents were definitely the ones giving orders to the young and eager teachers. The power dynamic was so different from what I grew up with... and I thought my parents were rebellious!

This isn’t what I thought would happen. I originally thought gold would drag silver up

Gold Bugs have to be annoyed at how Silver traders have slaughtered Au with the recent gains. From 66/1 all the way to 37/1 on the ratio of silver/gold. Amazing, and we aren't done yet. I think we will be hard pressed to see a silver crash absent of a simultaneous gold plunge. However, i will sell all silver if we see 50 in the short term, because gold continues to slug around here and can't seem to break 1450. Even if gold sees 1500 by the time Ag hits 50's, that's still 30/1 ratio and closing in on the 18/1 range that the two metals have experienced during previous currency collapses/resets

thunderlips11 says

Because even if you take a hit on your first loan, they’ll never let you off the hook for the second.

isn't that the whole point of the loan; so that people don't just get off the hook frivolously like all those flippers in the last 10/15 years?

I'm not sure if this is a give away or another bail out of the housing industry though. Are they not with this bill forcing a write down on the second lien?

Lenders don't really have a responsibility to lend wisely. They have to lend wisely mainly because they lose money if they don't get paid back. Lately the one paying back has been Uncle Sam sadly, which means lenders get paid back regardless of the loan they gave out. I don't like uncle sam paying out just as much as bailing out the debtors.

So this does seem like a reasonable way to force those who got into the debt to actually pay it back, without pushing that loss onto the taxpayers. Unless I am missing something of course.

I don't like the bail outs for anyone. My aunt, many of our neighbors foreclosed on a lot of properties because they were buying like stupid during the bubble, with dollar signs covering their eyes. Well deserved.

The only once I as a human being feel bad for are those who were impacted by this utter stupidity and were not involved. Which would be the responsible people who lost jobs in a bad economy, the renters, businesses which were affected by the downturn, etc... (not those who over-borrowed like teenagers oblivious to consequences)

ChrisLA says

Lenders don’t really have a responsibility to lend wisely. They have to lend wisely mainly because they lose money if they don’t get paid back.

I have to love a business where borrowers can be followed until they die to collect debts.

On the other hand, the banker that borrows money from other people is under no such obligation. Banker made bad loans? Oh, sorry depositors! Sorry bondholders! The the bank is bankrupt, you don't get paid back! Guess I'll go start another bank with the millions I made!

It's completely baffling to me that people are OK with this situation.

I'm not sure i would use $10 as your starting point, as that was a huge dip in the world economy everywhere with decently quick recovery. If I was to put a number in there, I would probably use $14, the prior number to the 2008 crash or $18 the top of the 2008.

That puts it closer to 70 or 90 for a top.

thunderlips11 says

If the government hadn’t stepped in to save the banks from their own bad decisions by dumping cash by the trillions on them, a huge number of banks, including big players like Bank of America, Citigroup, etc. would not exist today, and their shareholders wiped out.

Much more than the shareholders. Junior debt holders would have been wiped out too, and it may have gone to senior debt, and even to non-FDIC depositors.

Chris wants home debtors to be chased down until the end of time, but he's perfectly fine with bankers jilting their bond holders and depositors.

Yea capitalism! Debt jail for the common folks, get out of jail free cards for bankers!

"H1-Bs: This program is excellent for the nation, and we should stop thinking of it as some kind of stop-gap. "

I was beginning to wonder whether you were a tech executive. But now I know with 101% certainity you are. Admit it, your an employer and you support H1-Bs because you like having the cheap labor.

Let's see... given that a large chunk of primary lien holders are in the government sponsored enterprises, is it any wonder that bankers want to change the rules after the fact so that the primary lien holders bears more of the losses?

MarkInSF says

Interesting points about prop 13, Patrick. I did not know that.

Here's a description of the court case that led to property taxes being taken away from the areas they are collected:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serrano_v._Priest

On the one hand, I can see that people are much more amenable to paying property taxes when it goes directly to their local schools (and therefore supports local property values). But on the other hand, it seems unfair that kids in poor areas should get crappy schools. Bad way to start out life.

It's kind of like taxpayers said "well, if we have to share with poor districts, then we're not paying property taxes." So California schools went from near the best to near the worst, tied with Mississippi. Except in rich neighborhoods where fundraising drives raise money that stays in the local school district. Since it's basically private funding of public schools, the state can't touch that.

Documentary about it: http://www.aypf.orgbriefs/2004/fb010804.htm

Bap33 says

I think he buys in the area he lives in. Bay / Delta, but I could be worng.
I do not know how directly his living wages are tied to rental prices. I am 100% sure he’ll answer any question you may have about pretty much anything.

So what's the truth about him getting almost broke - on the verge of chapter 11? Only he can confirm.

HousingWatcher: that's an ad hominem --even if I were a manager, it would have no bearing on the strength of the arguments I've presented. Even so, your charge is misplaced. I'm a senior software developer at a large corporation. Haven't had fewer than five layers of management between myself and a board of directors in several years, and have never formally managed people. I've worked at small companies too, but not recently.

I'm hardly unbiased, though. Coding at scale is a team sport, and I revel in getting shit done. My teams have included a great many excellent people who worked well on H1-B, and I count many of them amongst my friends. Generally speaking, I enjoy working with bright and dedicated people, no matter where they're from.

Sad fact: I've never seen an H1-B worker utterly fail and wash out; but a significant (non-majority) fraction of domestic college hires interview fine and then simply don't hack it. (See again: the subtext of my advice to my brother.) Those kids are plenty bright, but they don't produce. It's usually a matter of work ethic or attitude.

http://www.petitegiraffes.com you can buy them!

shrekgrinch says

Califorina is already the HIGHEST taxed state in the nation

Jerrypap was clearly talking about how he was being taxed, wasn’t he?

Wow, you're really reaching.

Jerrypap has probably left the conversation, so only he could clear that up. Pretty much anybody (except you apparently) looking at Jerrypap's statement would assume he was making a statement of some sort of statistical fact.

If you assume he's talking about how HE was being taxed, then his statement is just meaningless gobbledygook, since it would make no sense to talk about the "highest taxed state in the nation" based on one's personal experience in in MN and CA.

And of course, H1-Bs can't jump ship in the middle of a project if they get a better job offer from another company. Employers love the indentured servitude of the H1-B system. And they also have to be super loyal workers because if they are fired, they must leave the U.S. within 2 weeks.

tatupu70 says

terriDeaner says

Sigh… poor, gentle, tatupu. Please assure me that you will use the dictionary as a stepping-stone to better things in at least SOME part of your life… for instance, as a stool for gathering hard-to-reach foodstuffs from the top of your fridge. You know, where you keep the tastiest of treats.

Such lovely language. I think you missed your calling.

Thanks again tatupu! Problem is, I fucking love to swear like a sailor.

I notice you’ve resorted to the standard attack the person rather than the argument trick. I’ll assume that you no longer wish to debate the topic at hand then.. Obviously you have given up. Don’t worry–no shame in that.

C'mon now, I'm just funnin' ya again. A little sarcasm hurts no one, at least most of the time. And I AM glad that you know that attacking the person is logically flawed argument. Hooray for all!

fyi: from your link: “Consistent with or based on reason; logical”.

Not going to college because you are hoping you will get an inheritance is NOT logical or based on reason… So, I’m sorry. You’re wrong.

Not a quote from me and not my argument, sorry. That is why such re-phrasings are considered 'straw men'. They are weaker arguments, typically stuffed with irrationality, that are easily knocked-down. They also impy that the re-teller can read the mind of the person who made the original statement, which is impossible.

tatupu70 says

terriDeaner says

And one last time for the record… acquiring an inheritance is not an argument against going to college. It is simply an exception I stated to demonstrate that your hard and fast personal rule was not true:

Well, the topic was and is “should young people invest in higher education…” so I apologize for thinking you were arguing about that topic. I’m surprised you didn’t bring up the fact that you could win the lottery. Or fall on the ice in front of Wal-Mart and sue them for $1MM. Or marry well. See, I can do it too! Am I as clever as you?

You got it! Well, sort of... the whole idea of this thread was to discuss the very PROBABLE outcome that IF you go to college that you MAY NOT get a good job, AND THEN college debt will make your life WORSE than if you had not gone to college. Specifically, if you go to school for computer programming/IT. This was initially contrasted with another PROBABLE outcome in where one could pursue a more lucrative trade which did not require the assumption of lots of debt. Many other unlikely and probable career possibilities also exist, so making overgeneralized statements like:

tatupu70 says

It’s impossible to prosper without a job.

does not really move the discussion forward.

I don't think you're trying to be malicious here, I think you're just unwilling to believe me (which is fine), or many of the elements of formal reasoning I've presented to you (which makes me very, very sad inside...hooray for none).

Your issue originally was:

tatupu70 says

It’s impossible to prosper without a job.

To which I jokingly replied:

terriDeaner says

Well for goodness sake, let’s hope you never inherit anything!

And then your position seems to have changed to:

tatupu70 says

Really? We’re talking about the merits of going to college and your advice is for kids to get an inheritance?

To which I then replied:

terriDeaner says

Aw come on now tatupu, I don’t really feel that way.

To be clear... my argument correctly and specifically re-stated to address your issue would be:

If you have enough inheritance to live a prosperous life, then you do not need a job to be prosperous. Furthermore, since you are already prosperous, you also do not need to go to college to be prosperous. Even so, a college experience could still be valuable for other reasons.

which follows from this more generalized quote of mine:

terriDeaner says

I doubt that there are many that are unemployed and happy, but just because you don’t know anyone who is unemployed and happy doesn’t make it universally true.

and these quotes of mine on specifics:

terriDeaner says
And one last time for the record… acquiring an inheritance is not an argument against going to college. It is simply an exception I stated to demonstrate that your hard and fast personal rule was not true:

terriDeaner says

If college was free then I’d suggest nearly everyone should go for the experience.

See the difference between your re-phrasing and mine?

And please notice that the words "...you do not need to go to college to be prosperous" are not the same as "...it is a stupid idea to go to college". Again, two separate positions. Also note that my statement does not say that "you should get an inheritance so you do not have to go to college." - also not my position.

shrekgrinch says

Thanks for all the views and posts (yes, even you msilenus!), everybody!

Kudos for all! Admonishments for some!

Except in rich neighborhoods where fundraising drives raise money that stays in the local school district.
The other avenue for local school funding is parcel taxes. I think looking at the communities that have parcel taxes goes a long way to explaining Fortress Bay Area.
Although all districts can propose a parcel tax to their community, they are relatively rare in most of the state. Between 2001 and June 2009, out of roughly 980 California school districts, 132 conducted parcel tax elections and 83 districts passed them. Only seven of those districts were located in Southern California, while 66 were within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. The districts that had successful elections generally serve fewer low-income students than the typical California school district.

A blast from the past

Errrr wait, this was FIVE weeks ago

I think you may be right. Prices going up in the good areas down in the bad areas. At least that's what I'm seeing.

toothfairy says

I think you may be right. Prices going up in the good areas down in the bad areas. At least that’s what I’m seeing.

Care to share some data to back up your claim?...from good areas. Show me some sold at higher price in last year or two, more then what they were sold in 2007.

Gold and Silver may have and upside for as long as politicians spend and borrow more than they should. I think gold and silver could climb for years to come as more people seek to preserve their capital. If I were rich I would buy a physical gold ETF, e.g. ZKBGF.

bubblesitter says

toothfairy says

I think you may be right. Prices going up in the good areas down in the bad areas. At least that’s what I’m seeing.

Care to share some data to back up your claim?…from good areas. Show me some sold at higher price in last year or two, more then what they were sold in 2007.

I'm just reporting what I'm seeing on the ground. I guess Case Shiller SF would be the best data but you'll have to wait 3 months until they catch up.

I would buy gold to preserve my capital if I were rich. The government borrows and spends $140 billion more each month than it takes in with taxes. The dollar has fallen, and debt has been increasing. I don't know how high gold and silver will go, but I can't see why they would collapse until the government stops being so irresponsible. Historically the US went off the gold standard so it could spend money it didn't have.

fyi: on channel 7 today they mentioned that the boomer generation is starting to downsize to a more affordable lifestyle since many saved too little for retirement.

my advice bud, don't end up like that.... don't spend all your money on a housing structure you may end up regretting knowing that you wasted 30 years of your life paying for and not living a life being free.

Poll reveals baby boomers' retirement fears
Many baby boomers in poll see financially shaky retirements, and many expect to keep working

Despite the worries and dearth of savings cited by many, only about a third of boomers say it's likely that they'll have to make do with a more modest lifestyle once they retire. Only about 1 in 4 expect to struggle just to pay their expenses.

ChrisLA says

fyi: on channel 7 today they mentioned that the boomer generation is starting to downsize to a more affordable lifestyle since many saved too little for retirement.

Wont be sticking around CA, migrating out of the state. This is what i have been seeing over the past 10 years. Many sold at peak and will living off the gains and still working in FL, SouthWest or NorthWest. Gains go far in cheaper areas.

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

Most of the boomer assholes will just have to blow their brains out once they are sued by the hospital for medical expenses that they’ll have to pay for cash when medicare is eliminated by President Pawlenty and all health insurers drop everyone over the age of 34.
Ha!
Hahahahahahahahaha!
Hahahahahahahahahaahahahaha!
Fox News can have it as a feature at the end of every broadcast.
And today another sorry fuck has come up against his own sorry indolence and hatred of prosperity and failure to acquire the dynastic wealth required to buy a hospital. After this commercial message. . .

Zing!

thunderlips11 says

f the government hadn’t stepped in to save the banks from their own bad decisions by dumping cash by the trillions on them, a huge number of banks, including big players like Bank of America, Citigroup, etc. would not exist today, and their shareholders wiped out.

That would have been capitalism. Smaller, more risk-adverse banks would rise to take their place, the ones that had handled the bubble by lending conservatively.

The government let bankruptcy happen to most of the homebuyers, however.

So two supposedly equal participants in a transaction got very different treatment.

I never liked how they did the bail outs. That wasn't right. Although I still do not see why people who over-borrowed need the same treatment. Wouldn't that be essentially making the same mistake twice?

What kind of wine was that with the dinner? :)

Would you like fries with that order?

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

3 Truck stop budget fellator

Sigh... I BELIEVE it is spelled fellatiator and NOT fellator. I have not checked the OED on this though.

And why the fuck can't I vote eighteen thumbs up on this post???

ChrisLA says

fyi: on channel 7 today they mentioned that the boomer generation is starting to downsize to a more affordable lifestyle since many saved too little for retirement.
my advice bud, don’t end up like that…. don’t spend all your money on a housing structure you may end up regretting knowing that you wasted 30 years of your life paying for and not living a life being free.

you know there are certainly worse fates in life than having a house. it really isn't the end of the world.

MarkInSF says

kc6zlv says

The problem I have with it is that it has the potential to allow people to pay very little in taxes based on their income. Someone in another town where land is cheap could open a business making 50 million a year in revenue and pay the same taxes as someone making $30,000 a year with a home where the value of land is high.

You’re going to have a tough time attracting talented workers to your $50M/yr company in the Boondocks. If you succeed and the company is successful, the wages, and hence rental value of the land is going to go up.
And what is somebody making $30K doing living where the land value is high? If they did, they would be living in an apartment building, where the the tax is very low per person since you’ve got so many people on a small plot of land.

There are quite a few people who will move just about anywhere for jobs. Look at the places WalMart has located some of their distribution centers.

There are more people earning $30K in expensive areas than you think. They may have inherited property or money and bought property. They may have purchased the property well before the prices went up.

Here’s a description of the court case that led to property taxes being taken away from the areas they are collected:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serrano_v._Priest

On the one hand, I can see that people are much more amenable to paying property taxes when it goes directly to their local schools (and therefore supports local property values). But on the other hand, it seems unfair that kids in poor areas should get crappy schools. Bad way to start out life.

It’s kind of like taxpayers said “well, if we have to share with poor districts, then we’re not paying property taxes.” So California schools went from near the best to near the worst, tied with Mississippi. Except in rich neighborhoods where fundraising drives raise money that stays in the local school district. Since it’s basically private funding of public schools, the state can’t touch that.

Documentary about it: http://www.aypf.orgbriefs/2004/fb010804.htm

All property taxes in California stay within the county they are collected in. As far as I know it has always been that way.

California's problems with education have a lot more to do with other factors than funding. Throwing money at education isn't going to solve the problem with culture-demographics. Many school districts are wrestling with ESL issues. There is also an attitude that sitting down in a classroom and learning is "acting white." There are many other issues. The amazing thing about it is there are Asian kids going to some of these schools who seem to do just fine. This should really be a big fat clue that it isn't all about money.

The Donald's campaign slogan should be,
"It's time to flush"

2 is good. rest are too softie.

toothfairy says

ChrisLA says

fyi: on channel 7 today they mentioned that the boomer generation is starting to downsize to a more affordable lifestyle since many saved too little for retirement.

my advice bud, don’t end up like that…. don’t spend all your money on a housing structure you may end up regretting knowing that you wasted 30 years of your life paying for and not living a life being free.

you know there are certainly worse fates in life than having a house. it really isn’t the end of the world.

Getting trapped in a forest fire is worse, but that's an act of nature that sometimes can't be avoided. Fiscal irresponsibility however is a human invention and can easily be avoided with prudence. Whats your point exactly?