patrick.net

Stanman, you said:

The revenues to California state government have been SOARING since the early to mid 1990’s. However, over that same period, the spending has FAR outpaced the revenues.

I just don't believe this. Do you have evidence that per capita revenue to the local and state governments has increased since 2000? I am almost certain that it has not.

Here is a graph of state revenue from 2000-2005:

http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2005/2005_pandi/pi_part_3_anl05.htm

You can see that we are just now to where we were in 2000, but there are far more people in the state.

Here is another way of looking at the same information:

www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=424

Tax burden as a percentage of GDP has held steady since the early 90s and even dipped a bit in 2002. I would like to see that graph to the present though, since the above indicates that it must have gone up a bit recently.

It is per capita numbers that matter here, not overall, since almost everything that government does costs more the more people there are.

QT,

Hey, I am a Gen-Xer too, maybe the first Gen-Xer, but definintely not a boomer. I really didn't see us as the whole slacker, self-entitlement stereotype, since everyone I knew was working hard and not expecting much. A lot of cynicism to be sure, but that is the typical response of the powerless to their situation. It beats despair, at least.

I don't think there is anything *wrong* with wanting it all, but it just isn't going to happen for us, at least certainly not in the way it happened for our parents. Well, not my parents, but you know what I mean. Add to globalization and the increased percentage of corporate profit going to shareholders the spectre of deficit spending as far as the eye can see. I don't really think it has hammered our standard of living yet, but I suspect just about the time I am ready to retire, the whole crumbly edifice will start to sink into the sand. We will feel real pain from it long before that, too.

My mom lives in a trailer on a piece of land that *her* father bought for his retirement. It is in Murrieta, in an area that was very rural when he bought it and is now surrounded by McMansions. I don't know how much longer the city is going to let them live there, but the worst thing that could probably happen to them would be for that land to be condemned and them given $1/2M for it. And I do literally mean the worst. They would probably spend half of it on some poor unfortunates worse off than they are, blow the other half in Vegas and then be on my doorstep looking for a place to live a year later.

My father is a retired probation officer living waaay out in the desert past 29 Palms. He recently bought two homes that he is renting out in Joshua Tree, but they are both cash flow positive, so I can't really say too much about it. He has quite a bit more money sense than my mother and step-father, so I don't worry about him as much.

And oh, congratulations on the move! Sounds like you made the right choice for your situation. You know I think 20% yoy appreciation is unsustainable as well.

Maybe KurtS and I can convince the “godfather” of the blog to move from Silly Valley to Marin and become a tele-commuter!

There must be plenty of good options for "rent to time the market" now. Could be a few savvy investors are dying for some "positive cashflow" (or cashflow at all).

There is ample evidence out there that this market is “complete stupidity” and I am defering purchase decision by 2-3 years.

What's a better term for a situation where home speculators ignore every caution, boldly going where every get-rich fool has gone before? I think quite a few will be completely taken by surprise--despite ample warning. And, that's pretty lame.

QT,

I just realized, in 15 years, you will be 50 and your kids will be out of the house and you will be looking forward to many long enjoyable retired years with your husband.

I will be 55 and with teenagers still in the house and looking forward to paying for college!

I would suggest Peter to open a new thread where we can collectively think about how this RE bubble will end. We can toss around a few scenarios, and devise plans accordingly about how we can
1) protect our asset/money/portfolio
2) minimize our contribution in whichever legal way in the bail-out effort following the burst
3) and best of all, take advantage of the bubble burst.

It is better than just griping to no end. Let's take some more constructive steps to build a fortune during the downtime. I am sure even during the 1929 Depression, some people benefit from it. It just depends on how you set yourself up to be among the few.

I was driving around Palo Alto today, the number of open house signs is staggering. It eas truly a wonderous sight.

It appears that a lot of people are selling and moving into the senior community on Sand Hill road. One condo seller is even offering credit for rennovations and is requesting rent back. Looks like everybody is trying to time the market and more people are thinking that the time is now.

Work hard, invest, save and LIVE LIFE and stop harping and claiming. ‘GOSHHHH!’ from Napolean Dynamite.

But would you play tetherball with me?

"Yeah, I agree with you here. Don’t get me wrong, I am a liberal but not a socialist."

I wet my pants when I read this.

I remember a raging liberal woman who looked at me once and, with a straight face, said, "I'm very very liberal. I'm a libertarian."

I wet my pants then too. I have wetting problem I guess.

The thing that makes your statement so hilarious, to me, is it is the same thing as saying, "I start fires in houses, but I'm not an arsonist." Or "I like to jump off buildings, but I'm not a faller."

Really, it's not that tough. If you vote the "liberal" line, as most people understand "liberal," then you are voting to move the country/state/county whatever, further toward socialism on the continuum. You're voting for bigger government. You've voting for more judicially active courts. You're voting for increased wealth redistribution. You're voting for greater state control of our children. You're voting for more laws on more things.

In short, you're voting for a progression towards the very things that constitute a socialist state - bigger government, higher taxes, reduction of personal freedoms, and greater wealth distribution. A case in point - you'll likely vote for Hillary over the republican dimwit who runs against her - she wants to create a social medicine program ! Doink. Liberalism, you see, begets socialism. Can you imagine the government in charge of a national health care system? Have you been to the DMV? You like that new system they got? A74, B234, C32. I like to call it "fuck me bingo." You ever watch the mail being delivered? You ever work with a government agency? You see how FEMA did? You want these people running your surgeon? Or that pissed off Indian doc who posted above?

If you're a liberal, and you didn't vote for these things, then you're not a liberal! You're a libertarian. Welcome aboard.

Here's a quick rundown of the three hot spots on the political continuum . . .

The conservative insists that you shouldn't be able to go to your neighbor's house and make rapturous gay love to him.

The liberal insists that you should be able to go to your neighbor's house and make rapturous gay love to him, and when you contract HIV because you were too horny and stupid to use a condom, the liberal insists that everyone should bear the cost of your enormous, self-induced medical bills.

The libertarian insists that you should be able to go to your neighbor's house and make rapturous gay love to him because the libertarian wants the same right in return, but when you contract HIV because you were too horny and stupid to use a condom, well, that was a bad call on your part, wasn't it - no money from him by force of government.

Somebody asked . . .
How do we . . .
1) protect our asset/money/portfolio
Well, you can only protect it so far, eh? If it's only a great depression, then you're ok, because you'll outcompete the poor slobs who don't know how to type. What was unemployment at the peak of the great depression? 1 in 4 at the worst? The black folk in New Orleans think racism played a role there? Wait till the food supply gets tight. Then they'll know that being poor gets you much worse treatment than being black. If it gets much worse than the 30s, well there's nothing you can do at all, is there? Because the government will surely take what you've got when it wants to.

2) minimize our contribution in whichever legal way in the bail-out effort following the burst.
Hah! How noble of you to abide by the law! When they take the food from your hand, will you look for the legal respose then?

3) and best of all, take advantage of the bubble burst.

This, to me, is kind of like standing on the deck of the Titanic, with a scrawny Leonardo next to you, and asking, "hey, how do you think we can leverage our position here?"

The best you can do is to follow the smart money. lOOk for it. It'll be easy to see. The money is fleeing housing now. It's fleeing equities. Some will end up in bonds, but inflation is looking strong, so not much. Watch where the money runs next, and follow . . . at least for a while.

But don't worry. Hillary will be in the White House when this all is really going good, and I'm sure she'll take care of all of us.

:)

Jimbo

Thanks for the clarification, sounds like your parents and mine could talk. :) Do you have kids already, or simply planning for the future? Just curious. I have a friend who's husband is 55 now and they have a 5 year old. They're having the time of their life.

It's probably time to start a new thread, seems folks are getting tired of the complaining, but hey, everyone needs to vent once in awhile. I think I'll take owneroccupier's idea and get a move on....

"I have a friend who’s husband is 55 now and they have a 5 year old."

That sucks for the kid. "dad you wanna play catch?" "Sure son, here, catch my IV bag."

Hi! My name is SactoQT...

And my name is Elvis Presley. I am alive and I am walking on the moon.

The best you can do is to follow the smart money. lOOk for it. It’ll be easy to see. The money is fleeing housing now. It’s fleeing equities. Some will end up in bonds, but inflation is looking strong, so not much. Watch where the money runs next, and follow . . . at least for a while.

Will the next big thing be intellectual properties? Perhaps those crazy people on Wall Street can securitize patents too. ;)

P! Hah!

At least then I'll know what to buy.

"Looks like everybody is trying to time the market and more people are thinking that the time is now."

"Trying" being the operative word here...ooops! ;)

Superq

I'm guessing you're a union member? ;)

I used to teach, and some teachers liked the union, but most I worked with didn't. Didn't like the union dues without much visible benefit and being forced to strike when we didn't want to. It always seemed like the union reps were more interested in keeping their power base and didn't give a damn about who they were supposed to be representing. Just one POV.

Superq

You have a point. At the time teachers were in demand so union demands seemed unnecessary to many. I haven't taught in a few years so the sentiment may be very different now. I'll have to ask around.

I have stated before that my views are very colored by my personal experiences and decisions. We actually shorted the stock market and could've made a lot more money. Does that make me bitter? Not really, we could've lost everything, instead we just didn't make as much-- better outcome even if not the best outcome.

I too have become an insatiable reader of housing related media. Although I am getting better and my "habit" is taking less of my time. I only regret that I was unable to buy a house about 5 years ago when prices would've still been rational. I am glad that I didn't buy last year or the year before because I would've paid too much.

I don't agree with raising the minimum wage. Too many small businesses go under when we do this and rather than more people making more, more people find themselves out of work. Larger businesses end up laying off workers too. Even if the business manages to pass the cost on to the customer, they still end up laying off workers to keep costs down. This happens whenever the minimum wage is raised. Government intervention in business always screws it up and is bad for the economy.

So if one is going to accuse that we're not "walking the walk" please tell us how to do so at this time? Not the government intervention sort of solutions that really don't work, but rather the personal actions that can be taken by the "gripers" on the blog. Please-- enlighten us.

So what about my other two suggestions? I am a boomer and I ‘m gonna work until I’m 70,(If I am able), at least because stealing from my daughter’s generation is not a moral option. that topic as well. Believe me, more than a few of us could relate. Education is grand, but they can't teach common sense; and if more people had some sense our economy wouldn't be in the quandry it's in right now.