patrick.net

Texas Toast, that's a good one, jvolstad

jvolstad says

one of my neighbors who is a Realtor (we all make mistakes) confided with me that the Real Estate market in Texas is really bad.

bad for him. good for buyers.

Sybrib says

Texas Toast, that's a good one, jvolstad

I totally missed that. Texas Toast. I like. That along with a nice big steak. Can't find any good steak houses here in Kalifornia. :-(

jvolstad says

one of my neighbors who is a Realtor (we all make mistakes) confided with me that the Real Estate market in Texas is really bad.

Peddle that notion anywhere near Central Austin and you're likely to lose an eye...

Thank you for the boots-on-the-ground observation. I have nothing personal against Texas but let's just say that some of her citizens have been insufferably condescending, claiming that their laws against cash-out refinancing prevented an RE crash in the state. For awhile it seemed like TX got a lot of credit in the news for being so very much more also better than the rest of us, such as this analysis from a year ago:

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/26/no-real-estate-bubble-or-recession-in-texas/

Mr. Hugh Pavletich wrote in the comments:
"If the rest of the United States was governed competently like Texas – you would not have had a housing bubble ..."

And then this ad pops up on the side of the above article: "Welcome to VIP Realty. Our team would like nothing more than to be your guide to the Dallas Texas real estate market, one of the most dynamic and exciting markets in America."
http://www.viprealtyinfo.com/

I could find more citations but it's kinda boring. HOWEVER, on the subject of proper steaks, the only good steak place would be found in your own backyard. Colorado grass-fed beef on your own grill with some garlic salt and freshly ground pepper. Okay, maybe some Texas grass-fed beef if it's from a relative's ranch.

They are way better off than California. No state income tax, prices are lower.

EMan says

They are way better off than California. No state income tax, prices are lower.

Yes, there are some advantages. However, my friend from Katy is freaked out over the drought, which is the worst in recorded history. There are wildfires because of it. Few jobs, housing prices dropping...

It ain't all sunshine & roses in Texas - things are just as bad as everywhere else.

Cautious1 says

claiming that their laws against cash-out refinancing prevented an RE crash in the state.

That did in fact keep a lid on real estate. That and the relatively high property taxes.

Texas RE is also flopping. The current housing bubble deflation is a national phenomena. I know, I know, there are some pocket areas are doing OK/well but in general, housing decline nationally.

Percentage of RE declines in Texas may be close to or less than CA average. However, in absolute dollar amount Texas is way less than CA. In 2004-2007, a new starter home in Texas is a lot cheaper than in California, even if compared to Inland Empire or central CA. If both CA and TX decline by 40%, the absolute dollar loss in Inland Empire is two to three times more. However, the average household income in California is not two to three times more than Texas. As a result, the pain is felt more in CA.

Does anyone know how Austin kinda became...Austin? I don't mean from a real estate side but more of the political climate.

In answer to the person who asked how Austin became Austin from a political climate......

My opinion is all the snobs moved there and taxed the rest of the state up the butt....and now they are spending all day at art galleries with their noses in the air.

Condos have reached car prices in Texas. From my personal recollection, these are the same prices these units fetched in 1990 after the real estate collapse of the 80's.

These are located within sight (and during the Superbowl walking distance because thats how far away people had to park) of the new Cowboy Stadium:

2104 Count Fleet Dr UNIT 704, Arlington, TX (North)
Foreclosure: $34,900 Zestimate®: -- Mortgage: $140/mo
Beds: 2 Baths: 1.0 Sqft: 1,008 Lot: --
Days on Zillow: 23 Built: 1983 Condo Price/sqft: $34

2100 Count Fleet Dr UNIT 104, Arlington, TX (North)
Home For Sale: $34,900 Zestimate®: $43,300 Mortgage: 140/mo
Beds: 2 Baths: 1.0 Sqft: 900 Lot: 2,178
Days on Zillow: 144 Built: 1983 Condo Price/sqft: $38

2105 Count Fleet Dr UNIT 217, Arlington, TX (North)
Home For Sale: $39,900 Zestimate®: $42,000 Mortgage: 160/mo
Beds: 1 Baths: 1.0 Sqft: 750 Lot: 1,611
Days on Zillow: 82 Built: 1983 Condo Price/sqft: $53

C Boy says

Condos have reached car prices in Texas. From my personal recollection, these are the same prices these units fetched in 1990 after the real estate collapse of the 80's.

http://sanantonio.craigslist.org/reb/2487578315.html

These condos have been on the market for years. I'm guessing the only buyers are investors who then rent them out. Condos do not sell well in SA.

I'm actually glad the cracks are starting to show a little here...

Homeaway has worked to many homeowners' advantage, however, helping keep the reaper at bay. Being a big festival town, people rent their places out throughout the year while they huddle in the converted garage or the granny flat out back. This little tax free income supplement helps defray the outrageous property tax rates here, which are likely to go up again next year.

They are much worse off than in California because they have to live in Texas.

As anyone who's traveled this country as extensively as I have over the last many years, you know that America is like a big nasty stew with only a few really good bits in it.

Austinhousingbubble says

As anyone who's traveled this country as extensively as I have over the last many years, you know that America is like a big nasty stew with only a few really good bits in it.

Was that North America? Did you actually travel in the same country I did? Wow you must be a lot of fun at parties. Enjoying life much?

Prop taxes + insurance generally run 3%/yr in Texas. Can be higher in some jurisdictions.

Property values are assed every year.

Satellites are even used to spot unpermitted pools, additions, garages, etc.

bob2356 says

Was that North America? Did you actually travel in the same country I did? Wow you must be a lot of fun at parties. Enjoying life much?

Yeah, Bobby, I'm not talking about jet setting from one fabulous metro to another. I rather doubt from your comment whether you or even most Americans have traveled and stayed in even half the states in this country. If you had, you might have noticed the vast swaths of poverty and blight which abounds in what is most commonly referred to as fly-over country. Never mind the crumbling infrastructure, the overbuilding and the corporate homogeneity which makes most metros indistinguishable from one another.

I find a lot of people who talk about how much they love their country either have a selective knowledge of it or are simply chauvinistic hypocrites who're really just referring to their own pinhole version of America.

You don't have a state income tax, so how can the property taxes be 'outrageous'. Cry me a river.

Florida doesn't either, and the property taxes are about half. You can move there and create your own little poor man's California.

BTW I'd cry you Lake Superior, if I could be guaranteed you'd drown in it.

Austinhousingbubble says

Yeah, Bobby, I'm not talking about jet setting from one fabulous metro to another. I rather doubt from your comment whether you or even most Americans have traveled and stayed in even half the states in this country. If you had, you might have noticed the vast swaths of poverty and blight which abounds in what is most commonly referred to as fly-over country.

Sorry to break your bubble of self importance but I've driven through every state but Alaska and Hawaii multiple times. I've lived in (as in getting a residence and moving my stuff in) NJ, NY, NC, SC, VA, PA, RI, TX, OK, OR, WA, NV, and CO. I don't think I've never lived in a fabulous metro area. I did live in NYC a couple years, but not in a very fabulous area at all. I drove x country 4 times in 2007 (consolidating my belongings from houses in PA, TX, and OR to ship overseas, uhaul should give me a frequent flier #) and missed the "vast swaths" of poverty and blight. There are certainly places that are hurting, but "vast swaths"? Get a grip.

Maybe you need to travel some places that will give you some perspective on what poverty and blight really looks like. The closest I've seen in America is the "colonias" in the Rio Grande valley where developers built without permits or installing sewer, water, electric, drainage (a big deal in someplace as flat and seasonally rainy as the RGV), or roads. Cameron county has been trying to get this cleaned up for 30 years.

Every city and state in America has great area's and really crappy area's, but the average life quality is as high or higher (frequently much higher) than almost any place else in the world except a few niche countries like Switzerland or Andorra.

bob2356 says

but the average life quality is as high or higher

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=15u

I generally don't really like the term: "Flyover country". I grew up in what I guess would be classified as such; a very rural area in North Carolina. Most Americans live in metro areas and to them rural areas are these mysterious areas they seldom set foot in- that is unless they romantically take trips to rural areas that have become gentrified beacons for ex-metro folks wanting to become landed gentry.

Truth be known there's many things in rural areas- both good and bad- that you won't experience in metro areas. There is definitely a LOT less squabbling pissing contests over such-and-such neighborhoods for the "best" schools and this and that. I have spent the last 12 years living in major metro areas- first on the east coast and now on the west coast in the Bay Area. All I can say is that comparatively speaking, metro life has sucked in comparison. Sure- I can walk to any number of fancy Japanese restaurants or attend some concert. But overall people seem to preoccupied with "getting in" - as in buying a house, buying cars, buying gadgets, getting kids into perfect schools, etc etc etc that it all feels like one giant rat race- as absolutely cliche' as that sounds. Perhaps I am over-romanticizing the positive aspects of rural living. But I'm increasingly drawn to the idea of moving back.

As far as TX goes, well My biggest question would be about Austin. Just like a ton of other yuppies from the West Coast, its on my list. But from my outward observations it looks like its either cookie-cutter hell or extreme overpriced gentrified neighborhoods with crazy high property taxes. I am sort of leaning towards NOT moving there because it might not be any better than the Bay Area. A $300k house there might as well be a 600k house in the Bay Area. In reality it might be just like walking into another Bay Area, of which I've had more than enough of.

jvolstad says

Last time I was home, one of my neighbors who is a Realtor (we all make mistakes) confided with me that the Real Estate market in Texas is really bad. Many people are making less then $30K a year and you just can't buy many houses with that low of an income. Maybe that is why we are seeing more and more foreclosures popping up.

To add further to this, I think there is a bit of a misconception about how "great" it is in TX- Austin in particular. I think I've mentioned this before here, but when I was unemployed a few years ago I tried to get a job in Austin. I am very qualified and highly seasoned. The results I got were a bit shocking: There were very few jobs, the jobs available were often junior level, and the pay- even for Austin- was paltry. As in 40k for a senior level job versus the 6-figure income I get in the Bay Area. That and there were hardly any full time opportunities.

My take on it is that there have been way too many people who assume that a move to Austin means cheap real estate and certainly they can land a good job. I'm not sure if that's the case...

On Patrick's list of links today:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-08/closer-look-proves-texas-path-to-u-s-employment-growth-isn-t-best-view.html?source=patrick.net#story_head

"To a sizable degree, however, the state’s booming payrolls are the result of hard-to-duplicate factors, such as a fast-growing population, and unusually low wages...Texas [is] tied with Mississippi for the largest share of the population earning no more than the minimum wage..."

And they have fire ants: http://fireant.tamu.edu/

It used to be (not that long ago) that the majority of workers in Austin worked for the state, federal, or local governments.

A plethora of grads every year help keep the wages down.

I've heard the "Plethora of grads" argument too. The thing is that how is Austin different from say- the Bay Area which also has a huge number of colleges with college grads- especially those coming from such schools like Stanford- being absorbed into the local job scene? Is there really a different dynamic in Austin? Seems like most major cities have lots of colleges. Why would Austin be any different?

If I had a guess it would be due to too many people from Cali and other places moving in and competing for jobs that has perhaps kept wages low there.

I moved from the Bay Area to TX 6 years ago. In 2005, I felt like such a failure for not being able to afford to buy a home in the "real" BA, where I grew up. Even though we went to good colleges and got advanced degrees, realistically, we didn't stand a chance to make it in the "real" Bay Area without selling ourselves to a job we didn't believe in or without getting some major help from the Bank of Mom and Dad. Neither was really an option for me or my spouse. When we were both offered jobs in TX, we jumped at the chance. Ever since, we have been squirreling everything away. People can bag on TX as much as they want (we have an exterminator who comes out 3x a year to combat fireants, thank you!), but personally, I feel that moving here was the best financial decision we could have made for ourselves. We plan to stay here for as long as we can and continue to save. Most of the people I grew up with, can't afford "real" BA prices either, and have bought in the outskirts. Those who bought in the past 10 years are underwater, one friend is in foreclosure. But, this doesn't seem to have deterred anyone. My friends who haven't yet bought continue to be infatuated with real estate, and are considering shelling out 7+ times their salaries to get a piece of the "action." All I can say is that it's a different world from the one that we inhabit, where living beneath our means and saving, saving, saving rule the day.

Apparently Texas is one of the 7 states where white collar jobs are shrinking as a percentage of overall jobs:

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/113103/7-states-white-collar-jobs-disappearing-247wallst

How big is Stanford, etc. ?

Austin has a pop of ~800,000 with 50,000 attending UT (Texas A&M is only 90 miles away with another 50,000 students and Texas State is only 45 miles away with another 30,000, and you could through in UT San Antonio 90 miles away with 30,000).

According to wiki:

Over 43 percent of Austin residents age 25 and over hold a bachelor's degree, while 16 percent hold a graduate degree

C Boy says

How big is Stanford, etc. ?

Austin has a pop of ~800,000 with 50,000 attending UT (Texas A&M is only 90 miles away with another 50,000 students and Texas State is only 45 miles away with another 30,000, and you could through in UT San Antonio 90 miles away with 30,000).

Perhaps you've heard of a little university called the University of California at Berkeley?

What percentage of UT students actually stay in Austin? Both are the flagship campuses of their respective state university systems. I'm assuming both draw upper level students from across the state who aren't necessarily going to stay where they went to college. As such, it's expected that a large percentage of students would leave the region.

Even then, Berkeley is in a massive urban area that is #5 in the country at over 6M people when you combine SF MSA and SJ MSA (and bigger if you include Napa/Sonoma), whereas Austin is more of a regional city and is only #4 in Texas after Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. Which has the better ability to retain students after graduation? Which has more students who lived in the area before matriculation? And also from Wikipedia: "Among the 114 CSAs in the United States, San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland has the second highest educational-attainment in both bachelor’s and master's degree attainment, and the second highest median household income after Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia." That probably has more to do with the city than being where Stanford and Berkeley are.

I don't think it's particularly helpful to start including universities 90 miles away.

...and missed the "vast swaths" of poverty and blight. There are certainly places that are hurting, but "vast swaths"? Get a grip.

The only thing this might prove is that your willing ignorance is surpassed only by your general shittiness.

I feel weird arguing this, because you come at me like I'm propounding poverty. I'm not; I'm making a plain vanilla observation. Despite what you report, yes, there are expanses of poverty and blight all over this country. There's no way anyone as traveled as you purport to be could miss it. You have clearly not spent much time traveling the Mississippi Delta region to any real degree; even before Katrina, the level of squalor throughout this region was nothing if not palpable. Were you anywhere near El Paso when the Levi's factory shut down? How about Starr County, Texas where the per capita income stands at $7,069? Been to Laredo lately? I have. Let's talk about the foothills of the Ozarks in Missouri. Spent much time out there? Howabout the Florida panhandle? Heading northwest, I know some areas of beautiful Eastern Idaho you might've missed. I can expound upon other regions if you'd like, including Alaska...would you like a list with zipcodes?

t

he average life quality is as high or higher (frequently much higher) than almost any place else in the world except a few niche countries like Switzerland or Andorra.

This has a long way to go before it could even be considered stupid. By excepting a few 'niche countries' -- do you mean other First World countries? Because if you compare the US to other rich first world nations, our poverty rate is nothing if not embarrassing. I think it's time to spend a little less time trolling on Patrick.net, and a little more time brushing up on reality:

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/salas.356/usa_vs._world

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb10-144.html

And here's a site which might help put you in touch with some of the sights you might have missed in your travels, complete with a neat interactive map.

http://www.inourownbackyard.us/indexmap.html

Unlike CA, there is very in the way of jobs in college towns of College Station, San Marcos, Waco, etc. Austin, Dallas or Houston is where the jobs are. ( and there is nothing but service jobs or military. )

Out of 800,000 in Austin - 50,000 are attending UT and 80,000 work for the State of Texas and 13,000 work for UT, and the IRS employs about 10,000. Throw in local government employees and just about 1/2 the adult population is somehow receiving government money.

However, the state is cutting a few billion from school funding and firing ~10,000 employees

Austinhousingbubble says

The only thing this might prove is that your willing ignorance is surpassed only by your general shittiness.

I feel weird arguing this, because you come at me like I'm propounding poverty. I'm not; I'm making a plain vanilla observation. Despite what you report, yes, there are expanses of poverty and blight all over this country.

My "general shittiness" is from saying everything isn't gloom and doom? Really? There is a big difference between your current "expanses" and your previous "vast swaths" in my mind, which is it? I said more than once, which you seemed to have missed, there are good and bad area's everywhere. I'm not sure how that is willing ignorance, could you explain?

I know plenty of really bad places in France (I lived there in 93), Spain (a couple hours from where I lived in France, visited a lot), Australia, Costa Rica (I lived there in 2003) and NZ ( where I live now). There's plenty of poverty in any country you care to name. I like to think actually living in other countries qualifies as reality. How many years have you lived abroad?

Here is the actual methodology of the unicef child poverty study U mich took their numbers from www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/repcard6e.pdf . It has a lot of information on how the calculations are done. The US does do worse than many European countries on child poverty, but there is a lot more to it than just raw numbers. Check it out.

No America isn't great everywhere (I never said anything of the kind), but it's certainly not "vast swaths" of poverty either.

My "general shittiness" is from saying everything isn't gloom and doom?

What's with the false dichotomy? If someone isn't taking Zoloft suppositories every third hour, they're doom and gloom? Realists get slammed for being pessimists kinda like how skeptics get mistaken for contrarians. There are, in fact, many gradients between extremes, Bob.

There is a big difference between your current "expanses" and your previous "vast swaths" in my mind, which is it?

'In your mind' is the key qualifier here. I suspect this is where you spent much of your time during your trips and multiple residences throughout America as well. Meanwhile, if you really want to get into a semantics battle, then go crazy and paste the Merriam Webster definition of both 'expansive' and 'vast' here and we can waste a bunch of bandwidth with that; but only if you agree to donate at least 20 bucks to Patrick.net for hosting such banalities (I've already made my donation). Otherwise, let me put it in a way which is maybe more easily digestible: There is a shitload of this country blighted by poverty and the impact of this is both readily perceptible and sobering. There's a much more important overarching narrative behind this observation as to why things are this way, but we'll skip over that for now.

I said more than once, which you seemed to have missed, there are good and bad area's everywhere. I'm not sure how that is willing ignorance, could you explain?

I've already explained: I stated the bad is disproportionate to the good in much of the American landscape I've seen, which is MUCH. You argued by suggesting people in the US, including the poor and dispossessed, live better than their counterparts in other countries, (vague), which is measurably false, if we are discussing other first world nations.

How many years have you lived abroad?

I've never actually stayed outside the US more than a month, and that was only candyass Quebec City, so ya got me there, Bob. Now explain to me how this undermines my original observation? The poverty you perceived in the countries you mention having lived is less per capita than it is here. So no matter how crappy those bad parts of Paris were, the people enjoyed a comparatively better standard of living than their counterparts here, (just given their healthcare system alone) which completely flies in the face of what you stated a few posts above.

Here is the actual methodology of the unicef child poverty study U mich took their numbers from www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/repcard6e.pdf . It has a lot of information on how the calculations are done. The US does do worse than many European countries on child poverty, but there is a lot more to it than just raw numbers. Check it out.

I already have, and the numbers and corresponding charts support my observations.

...but it's certainly not "vast swaths" of poverty either.

Great. A yes-it-is/no-it-isn't argument on the internets...

ok ok...yes-it-is! Your turn.

BTW -- poverty, blight and crumbling infrastructure comprised only one part of my original observation about the American landscape: I was also referring to the proliferation of boilerplate McCities -- bland sprawl with the same corporate retail outlets installed in the same strip mall layouts surrounded by the same cookie-cutter residential and urban developments.

Come on now no fighting...

"I was also referring to the proliferation of boilerplate McCities -- bland sprawl with the same corporate retail outlets installed in the same strip mall layouts surrounded by the same cookie-cutter residential and urban developments."

Ok that's fine but how is that different from any place in the country or the world for that matter? I've been to the Walmart in Beijing (quite different from the US version...there's Dunkin Donuts in Shanghai and I went to a Burger King on on the top of Victoria peak in HK (It was the end of a 3 week trip).

US television can be found around the world thanks to fta dishes and a fair amount of the planet wants to live like the US does economically.

I would say that the poor in the US live better then that of the poor in other countries. Sanitation, transportation, communication standards are all higher here.

There will always be those that try to illustrate standards in the EU. Well the EU is falling apart. Greece used Goldman Sachs to lie about its debt levels and now it is spreading to Italy. The USA is without question much more friendly to immigrants and immigration in general than the EU. I worked for a company that was bought by a German conglomerate and when they visited they were astonished at the lack of public transport....even though this was in the suburbs not a city. Is it really asking much for people to have the ability to drive? Longevity of EU members vs USA is not statistically significant. If you really want to test a theory ask an American and European what would they rather have: Equality or Freedom? Most Americans will say freedom and most Europeans will say equality. North America and especially the USA is the largest successful post colonial country. The colonial mentality was DIY whereas in Europe they owned the colonies so they always had an idea of constant service.

Originality unfortunately is harder to define with the help of the internet. Many creations really aren't original they simply rehash items for people that did not remember or know that particular time. When goods and services are given it targets a demographic. Other demographics might not know about it so it gets redone over and over again

A recent article in my local paper illustrated that much of the commercial businesses in the area are in strip malls. But they have been the psedo incubator for businesses since the 70's..few businesses want/need to go all out with exterior decor.

Here are some other items that were generally ripped off of others.
West side story was really romeo and juliet which was really old greek stories, star wars was really the magnificent seven which was really the seven samurai

Any story about a battle/journey to go home is Homers Odyssey

michael bay rehashed the island to make transformers 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyhnmRdze-0

Chris Rock copied exact lines from Richard Pryors Which Way is Up? in his bits in the mid 90's.

Carlos Mancia admits he copies jokes and puts "mexican" in front of them for white audiences

Disney rehashed the same animated "stuff" for decades now www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh84g8rC2oA

With videogames where do I start..super mario brothers was smurf adventure, mortal kombat was streetfight which was Karate Champ quake was doom which was wolfenstein 3d etc.

If you want growth and you don't want sprawl that's a hard combination...just look at Santa Cruz

Austinhousingbubble says

I've already explained: I stated the bad is disproportionate to the good in much of the American landscape I've seen, which is MUCH. You argued by suggesting people in the US, including the poor and dispossessed, live better than their counterparts in other countries, (vague), which is measurably false, if we are discussing other first world nations.

Austinhousingbubble says

Here is the actual methodology of the unicef child poverty study U mich took their numbers from www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/repcard6e.pdf . It has a lot of information on how the calculations are done. The US does do worse than many European countries on child poverty, but there is a lot more to it than just raw numbers. Check it out.

I already have, and the numbers and corresponding charts support my observations.

Geez, why are you so defensive and emotional about this stuff? Relax have a glass of wine. You say the bad is disproportionate to the good. Compared to what? You haven't gone around anywhere else and actually looked. BTW Paris and France are not synonymous. One is a city, one is a country. I lived in the south of France.

The numbers support your observations? Yet UNICEF says right in the report the numbers are just raw and don't necessarily represent any kind of accurate comparison between societies. I'm not arguing that there is no poverty in the US or there aren't other places that are doing better. You keep putting those words into my mouth. I'm arguing (and UNICEF agrees with me) child poverty numbers, defined as below 50% of the median income don't mean that much without other factors being considered.

What kinds of factors? Income disparity, cost of living, societal norms, etc.. How would this matter? For one thing the US has a great number of high income earners compared to Europe. This skews the income up in the US and makes it much harder for low income people to meet the 50% mark. Doctors, lawyers, executives etc., etc. earn much higher incomes in the US. There is a huge percentage of very high earners in the US relative to Europe. This changes the median up. It costs a lot more to become a doctor, lawyer, or executive in the US so the higher earnings are probably justified, but it skews the numbers.

The same, but opposite, is true for Mexico. I lived between Brownsville and Mcallen Tx and traveled a lot in Mexico. The poverty is so much higher than the US it's hard to believe. There is a reason so many Mexicans go to the US. Yet the child poverty rate only is 5% higher than the US. How can that be? The median income is so low that achieving over 50% of median requires very little income.

Here in NZ the average wage for the same job is about 30% less than the states. The cost of living is close to double, although you have to subtract out health care insurance. But taxes are much higher. Top rate 32% starting at 60k, no deductions of any kind along with a flat 15% tax on all goods and services so it is probably a wash. The unemployment rate is about the same. Yet NZ has a child poverty rate 5% below the US. How can that be? As Mark Twain said, there are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

What is your definition of living better? In Europe and Austrolasia goods are much, much more expensive. People do with a lot less material things. They live in much smaller spaces. In my 700 sq ft rental house in France my kitchen consisted of a free standing cabinet, a 1 ft sq sink, and a single burner hooked up to a butane bottle. The tiny bit of electrical and plumbing the house had were just scary looking kludges. This is pretty common. I had just about the only washing machine in the village (an American friend owned the house) which did wonders for my social life, but also means a lot of people were washing their clothes by hand. Here in NZ something like 80% of the houses are heated with wood. Pretty close to 100% are uninsulated, cold, and damp.

Perhaps you need to move out of your Austin, yuppie mindset bubble. Lower standard of living isn't the same thing as poverty and squalor. Just because people don't buy a new car every 2 years or have a mcmansion filled to the brim with the latest and greatest doesn't mean they are trash. I lived a great deal of my childhood at my grandparents small farm in rural western VA. They were by your standards very poor, perhaps even squalid, yet we lacked for nothing and never thought about it. Most food was grown or slaughtered on the farm, they heated with wood, they drove well maintained older cars, and purchased frugally so the cash requirements were minimal. The were perfectly happy. I still know plenty of people in area's around the country that you find to be squalid (and for some reason think I have never been to) that are fine with their lot in life. They don't have a lot of material things but they have a roof over their head, food on the table, and family. That used be the the definition of a good life. Obviously there are some that aren't content at all, but many are. Maybe you should stop looking, get out of your car and talk to people.

mdovell says

If you really want to test a theory ask an American and European what would they rather have: Equality or Freedom? Most Americans will say freedom and most Europeans will say equality.

And yet most Americans probably don't even know what "freedom" means. What material freedom does a European not have compared to someone in the US?

mdovell says

If you want growth and you don't want sprawl that's a hard combination...just look at Santa Cruz

The Bay Area in general thought they could do this, but at some point growth stops because you set artificial restrictions on it. At some point, expenses overtake the value-add of being here, and we may have hit that point already in some ways. Open space works if you choose to afford it.

I'm not sure what you mean about Santa Cruz -- it rose the highest in the housing boom and crashed pretty damn hard. Seems like there was some sprawl and growth, but ultimately there aren't that many great jobs in Santa Cruz. So some people drove over the hill and put up with long commutes, but that wasn't necessarily sustainable.

Geez, why are you so defensive and emotional about this stuff? Relax have a glass of wine.

Don't project, dude - I assure you I am the picture of relaxation. Coffee instead of wine, though...

BTW Paris and France are not synonymous. One is a city, one is a country. I lived in the south of France.

(groan) I have extended family throughout Europe, including an aunt in the village of Montarlot and I've traveled to and through France enough times, explored the arrondissements of Paris from the Left Bank to the Right and probably forgotten more French films, books and music than you've enjoyed in your entire life. IOW, there is no subject upon which you can enlighten me which pertains to France, Paris, etc. In future, please try to keep such stale attempts at condescension to yourself.

The numbers support your observations?

Yessir.

Yet UNICEF says right in the report the numbers are just raw and don't necessarily represent any kind of accurate comparison between societies.

For some annoying reason, you're trying very hard to weasel your way out of making an asinine and typically chauvinistic generalization; says BOB, arms waving: "the average life quality is as high or higher (frequently much higher) than almost any place else in the world" USA USA USA USA!!! Why can't you just admit you are wrong? It may be a very freeing experience for you.

As for The UNICEF numbers -- of course they have to be taken with a sizable grain of salt, if for no other reason than they rate Mexico as a wealthy first world country. An approximate picture with raw data was all that was necessary to support my observation. However, if you really wanna get down in the weeds on this, let's look at the OECD #s: In 2007, their statisticians removed certain distorting metrics from their analysis and lowered the estimated income for the average American worker by more than 10% while raising incomes for the middle classes of other major countries by up to more than 30%. There's also the UN Human Poverty Index, which tries to take absolute criteria into account in its analysis: it ranks the US 17th among 19 of the wealthiest countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index

What kinds of factors? Income disparity, cost of living, societal norms, etc..How would this matter? For one thing the US has a great number of high income earners compared to Europe. This skews the income up in the US and makes it much harder for low income people to meet the 50% mark. Doctors, lawyers, executives etc., etc. earn much higher incomes in the US. There is a huge percentage of very high earners in the US relative to Europe. This changes the median up. It costs a lot more to become a doctor, lawyer, or executive in the US so the higher earnings are probably justified, but it skews the numbers.

Societal norms??? Honestly, man, WTF? I'll give you this, when you attempt a straw man argument, you really give it all you've got. As for the numbers, see the UNHPI Chart above.

I lived between Brownsville and Mcallen Tx and traveled a lot in Mexico.

I'm sorry to hear that. I will say, I've become a little skeptical of your alleged exploits here...you must be 760 years old to have fit in all this travel and moving around.

In my 700 sq ft rental house in France my kitchen consisted of a free standing cabinet, a 1 ft sq sink, and a single burner hooked up to a butane bottle. The tiny bit of electrical and plumbing the house had were just scary looking kludges. This is pretty common.

This sounds like some hovels me and some of my friends have lived in here in the states in the lean years. What is your point? There's a pretty gigantic difference between being a down-n-out expat slumming it in Europe and being poor as fuck in America. Paul Krugman said it best in one of his Op-Eds a few years back: "To be poor in America today, even more than in the past, is to be an outcast in your own country. And that, the neuroscientists tell us, is what poisons a child’s brain."

Perhaps you need to move out of your Austin, yuppie mindset bubble.

Who was imploring whom to have a glass of wine just a second a go? But this is your territory -- you live in your mind where presumptions are the order. Yuppie!... I'm not even a fucking boomer!

...they were by your standards very poor, perhaps even squalid, yet we lacked for nothing and never thought about it.

Now you're privvy to my standards? It's not a competition, but I can assure you I've lived worse off than your Euro-trash friends and at least just as hard as your rural kinfolk. But now I think I understand your initial aggro; you come from hill folk, and something I said about the impoverished hinterlands across America pressed a nerve with you. It's not snobbery when I point to these things, Bob, it's dismay. I am angry because I see the victims of corporate interests and an extreme iteration of crony capitalism which has gradually ruined communities and diminished an entire working class, and yet, incredibly, it remains mostly invisible to most Americans who aren't directly impacted.

Ok, I'm done with this thread. It's meandered so far from my original observation as to become almost surreal...

For someone who is relaxed with a cup of coffee you sure do post an uptight and defensive response. Maybe you should switch to decaf. My simple statement and examples that societies have different norms almost sent you into apoplexy. Why does that thought bother you so much? Why would it be a straw man? It's the whole point, that in other places the norms are different.

Your really aren't a careful reader are you? I wasn't talking about being a down and out expat slumming at all. I made it very clear I talking about the day to day living of average people, poor or otherwise. When was the last time you saw a rental house in America with only a wood burning stove in the living room for heat? In NZ you actually have to look hard to find a rental that isn't heated by wood (forget insulation it's not happening), including some pretty high end houses. How about rentals in America with a butane burner for cooking and hot water? Want a hot bath? Put the burner under the water tank, fire it up and wait for the water to heat. Run out of butane, lug the tank to the store. Pretty common in France as are very small houses by American standards. These are just random examples what I consider applicable to defining standard of living. These and plenty of other points of comparison that just don't show up in your academic reams of statistics.

I can assure you I am not 760 years old and actually have lived in 4 countries and 13 states in the last 35 years defining lived as establishing residency for at least 6 months. Yes that is an average stay of 2 years. It's a long story that doesn't bear recounting here. That's not even counting growing up as a military brat. Before you jump on that point, I lived in good old virginny with the grandparents whenever the dad was deployed in a no dependents posting. I'm very confused why someone with such an extensive knowledge about France placed me as being in the Paris slums when I stated twice that I was less than 2 hours drive from the Spanish border. I assumed you just had the typical American grasp of geography. Sorry to disappoint you but I don't have any Eurotrash friends. Just working people going about their day to day lives.

As someone claiming they are not coming from snobbery why are you sorry to hear that I lived in the Rio Grande Valley? Pretty contradictory statements. Why would it be hard to believe I traveled a lot in Mexico when I was 10 minutes from the bridge at Brownsville. It's only a couple hours to places like Saltillo for a weekend away. It's a hell of a lot cooler and less humid in Saltillo than the RGV. It's not a lot further to Tampico, which is not at all cooler or less humid than the RGV. Really nice in the late fall or early spring however.

I stand by my statements, the average quality of life in America is as high as almost anywhere in the world. Maybe 6-8 countries, which includes some small very wealthy countries, are markedly better, 8-10 about a toss up, everything else downhill.

Being really poor anywhere isn't any fun anywhere. The standard of living has declined in America, I never said it hasn't. But to say there are vast swaths of poverty is simply bs. Like you stated, the UN TRIED to take absolute criteria into account. The key word is tried. The criteria you use to consider quality of life and I use to consider quality of life are obviously very different. All I know is the poor I have seen in America live in nicer houses, have more material goods, and eat better (or at least consume more calories) than the poor I've seen in Europe, central America, and Austrolasia in exactly the same jobs or situations.

I freely concede that you will probably be able to come up with 50 academic studies from 20 different organizations that says this isn't true. So don't bother.

I don't see what's surreal about explaining and defending my point of view which contrasts sharply with your (your phrase) "asinine and typically chauvinistic generalization" about poverty in America other than the fact you keep refusing to address my basic points about what defines quality of life.

As they say locally, "we're having some fun now, eh mate"?

I had someone actually say that to me as we were trying to squeeze our cars past each other on a very narrow dirt logging road (detours can be very interesting in NZ) with a 1000 ft vertical drop on my side and a vertical rock wall on his. I was listening to his mirror scrape the rock wall and gravel from my tires going over the edge with about 1 inch between us at the time. I just had to laugh. Guardrails, we don't need no stinking guardrails

corntrollio says

and yet most Americans probably don't even know what "freedom" means. What material freedom does a European not have compared to someone in the US?

Well the right of gun ownership for starters. In the UK (I'm assuming you consider UK as part of Europe) you have laws on not just guns but knives! Vermont has the loosest gun laws in all of the USA but you don't see anyone really complaining or major violence.According to Brady Hand Gun Control you can have a loaded gun on your lawn, leave it there overnight, someone can take it and kill others and you can't be held responsible! And yet...that doesn't happen. So it isn't really the laws that are the issue it is the people that are under it that make the difference.

There is also the freedom of speech which frankly does not exist in the EU. Just look at Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh and of course Brigitte Bardot.

The EU does not have a constitution (it was rejected by France and the Netherlands)..heck neither does the UK as it relies on administrative law rather than actual rights. If the EU considers itself one country (a United states of europe) then it has failed. Any American can go to another state and work and live. That is legally impossible in the EU.

Heck in the UK you have to pay a television license just to have a tv (which was made fun of in The Young Ones back in '81). PBS might beg for cash in the US but at least we don't mandate it. If we were to charge the poor/elderly for simply having a tv you'd see a significant backlash. In Greece voting is mandatory and if you don't vote there are fines. Again if you tried that the poor/elderly would emit a significant back lash.

Here's another test. In the USA we have home depot, lowes, menards, ace, true value etc. In the EU there is Kingfisher..but if you add up the number of employees you have much more in the USA than the EU..same with the number of stores. The EU has a higher population than the USA which means that the demand is higher to justify that much more.

More importantly if the EU's poor were that much better off then why aren't illegals crossing from latin america to Europe? It just doesn't happen. Then again the EU made a deal with Qadaffi to create labor camps to detain African refugees.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/7973649/Gaddafi-Europe-will-turn-black-unless-EU-pays-Libya-4bn-a-year.html

I understand what you mean about cookie cutter mentalities of having the same things in various cities. I worked for a box store for awhile and most stores are about 99% the same. Having said that we never put anyone out of business and often referred people to smaller chains that are more specialized. The internet changes many dynamics and as consumers know more about pricing and how it effects the market they might not always buy from box stores.