patrick.net

coretexity Says:
SP - Architects are supposed to be extremely hands-on, but I understand that in large companies they dont do jack shit.

Never mind what they are "supposed" to do - none of them actually seem to deliver a shippable product. All they are capable of doing is spew out jargon that sounds like it came out of a Dilbert cartoon, talk endlessly about "standards", and promise you wonderful things - in about two years time.

In fact, here is an empirical observation - find the most god-awful, over-ambitious, pie-in-the-sky, never-gonna-pencil-out project in your typical large-ish company - and you will find large numbers of "architects" swarming over it, like flies on dog-vomit.

And here is another empirical observation - suggest actual work - e.g. something that involves hands-on coding. The architect will offer to 'supervise' an engineer to make sure it is done right.

However, in smaller firms, their role is extremely critical as they are the ones defining the system technically and laying out the building blocks.

That, my friend, is a good engineer, who doesn't need his title fluffed up. Engineers design and build systems, get them deployed and keep them working. The "good" architect you describe is indistinguishable from a good principal engineer.

Architects love the title precisely because nobody knows what the fuck they do. So they can keep fucking up, and pretend to be worth the value of the methane they produce.

OO Says:
Well, I have to disagree with surfer-x, because when we talk about quality of life, we don’t care about average. When we talk about pay, we don’t care about average either, we care about what applies to a specific sector that is pertinent to your particular situation.

_My_ particular situation is actually just fine. I get paid decent money, got more than my fair share of good-fortune, get to do work that I enjoy, and have a pretty decent employer. My personal quality of life ain't too bad.

But when I say the QoL in the Bay Area stinks, I mean it in general, or 'for the average' as you put it. I see large numbers of people with above-average qualifications who work _very_ hard, make good wages, but are still running full speed to just maintain the status quo. The hard-work is NOT actually making their lives better. In many other places, smart folks who work this hard are able to "bank" a surplus of some kind (either time, money, hobbies, or something else) that goes towards making each year of their life an improvement over the last. Not so much here.

I don't disagree with most of what you said, but there is a palpable qualitative difference between folks I see here vs. the ones I recently observed in other places.

correction:
"there is a palpable qualitative difference between folks I see here vs. the ones I recently observed in other places."

I meant to say "between the _general happiness_ of folks I see here".

Seems I started quite a discussion.

I can add only this. As a long time BA techie I have seen hours steadily rise and pressure steadily rise. The so-called effeciency gains means what was once done by 3-5 people is no eing done by 1. At the same time, reporting to layers of mgmt has greatly inreased. So we have a thicker layer of mgmt bearocracy, an 'effecient' yet stressed techie core that has taken on more reponsibility inluding expanded reporting, and then a new host of highly transient support positions in the greater BA.
I seem to recall the joke during the Clinton years was, "Yes, Mr. Clinton, you HAVE geatly increased jobs in the US. My wife and I have 6 of them."

What would be nice to see is this: 1) less reporting. 2) lower wages to allow for more actual techie people 3) a solution to the cost of living problem so that lower wages and more people is a viable option.

I find it supremely ironic that at a time our media and leadership is touting the need to graduate more math and science people that we are not fully employing the math and science graduates we currently have.

I Said:

> Almost no one that makes $120K lives on
> $80K and saves the rest…”

Then sybrib Says:

> It’s probably more households than you think.
> I’m acquainted with several who I suspect fit that
> mold. But they mind their own business and stay
> under the radar, and probably don’t need to rent
> a place so you may not run into them too much…

I’m sure that sybrib knows plenty of people who make around $120K and save around $40K a year but based on my census research and years working in the financial industry (not just renting homes and apartments) I have learned that well under .01% of the population saves even 10% of their gross pay. I know plenty of people that own private jets and I would not be surprised if the percentage of the population that owns private jets is similar to the percentage of the population that saves 33% or more of their gross income every year…

I fully agree with wshat FormerAptBroker says. It is absurd to expect 120K household to save 40K. On top of that recent housing bubble will be a great destroyer of wealth of American public. Basically what Alan Greenspan did was to transfer wealth from people to Wall street in the form of fees and interests. Now the people will have to deal with foreclosure, negative equity etc etc. Bloomberg News reports that the leading Wall Street investment banks could hand out $38 billion in 2007 year-end bonuses--or, about $201,500 per employee. The bonuses would be spread amid 186,000 workers at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. Amid a banner year for investment banks and other financial firms, Wall Street bonuses are expected to hit a record $23.9 billion in 2006, according to New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi.

Fed Attention to Wall Street `Dangerous,' Buiter Says
By John Fraher and Scott Lanman

Aug. 23 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve pays a ``dangerous'' amount of attention to the concerns of Wall Street, constraining its ability to influence the economy, former Bank of England policy maker Willem Buiter said.

``The Fed listens to Wall Street and believes what it hears,'' Buiter said today in a paper presented to the U.S. central bank's annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. ``This distortion into a partial and often highly distorted perception of reality is unhealthy and dangerous.''

The central bank has drawn criticism from some officials in the U.S. and Europe by trying to end the yearlong credit crisis through an expansion of lending. The steepest interest-rate cuts in two decades risk stoking inflation, while the Fed has been too generous in aiding banks, Buiter said.

In addition to rescuing Bear Stearns Cos. from bankruptcy, the Fed created a program to swap Treasuries for mortgage bonds, opened up lending to Wall Street firms and reduced the premium for direct loans to commercial banks.

Buiter, a founding member of the Bank of England's independent rate-setting board in 1997, said the Fed's behavior over the past year represents an example of ``regulatory capture.'' In such a relationship, policy makers take on ``as if by osmosis, the objectives, interests and perception of reality of the vested interest they are meant to regulate and supervise in the public interest,'' he said.

I work in IT Management and I can assure you that only one person on my team routinely works more than 45 hours/week and that is because that is how she wants to work, not because anyone is telling her to do that. I keep telling her to "not get burnt out" but she just likes to work hard. She does get the raises and promotions, so if you are ambitious you will work harder than your peers (duh).
The person holding the pager works harder than that, but that is only one week out of four and my company has some nice benefits, like four weeks of vacation and two weeks of sick time for new hires.

But I am working at a particularly "family friendly" place, which I picked out on purpose for its reputation, when my daughter was born. In some startups, I have worked as hard as 70 hrs/wk, but that was for stock options + pay worth $350k/yr, so I figured they deserved their money's worth.

I know my wife and I are kind of unusual, but our take home pay is about $170k and we put away (including 401k) about $70k/yr of that, and that is with daycare expenses of $16k/yr. Our overall savings isn't quite growing that fast, because my wife insists on spending about 1/3 of that on home improvements, but that is an investment of a sort. At least we aren't blowing it all on fancy dinners or trips to Hawaii.

I figure I can comfortably retire once we have $2M in the bank and the house paid off. My wife is six years younger than me, so I might retire before her, but she might not go for that. In any case, we should be there by the time I am in my mid-50's, baring some kind of catastrophe. We could obviously live more inexpensively elsewhere, but since we are a mixed-race couple, most cheap places don't look that attractive to us. We like Davis a lot though.

Using 1997 as a baseline is a mistake, imho, since that is pretty much the bottom of the last housing cycle. If you think prices are going to drop as much as they did last time, or even more, that might work, but I think that the Bay Area is worth more than it was back then, since there is more population and more high paying jobs than ever before. If you trying to time the market, just wait until prices start going back up and buy then. That might be a decade or more though.

I remember a year or two ago, when I suggested that a $200k combined income couple was not uncommon here and I was roundly lambasted, even called a troll. How much times have changed! I think 250k is kind of pushing it, but I still think that two mid-career professionals can reach $200k. In SF, that means a nurse and a policeman, or a teacher and a firefighter, or two programmers, or a lawyer and a non-profit activist.

Here in Noe Valley, prices have pretty much been flat for about two years now. I have to admit, that I am as surprised as anyone by this turn of events as I really expected them to come down by now. I am a homeowner, so this is a mixed blessing, but I really would like to buy something bigger, as child #2 is on the way. If they don't come down, we will just squeeze an extra one into our 1200 sq foot flat somehow. I grew up in much more crowded quarters and so did my wife, so I am sure we will manage.

I stopped posting after this blog got taken over by a bunch of shrill libertarian and assorted Right Wing posters and spend most of my time over at Socketsite, a really good blog that reminds me of this one back in the '05 days. It is almost entirely focusing on San Francisco though. Perhaps the libertarian crowd has finally realized that the mess we are in is almost entirely due to excessive deregulation and have learned their lesson, but I kind of doubt it.

Lot of truths in this thread, prompting my first post here.

The Bay Area is a great place for the following people:

1) Alpha achievers in any discipline. The top 10%. They will always command a big premium than the other folks. Like the guy making $260K in a technical capacity.

2) Folks who did well in the DNA lottery. If you have a mini trust fund or a decent inheritance (like a BA home) in the horizon, it takes the pressure off to save and move up. BA is heaven for these folks. It is easy to take a $1M loan to buy that home in Cupertino/Palo Alto, when you have other sources of wealth you can count on.

3)Those who did well in any of the previous bubbles. They are lucky to have a cushion. They gambled well.

4) Singles and Couples w/o kids. This is a lifestyle choice which makes many BA negatives irrelevant to them.

In contrast, If you are not in any of the above the classes, the Bay Area sucks. It is a especially a very bad place for:

1) Families making $125K or less.

2) People looking for upward social mobility. There are a whole lot of people who start life from scratch. Or even very far behind considering college loans etc. The Bay Area can be a miserable place for these folks, even with a $250K dual income.

3) People who need to commit time and/or money towards their extended family. If you have to take care of an elderly parent or help your siblings, living in the Bay Area will add to both your physical and financial stress levels.

4) People who want to raise kids, without subjecting themselves to a third world lifestyle.

For OO:

Getting the "housing part nailed down" is broken after 2003.

The people who forced the issue after 2003, have traded their retirement and quality of life for a mortgage. Ever increasing Housing prices was their only key to retirement.

The people who are waiting it out, have also traded something. It takes a very special couple who make $250K to live in a rental, and not feel any void. Especially when confronted with overwhelming disapproval of their social circle about their lifestyle choice. Either you let them get to you, or you will lose your network. Housing is like religion here.

Most people still chose to live in apartments when having to rent, as they dont want to 'throw' $3k-$4k paying someone else's mortgage. If it takes till 2011-2013 for some sanity to return to housing prices, they will have waited 8-10 years. That is an entire childhood without a backyard or having a dog. Things that folks elsewhere can take for granted.

And finally, those who thought that the Bay Area was heaven, but have left it for other areas. They have instantly lost their social network. While everything make be cheap where they are, it will take a long while before they feel rooted elsewhere.

A lot of irrepairable damage has been done in the last 5 years. When I run into Greenspan in hell, I hope he'll still be burning.

On the other hand the poor guy bought his place in Southern Cal right at the peak, it adds some insult to injury.

Actually cockgobbler, our stucco masterpiece was bought post peak during a distress divorce sale. Not as a fucking investment, this might sound quaint to the titans of industry in the Bay Area, we were only concerned with finding a place we wanted to live in.

Fuck the Bay Area, more importantly fuck most of those that live there, nothing but a bunch of fucking maggots thinking that their 80K job might turn into a 120K job if they work work work work. The fucking place isn't that nice, it's just not that bad. A big difference. And the myth of high wages in the BA simply is not true. for every person making over 100K there are thousands making less than 50K. Used to be folks immigrated here to become Americans, they assimilated, but no more, now you can fucking vote in 40 languages. The Chinese want to stay Chinese, not become American.

Headset,

the problem outside of the first-tier cities is, there is a complete lack of choice for jobs outside of the one that you are recruited for.

I have many ex-colleages who moved up to Seattle because they wanted to buy a home. I myself was once actively recruited to go PNW. Now fast forward to several years later, 4 out of 5 ex-colleagues who went to Seattle came back down, none of them are BA locals. They have no family, no high school friends here, they come down for JOBS (not the Apple CEO). Once they feel they have hit the ceiling in income and career at Microsoft, there are very few other choices - Amazon, Google's Seattle office, and that is pretty much it. All the employers there are fully aware of the lack of WA state income tax, so they make sure they "pass on" that savings to you, on top of cost-of-living adjustment. What about smaller companies? There are not that many that can support their pay level.

Most people who make $120-150K here can only make $80-100K up there and the housing cost is NOT that much cheaper. As a result, their savings rate actually went DOWN, and their career choices suddenly become very limited. There are fewer employer alternatives to choose from.

The reason why we have so many people putting up with the commute, the housing cost, the higher cost of living in general of BA, LA, NYC and DC is because only at these places can you expect a reasonable choice of career path and upward mobility in income. Most of us make a living by working for someone else, so Warren Buffet's strategy of making it on his own in Omaha doesn't apply to us.

Jimbo,

I disagree. There was a 60% runup from 1987 to mid 1990. It was only by 1997 that we had returned to a 'normal' run-up of about 4.25%.

I think 1997 as a basis year is very good.

Of course, people who spent nothing on maintaining their homes should not expect to compete with people who have invested (likely over-invested) in their homes. So, take a basis year with a grain of salt

What perplexes me is why industry does not fan-out. I think mature companies like Cisco would do very well if they moved their operations to Coyote Valley, or even further south. I think the prevailing tech demographic is not DINC, but rather small-family. You can invent pretty good communities on your own if you are: Adobe, Cisco, Goodle, Apple, etc. Put some roots down in San Juan Bautista and you can pay people less to live in new homes as opopsed to salaries designed to support 1950s tract homes selling for 1.5million.

The peer pressure of buying a home is really self-imposed. It is more driven from within than induced by practical needs. No friend or colleague is going to ditch you and shun you completely just because you are not a homeowner, if he does, he is no true friend anyway, and what can he do for you in times of need? In fact, if you always proclaim that you "cannot afford" it, they may be over-zealous to help you find a higher-paying job.

The most profitable choices in life always comes with sacrifice, and those who defy the social norm to remain a renter in BA now look like geniuses.

As a homeowner, I'd say without the capital appreciation, home ownership is a bitch in BA, because most houses here in nicer areas have a vintage of 50+years and due to prop 13 constraints, a tear-down rebuild will completely reset your structure part of the assessment to full market value. Therefore, you as a homeowner have to deal with lots of maintenance issues ALONE that comes with the "prided" ownership. On top of this, you may inherit a house with illegal additions done through several owners, and you will have to live within the constraints imposed by those who came before you.

Of course, if you have $2-3M to spare, you can always buy a brand new home in these areas and pay $22-33K after-tax money on property tax. But that just doesn't seem like prudent financial management to me (especially on the tax part), even if you do have that much to spare.

FAB says:

I have learned that well under .01% of the population saves even 10% of their gross pay.

To me, that is a very surprising stat. I have met many military officer couples who lived off "his" salary and banked "hers." I would even suppose many people on this blog know of professional or working couples with a similar arrangement.

I was in the Air Force from 1980 to 1995. During that time, I managed to save up $160k (granted, I was single until 1994). When got out in 1995, I used my $160k savings to pay cash for a house ($138k, 2400sqft 4bed 2.5bath 2car - obviously not in the Bay Area) and pay cash for the 1995 Sentra my wife wanted. Since 1995, I have managed to put $500k into local banks/CUs. All this from a job managing a Cab Company, military retirement pay (we had a drawdown in 1995, so the AF offered 15 year instead of 20 year retirement, at a reduced pay), 3 years of my wife teaching elementary school, and of course no house or car payment. I did go into debt buying 5 rental houses, but I sold 4 of them just before the peak and used the proceeds to pay of the mortgage on the 5th (post bubble, ~$230k). Today, I put $5k/month into the credit unions, which is about half of the total I get from the Cab Co job, rental income, interest on the 500k, and military retirement.

I do not have the hard stats about national savings, but I hope that of the household with $120k incomes, more that a few have discovered they can live confortably on $80k spending or less. I would hate to think that sybrib and I know them all.

Look if you want to make $100k/yr in SF, just go join the Police Department. Starting pay is $73k/yr and in 5 years you will make detective and with just a tiny bit of overtime you will pull down $100k. Benefits are awesome too, with 100% of your salary at retirement after 30 years. You don't even have to go get a college degree. It really is that easy and PD has something like 200 openings right now. I guess if you did too much drugs in your youth, they won't have you, so that is making it tough for them to recruit.

If you want something less blue collar, go get a nursing degree.

People looking for upward social mobility. There are a whole lot of people who start life from scratch. Or even very far behind considering college loans etc. The Bay Area can be a miserable place for these folks, even with a $250K dual income.

I just don't think so Orbiter. I showed up here with nothing but an acceptance letter from the UC and a GI Bill in my pocket and have done just fine. I delayed having children until I could afford them, but that is a good idea for anyone anywhere. My sister who had three kids before she turned 30 has spent her entire life in poverty and this is in low-rent Eureka.

Sure, I lived in a shared communal household for a few years longer than I would have elsewhere and I have lived without a car for longer, but it is hardly "third world" conditions. If you really believe that, you have never been to the third world. Americans in general have been living beyond their means everywhere. Back in the 50's homes averaged half the size they are now, kids routinely doubled up in bedrooms and no one thought that was unbearable. Get used it, because it is going to be like that again.

I agree with you that families making less than $125k/yr probably have a tough time here, unless they are in Vallejo or something, but it is really easy to make sure you don't end up in that situation.

To be fair though, I guess I sort of qualify as someone who "did well in the last two bubbles" since I was into The Internet well before most people and got a job in IT at a pre-IPO company that went public. It did not make me rich, but gave me enough money after taxes to allow me to put down a downpayment on a house in 2002, before the really crazy run-up. I don't really think of it as gambling and winning, just taking advantage of the opportunities that were there at the time.

If there are no more opportunities like that in the future, you are right in a way, that the Bay Area will not be a place where you can get your first foothold on the ladder without help. I sure hope that is not true though.

At the risk of incurring Surfer-X's wrath, here is the income breakdown in my neighborhood, Glen Park:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ozeul

As you can see, the peak income is in the 75-100k range, with more on the 100k+ side than below it. Glen Park is a middle income neighborhood in San Francisco, perhaps a little above median, but nothing special.

Headset,

military pay must have fallen off the cliff since the mid-90s. Today I keep reading about multiplying military bankruptcies, and mushrooming payday loans around military bases, and I think there was a law making payday loan to military staff illegal as a reaction to such a phenomenon. 2 years ago, I read in Washington Post that military officers need to go through an extra financial scrutiny to see if they are financially stretched, or they will lose access to certain sensitive information. Such a practice doesn't seem to be the norm prior to this bubble.

I am pretty sure that the foot soldiers we sent into Iraq are only making sub-$20K, even if they have free housing and free healthcare, I still doubt if they can stash away any savings. The surging military divorce rate suggests that they perhaps cannot.

If 1 in 4 homeless are vets, can I safely assume that most military employees are teetering on financial insolvency? This is a very sad and alarming trend.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-veterans_N.htm

Actually cockgobbler (ANGER), our stucco masterpiece (BARGAINING) was bought post peak during a distress divorce sale. Not as a fucking investment (DEPRESSION), this might sound quaint to the titans of industry in the Bay Area, we were only concerned with finding a place we wanted to live in (ACCEPTANCE).

Fuck the Bay Area, more importantly fuck most of those that live there (BACK TO ANGER), nothing but a bunch of fucking maggots thinking that their 80K job might turn into a 120K job if they work work work work. The fucking place isn’t that nice, it’s just not that bad (DENIAL).

OO,

I agree with the overall big picture of your discussion. But

"... the social norm (?) to remain a renter in BA.." (?) (?) (?)

Sheesh, you gotta git outta that Fortress. The Bay Area is not The Fortress, and The Fortress is not The Bay Area.

OO,

What percentage of homeowners who bought after 2003 have capital appreciation? Or can be sure that they will be above water after 2 more years of declines?

And why do people who freak out about trace lead content in toys, willingly buy a 50-60 yr old home with so much more lead paint. Try replacing your single pane windows and see how the work crew has to protect itself. It is not safe to drill a hole in the wall in the typical million dollar Bay Area home. This is what I mean by a third world quality of life. Sacrifice everything and get something substandard in return.

Jimbo,

If you did well in any of the tech booms, good for you. I should have qualified the gamble comment for the housing bubble alone.

I wish I can offer a very bubbly prognosis and hope for the near term, but we are in for a long duration of lower living standards. The gravy train for state and city employees is coming to a screeching halt. Vallejo is not an exception, it is just ahead of its time. Thanks to Prop13, California is going through an ossification, to its own detriment. And the income/sales tax increase proposals will not help much either.

If you are a big employer, you already have enough experience with what works in outsourcing and what doesn't. The downturn will provide the window for the next wave of outsourcing. The bottom 90% will actually see wages and benefits deflate as the companies adjust to the downturn. Much of the logic for taking IO loans assumed ever increasing real wages. This will be as much a fallacy as the idea of ever appreciating housing.

My only hope is that the powers that be allow the imbalances to correct themselves, as that will lead to the quickest recovery. We truly cannot afford to be stimulated or bailed out.

Should be no surprise about the Canadian RE bubble.
The whole RE industry and thier crony stooges got busted.

The incoming head of the Toronto Real Estate Board has come out swinging against phantom bidding tactics after denying they even existed when she ran for the job three months ago.

"It's dirty realty, it really is," Maureen O'Neill said of agents who fabricate offers during bidding wars. She is now calling on the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) to yank the licences of agents convicted of using phony bids.

"Boot them out, we don't need them in the business," O'Neill said. "I don't think these people should be allowed to sell real estate."

Phantom bids can be used by selling agents to spark extra rounds of bidding or to spook potential buyers into rushing or raising offers. The practice is considered a breach of ethics under the Real Estate and Business Brokers' Act of Ontario – administered by the Ontario council – and realtors who are caught can face hefty fines.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/256968

I wonder how fictious the "multiple offers" I hear from realtors in BA are. Anyone else have serious doubts about this?

After deep denial from their NAR equal it in Canada now thier singing a different tune. Has anyone investigated this ?

Sorry, I was going to say.

Has anyone in the California investigated realtors current practice?

Duke said:

What perplexes me is why industry does not fan-out... You can invent pretty good communities on your own if you are: Adobe, Cisco, Goodle, Apple, etc.

I've done some quick back-of-the-envelope figuring on this before, and I think the answers comes down to risk and an aversion to "company towns". Multiple Google-like companies could pull it off, though. About 65% of a company's expenses on average comes from payroll, then the next largest expense is usually office leases. Say about 70% between payroll and office leases, conservatively.

If a corporate-sponsored co-op between several Google-sized companies bought out some land and locked in the land expense to the original cost basis plus operating expenses in perpetuity, then any business transacted on that property enjoys an instant cost advantage compared to businesses that have to pay on constantly asset-inflated land prices. As shelter is the single largest expense in the average wage-earner's household, businesses that use this co-op to cut half of their employees' shelter costs would enjoy an immediate 9% cost advantage in payroll assuming a shelter cost that absorbs 30% of the employees' payroll check. That cost advantage goes up as the percent of payroll absorbed by shelter increases. Moreover, over time, as land values are inflated, the nominal gains become even greater. Businesses using co-op land could actually start paying less yet still attract and retain top talent due to just the differential in shelter costs.

There is substantial risk in creating such a co-op type structure; the expense of building a rail or mass transit transport bridge to the nearest major metro area alone could sink such a project, for example. On the other hand, the alternative of building a relatively isolated community might make it too difficult to attract top talent. The first companies that figure out how to surmount these problems however, would likely enjoy a tremendous expense structure advantage.

OO says:

military pay must have fallen off the cliff since the mid-90s

When I got out, I was a Major on flying status with 15 years service. The pay for such today is:

$5517 per mo base pay
$ 203 per mo BAS (non-taxable)
$1005 per month Quarters Allowance (non-taxable)
$ 840 per month flight pay

The Quarters Allowance is supplemented with VHA for those assigned to high cost of living areas.

If the Major chooses to live in Base Housing, he forfiets the Quarters Allowance, but then has neither rent nor utilities to pay. He also gets extra pay for travel, working in a "combat zone," and the occasional retention bonus. His medical/dental care are free, his family gets seriously discounted groceries at the "commissary", along with tax free purchases at military exchanges. He also has a $400k term life policy for $5.40/mo.

As you can see, the Major makes over $90k/yr plus significant perks. Remember also, the Major will receive "retired pay" after leaving the Air Force, after putting in 5 more years. Even more retired pay if he stays in longer.

How can such an individual be a candidate for bankruptcy?

Jimbo says:

"I figure I can comfortably retire once we have $2M in the bank and the house paid off."

If SOMEBODY doesn't do SOMETHING about inflation you're gonna need a lot more than that!

Duke, Apostasy,

Anheiser-Busch did the "invented community" bit when they build a brewery and a Busch Gardens amusement park near Williamsburg, VA. They had thier "Busch Properties" division construct "Kings Mill." Kings Mill is a gated community with 2900 acres of mostly upcale homes, golf, waterfront, shops, wilderness areas, trails, etc.

I miss a lot of the posters here and I think the overall quality of 'this' particular blog speaks for itself. But after a year long hiatus I check back in for a goof and OO is still contorting reality to fit his drug addicted/homeless/armed and dangerous vet pet theory.

Don't waste your time sharing facts with him. It doesn't fit his design.

DinOR.

Welcome back!!!

You have been missed. Even recently we had statements wondering about the DinOR perspective on an issue and whether someone saw you post at CR, etc.

Headset,

Thanks! We've been really busy with our new grand daughter and helping the daughter out. I'm now set up in my new office and I hate to say it but... it was something of an effort coordinating with the prop. mgr. and all the various utilities. They all LIE to you.

Anyway, I've never had anything against OO personally, and generally he's absolutely spot on in all his observations. It's just when it comes to military personnel he's just got issues. Some of my BEST clients are retired officers and one owns a good portion of the town of Corvallis. He refers other retired buddies and they all seem to be doing quite well thank you.

Myself, I'm drastically cutting the weight and looking forward to going back into the reserves to finish my last 5 years 2 months and 11 days ( but who's counting? ) just so I can hang around the other derelicts.

DinOR, Headset,

I don't think the military you knew back then is still the same today. First of all, there's the difference between army, navy and air force, all of them have their own distinctive culture, payscale. When I went to graduate school in the early 90s, I got to know quite a few discharged officers from Navy and Air Force who got into top-tier Ivy-League business schools and law schools, and they move on to become law firm and VC partners. A lot of them were in the Gulf War I combat, decorated, and they themselves came from very good colleges with excellent grades. If you are talking about these vets, there is not even the slightest danger for them to become homeless.

I can assure you today, the proportion of those from good colleges joining the military is almost next to none, if they have any other alternatives. Iraq War II is basically scraping the bottom of the barrel for the quality of civilians, as compared to the quality of recruits 10 years ago, smart, motivated and well educated college grad with financial or ideological motivations, today, we are getting gang members, or people who have NO other alternatives in the job market. Nobody college grad in the right state of mind will want to waste his life in Iraq today. Therefore, as soon as they get discharged, they wind up on the street, if they become homeless, we should be thankful, because at least they are not blowing up buildings for personal vengeance.

The civilian attitude towards the military, particularly the army, has changed very drastically in the last decade. Prior to Iraq War II, most of the parents I talk to will find it honorable to send kids to West Point, at least it shows you can get endorsement letters from Senators. Nowadays, the parents I know want to keep their kids as far away from the military as possible.

Headset,

See? Won't give it up. He's right ( we're wrong ) EACH branch has their "own" payscale? You gotta be shittin' me, right? OO, you're a great guy and I've always enjoyed your posts on virtually any-other-topic but simply by failing to grasp that Enlisted and Officer Payscales are u-n-i-f-o-r-m across the board, as approved by Congress, shows me you don't understand the 1st thing about the military. Period. Let it go.

DinOR,

I am all ears if you care to educate me on this topic.

There's no such thing as a free dinner. A worker at Google tells us the company is taking evening meals off the menu: "Google has drastically cut back their budget on the culinary program. How is it affecting campus? No more dinner. No more tea trolley. No more snack attack in the afternoon." The changes will be announced to Googlers on Monday. Workers at the Googleplex will remain amply fed, with free breakfast and lunch -- dinner will be reserved for geeks only -- but it's still a shocking cutback.

http://valleywag.com/5040986/googles-food-perks-on-the-chopping-block

OO,

Well sure, but that's where we left off way back when? It just strikes me that you've already made up your mind that these guys are mindless robots wired for wanton destruction! If neither you, nor any members of your family were ever in the service, everything you're getting is 3rd or 4th hand? I'm still trying to figure out why you even care or see it as all that much of a 'problem' to begin with.

I have several friends that have been in Iraq including our local police chief and I haven't met anyone yet that didn't feel they weren't making a positive contribution in people's lives!? Some of these guys are very successful and well into their 50's. So they're a little old to be in a gang.

All that aside Saturday was an EPIC night for me! My SIL's and I formed a cover band and played to a packed house in our local tavern. The place is scary run down so if you've ever been bar-hopping in TJ you've pretty much got the idea. We got free beer for the whole night and people seemed to love it. I called the owner today to thank him and he said "When can you guys come back? It was our best night in a LONG time!" ( Well what would expect, everyone we know, drinks..? )

I actually developed a new found respect for runway models! We do a lot of open tuning stuff so I had to change guitars nearly every song during "the big ending" and be ready to carry the intro with zero time to spare. Very easy to screw up. Anybody that has ever plugged a fully amped cord into an electric will tell you the sound you get will *not* be musical! So I kind of felt like I was "spinning plates" but it was definitely a lot of fun. We'll see if they can plug some of the better stuff into youtube just for laughs?

DinOR,

Can't wait to see that youtube link. And of course, to complete that "scary run down tavern" experience you need some San Miguels!

Uh oh. The Contra Costa County assessor is screaming "housing bottom" and "BUY NOW"!!

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_10281259?nclick_check=1

Dinor,

I think OO is a Great Observer, he generously shares all his keen observations with us here.

But I think sometimes he's a little too sure of himself. The problem he has is his observations of American Life are clouded by his perspective from The Fortress. He knows The Fortress inside and out, but The Fortress is not the USA. The Fortress is a postage-stamp sized enclave, maybe like the foreign enclave of Old Shanghai.

He shared the details of the vets he knew; not career military enlisted, but instead guys in the officer corps who were elite enough to get into the elite grad school he went to.

The elitest of the officers is not the U.S. Military, and the Fortress is not the USA.

Here is the article text. BTW, isn't is somewhat inappropriate for a COUNTY ASSESSOR to be offering real estate investment advice??? Talk about conflict of interest...

Now is the time to buy real estate

By Gus Kramer
Guest commentary
Article Launched: 08/22/2008 11:02:47 PM PDT Contra Costa Times

AS THE assessor of Contra Costa County since 1995 and a student of the real estate market of the East Bay since 1971, I've never felt more compelled and stronger about advising anyone and everyone who ever thought about getting into real estate to do it now.

Real estate professionals and economists have been watching the real estate market since it peaked in the summer of 2005. Every summer since then, pundants have come out and said, "Oh it can't get any worse." Well, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that real estate has never been more affordable in Contra Costa County. The bad news is that values are probably going to still go a little bit lower until the end of 2008.

So why is now a good time to buy?

Just like the stock market, you can never catch the absolute bottom. Professionals in the stock market refer to this as trying to catch a falling knife. If you are looking for a home to live in, now is the time to start looking for that home and finally find your dream.

You are never going find it more affordable than today. Yes, values may continue to go down a little bit and if you ask for a nice long escrow, let's say 60 to 90 days (which has become the norm with bank-owned properties), you may be able to negotiate a little more consideration for closing costs, etc., right before escrow closes since the market is still in a downward turn.

The other thing that's going to happen is that the Federal Reserve Bank wants to curb inflation and that can affect interest rates. As a result, now is also a good time to get into an investment house or a house you want to live in because if there is any loss in the value it will be made up by the locking in to a lower interest rate today. After all if you are looking for that dream home to live in for a long time, and the market continues to go down even only 5 percent, that's barely a real estate commission and remember the seller pays that commission, not you. So go out and find that dream home!

In Brentwood, I have a friend who bought a house in October of 2007. It's a beautiful home in Brentwood on the golf course, with four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a three-car garage and a pool. This house sold for $890,000 in August 2005. In October 2007, he purchased the house for $530,000. He was dancing on his granite counter tops, doing the Irish Jig that his ancestors had perfected many years ago.

In March of this year, he called me quite upset and said his neighbor's house was selling for $395,000. Now, had my friend lost any money? No, you don't lose money until you sell the home. He still has that dream home, his wife is still happy, his children are elated and he still lives in Brentwood just two miles from his office in downtown Brentwood.

In Antioch, there was recently a two-bedroom, one-bath house listed in the old part of town for $129,000! We haven't seen values this low since sometime between 1998 and 2000. In the price range below $275,000 in Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley, sellers are getting multiple offers.

Homes above $400,000 are still having a tough time getting offers and sometimes owners are going begging.

If you ever thought about buying real estate as an investment or rental, now is the time. Buying a house for under $300,000 with today's interest rates and soaring rental rates at a premium due to foreclosures, you could actually have a positive cash flow. When the demand comes back for these properties, the escalation of values of the lower-end homes of under $300,000 are going to be the ones that appreciate the fastest. There are other bargains in other areas in Contra Costa County. Two boutique condo projects have been built in downtown Martinez. One of the projects starts at $350,000 and the other starts at $400,000. The units range from 1,400 to 1,700 square feet per unit. In downtown Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek, there are two very nice condo projects starting in the $400,000 range. From the project in Walnut Creek, you can literally walk out the front of your facility and be in a very nice table-service restaurant or movie or probably drive to where you work in downtown Walnut Creek in a matter of a minute or two.

In San Ramon, there are three condo/single family projects that are offering real bargains to first-time buyers with affordable prices you haven't seen in that area since 2003.

In the city of Richmond on the water, there is a beautiful planned unit development and condo project selling in the $400,000-$500,000 range.

I really don't have a big place in my heart for motivational speakers or cheerleaders, but there has never been more opportunity to invest in real estate than there is now. God knows the stock market isn't the place to be and real estate is definitely bouncing off the bottom and will be heading north hopefully in the next year to 18 months.

I feel so strongly about the market going up that if you buy property in the next year and it doesn't appreciate, I promise you I will not raise your property taxes.