Yep. I follow a few areas in Southern California (including some in LA County), and have been surprised by how low some of the prices have gone. It’s not that I think they should be higher, since we ARE in a major recession that will probably last many, many years (even if it’s not “officially” a recession), but the speed of the price declines in some areas has been pretty breathtaking.[/quote]
I wonder what your definition of a recession is CA renter.
The general definition of an end to recession is simply growth from the low point. It doesn’t mean that prices and output are back to peak levels.
Without government intervention, house price declines would have been more breathtaking, as you put it. Growth, from a lower low point, would have returned sooner. But I doubt economic output would have already come back above peak levels.[/quote]
From your Bloomberg link:
“Consumers reduced savings to boost purchases and companies stepped up investment in equipment and software, even as the biggest drop in incomes in two years raises concerns about whether the spending increase will continue. The number of Americans with jobs last month, 131.3 million, was lower than the 138 million workers in December 2007, when the 18-month recession began, according to Labor Department data.
…………
How many of those jobs pay the same or more than what they were paying in 2007? How much more stable are those jobs than they were in 2007 (perceived and/or real stability)?
IMHO, the job market has not bounced back in a sustainable way. There are systemic problems that have not been addressed. Sure, pumping cheap debt into the economy can make it look like things are getting better; but in a world where the #1 problem is too much debt, increasing debt will only lead to greater problems down the road. Until our debt situation is addressed in a responsible way, we are not out of the recession, IMHO. Also, if we do not address the systemic problems regarding our tax and trade policies, any “recovery” will be tepid and fleeing.
