Housing won’t hit bottom ’til 2012

[briansd1]

UCGal, good references.

About the boomers inheriting from the Greatest Generation $11.6 trillion, to put that in perspective, we are now a nearly $15 trillion economy, so the wealth to be inherited is less than a year’s economic output.

Boomers are a profligate group. They are used to instant gratification and don’t know any other way of life. They will spend that money quickly (and provide a boost to the economy for a while).

I’m thinking that we will have millions of boomers up the creek with no one to care for them in their old age. Time will tell…

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]

brian, I was working in a dtn firm in 2004 where several boomer employees were “downsizing” from their longtime family homes to dtn condos. I’ve always been bearish on condos,[/quote]

You foresaw well, bearishgurl.

But during the boom, people were pointing to the fact that condos were nearly all second homes so that surely meant that the buyers were loaded and would never need to sell.

We now know differently.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]

brian, I was working in a dtn firm in 2004 where several boomer employees were “downsizing” from their longtime family homes to dtn condos. I’ve always been bearish on condos,[/quote]

You foresaw well, bearishgurl.

But during the boom, people were pointing to the fact that condos were nearly all second homes so that surely meant that the buyers were loaded and would never need to sell.

We now know differently.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]

brian, I was working in a dtn firm in 2004 where several boomer employees were “downsizing” from their longtime family homes to dtn condos. I’ve always been bearish on condos,[/quote]

You foresaw well, bearishgurl.

But during the boom, people were pointing to the fact that condos were nearly all second homes so that surely meant that the buyers were loaded and would never need to sell.

We now know differently.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]

brian, I was working in a dtn firm in 2004 where several boomer employees were “downsizing” from their longtime family homes to dtn condos. I’ve always been bearish on condos,[/quote]

You foresaw well, bearishgurl.

But during the boom, people were pointing to the fact that condos were nearly all second homes so that surely meant that the buyers were loaded and would never need to sell.

We now know differently.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]

brian, I was working in a dtn firm in 2004 where several boomer employees were “downsizing” from their longtime family homes to dtn condos. I’ve always been bearish on condos,[/quote]

You foresaw well, bearishgurl.

But during the boom, people were pointing to the fact that condos were nearly all second homes so that surely meant that the buyers were loaded and would never need to sell.

We now know differently.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]You are right about *some* boomers. But others did not plan for retirement, save, and did the cash out, heloc, atm thing because life was good and life was booming… Then they may have been downsized out of their jobs and it’s very hard to get hired in your 50’s and early 60’s. Add in health issues tend to crop up in these ages – and you’ve got a lot of broke boomers lamenting that the world is unfair.[/quote]

Agree, UCGal. I’ve posted here before that many boomers didn’t take care of their health when they were younger so have health problems now (that could have been avoided) to show for this abuse/neglect. Those of us that did live healthy lifestyles are subsidizing these less-healthy boomers’ individual premiums. My own HDHP premium has more than doubled in just a few years with very few claims (all preventative care). Boomers who have worked their entire lives are generally GREAT employees. But employers with =<50 employees (most employers in SD) don't want them because their health plan premiums are too high. These same employers don't mind using boomers for contract work or to consult with but don't want them on the payroll.

I read the articles you posted. Any boomers still working FT w/benes should stay where they are as long as possible, IMO, even if they don't like the job. If they can hang on there until the age of 62 or 65, until SS OASDI kicks in, all the better.

IMHO, it is insanity for a boomer-homeowner with equity to choose NOT to have a health plan, esp one who owns property in CA. Their properties can be liened for services provided by CMS and also for services paid by Medi-Cal, as well as collect judgment liens from medical collectors.

Because I was a lifetime worker myself who only associated with other workers, most boomers I know have pensions and strong cash positions, because they all but pulled out of stocks, some before they lost too much. Most boomers married young and are now single (by divorce(s) or death). Not sure if this is good or bad (monetarily) if the former spouse was a spendthrift. I do know a couple of boomer women who could be in better shape financially but have not managed their money wisely over the years (and still don't). These are the ones in danger of ending up as "bag ladies" applying for Section 8. These two women had a hard time accepting that they no longer had the same perceived "lifestyle" they were accustomed to while married, so continue to attempt to have it. This mindset will be their downfall.

I was never the "consumer-type" (except RE, lol) so am not compelled to spend myself into debt.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]You are right about *some* boomers. But others did not plan for retirement, save, and did the cash out, heloc, atm thing because life was good and life was booming… Then they may have been downsized out of their jobs and it’s very hard to get hired in your 50’s and early 60’s. Add in health issues tend to crop up in these ages – and you’ve got a lot of broke boomers lamenting that the world is unfair.[/quote]

Agree, UCGal. I’ve posted here before that many boomers didn’t take care of their health when they were younger so have health problems now (that could have been avoided) to show for this abuse/neglect. Those of us that did live healthy lifestyles are subsidizing these less-healthy boomers’ individual premiums. My own HDHP premium has more than doubled in just a few years with very few claims (all preventative care). Boomers who have worked their entire lives are generally GREAT employees. But employers with =<50 employees (most employers in SD) don't want them because their health plan premiums are too high. These same employers don't mind using boomers for contract work or to consult with but don't want them on the payroll.

I read the articles you posted. Any boomers still working FT w/benes should stay where they are as long as possible, IMO, even if they don't like the job. If they can hang on there until the age of 62 or 65, until SS OASDI kicks in, all the better.

IMHO, it is insanity for a boomer-homeowner with equity to choose NOT to have a health plan, esp one who owns property in CA. Their properties can be liened for services provided by CMS and also for services paid by Medi-Cal, as well as collect judgment liens from medical collectors.

Because I was a lifetime worker myself who only associated with other workers, most boomers I know have pensions and strong cash positions, because they all but pulled out of stocks, some before they lost too much. Most boomers married young and are now single (by divorce(s) or death). Not sure if this is good or bad (monetarily) if the former spouse was a spendthrift. I do know a couple of boomer women who could be in better shape financially but have not managed their money wisely over the years (and still don't). These are the ones in danger of ending up as "bag ladies" applying for Section 8. These two women had a hard time accepting that they no longer had the same perceived "lifestyle" they were accustomed to while married, so continue to attempt to have it. This mindset will be their downfall.

I was never the "consumer-type" (except RE, lol) so am not compelled to spend myself into debt.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]You are right about *some* boomers. But others did not plan for retirement, save, and did the cash out, heloc, atm thing because life was good and life was booming… Then they may have been downsized out of their jobs and it’s very hard to get hired in your 50’s and early 60’s. Add in health issues tend to crop up in these ages – and you’ve got a lot of broke boomers lamenting that the world is unfair.[/quote]

Agree, UCGal. I’ve posted here before that many boomers didn’t take care of their health when they were younger so have health problems now (that could have been avoided) to show for this abuse/neglect. Those of us that did live healthy lifestyles are subsidizing these less-healthy boomers’ individual premiums. My own HDHP premium has more than doubled in just a few years with very few claims (all preventative care). Boomers who have worked their entire lives are generally GREAT employees. But employers with =<50 employees (most employers in SD) don't want them because their health plan premiums are too high. These same employers don't mind using boomers for contract work or to consult with but don't want them on the payroll.

I read the articles you posted. Any boomers still working FT w/benes should stay where they are as long as possible, IMO, even if they don't like the job. If they can hang on there until the age of 62 or 65, until SS OASDI kicks in, all the better.

IMHO, it is insanity for a boomer-homeowner with equity to choose NOT to have a health plan, esp one who owns property in CA. Their properties can be liened for services provided by CMS and also for services paid by Medi-Cal, as well as collect judgment liens from medical collectors.

Because I was a lifetime worker myself who only associated with other workers, most boomers I know have pensions and strong cash positions, because they all but pulled out of stocks, some before they lost too much. Most boomers married young and are now single (by divorce(s) or death). Not sure if this is good or bad (monetarily) if the former spouse was a spendthrift. I do know a couple of boomer women who could be in better shape financially but have not managed their money wisely over the years (and still don't). These are the ones in danger of ending up as "bag ladies" applying for Section 8. These two women had a hard time accepting that they no longer had the same perceived "lifestyle" they were accustomed to while married, so continue to attempt to have it. This mindset will be their downfall.

I was never the "consumer-type" (except RE, lol) so am not compelled to spend myself into debt.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]You are right about *some* boomers. But others did not plan for retirement, save, and did the cash out, heloc, atm thing because life was good and life was booming… Then they may have been downsized out of their jobs and it’s very hard to get hired in your 50’s and early 60’s. Add in health issues tend to crop up in these ages – and you’ve got a lot of broke boomers lamenting that the world is unfair.[/quote]

Agree, UCGal. I’ve posted here before that many boomers didn’t take care of their health when they were younger so have health problems now (that could have been avoided) to show for this abuse/neglect. Those of us that did live healthy lifestyles are subsidizing these less-healthy boomers’ individual premiums. My own HDHP premium has more than doubled in just a few years with very few claims (all preventative care). Boomers who have worked their entire lives are generally GREAT employees. But employers with =<50 employees (most employers in SD) don't want them because their health plan premiums are too high. These same employers don't mind using boomers for contract work or to consult with but don't want them on the payroll.

I read the articles you posted. Any boomers still working FT w/benes should stay where they are as long as possible, IMO, even if they don't like the job. If they can hang on there until the age of 62 or 65, until SS OASDI kicks in, all the better.

IMHO, it is insanity for a boomer-homeowner with equity to choose NOT to have a health plan, esp one who owns property in CA. Their properties can be liened for services provided by CMS and also for services paid by Medi-Cal, as well as collect judgment liens from medical collectors.

Because I was a lifetime worker myself who only associated with other workers, most boomers I know have pensions and strong cash positions, because they all but pulled out of stocks, some before they lost too much. Most boomers married young and are now single (by divorce(s) or death). Not sure if this is good or bad (monetarily) if the former spouse was a spendthrift. I do know a couple of boomer women who could be in better shape financially but have not managed their money wisely over the years (and still don't). These are the ones in danger of ending up as "bag ladies" applying for Section 8. These two women had a hard time accepting that they no longer had the same perceived "lifestyle" they were accustomed to while married, so continue to attempt to have it. This mindset will be their downfall.

I was never the "consumer-type" (except RE, lol) so am not compelled to spend myself into debt.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]You are right about *some* boomers. But others did not plan for retirement, save, and did the cash out, heloc, atm thing because life was good and life was booming… Then they may have been downsized out of their jobs and it’s very hard to get hired in your 50’s and early 60’s. Add in health issues tend to crop up in these ages – and you’ve got a lot of broke boomers lamenting that the world is unfair.[/quote]

Agree, UCGal. I’ve posted here before that many boomers didn’t take care of their health when they were younger so have health problems now (that could have been avoided) to show for this abuse/neglect. Those of us that did live healthy lifestyles are subsidizing these less-healthy boomers’ individual premiums. My own HDHP premium has more than doubled in just a few years with very few claims (all preventative care). Boomers who have worked their entire lives are generally GREAT employees. But employers with =<50 employees (most employers in SD) don't want them because their health plan premiums are too high. These same employers don't mind using boomers for contract work or to consult with but don't want them on the payroll.

I read the articles you posted. Any boomers still working FT w/benes should stay where they are as long as possible, IMO, even if they don't like the job. If they can hang on there until the age of 62 or 65, until SS OASDI kicks in, all the better.

IMHO, it is insanity for a boomer-homeowner with equity to choose NOT to have a health plan, esp one who owns property in CA. Their properties can be liened for services provided by CMS and also for services paid by Medi-Cal, as well as collect judgment liens from medical collectors.

Because I was a lifetime worker myself who only associated with other workers, most boomers I know have pensions and strong cash positions, because they all but pulled out of stocks, some before they lost too much. Most boomers married young and are now single (by divorce(s) or death). Not sure if this is good or bad (monetarily) if the former spouse was a spendthrift. I do know a couple of boomer women who could be in better shape financially but have not managed their money wisely over the years (and still don't). These are the ones in danger of ending up as "bag ladies" applying for Section 8. These two women had a hard time accepting that they no longer had the same perceived "lifestyle" they were accustomed to while married, so continue to attempt to have it. This mindset will be their downfall.

I was never the "consumer-type" (except RE, lol) so am not compelled to spend myself into debt.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=deadzone][quote=sdrealtor]Not coppin out. Just struggling with disclosing a private information to someone I dont know. If I had met deadzone at a meetup or one of the longtime piggs could vouch for him, I’ll be all over it. I’m mulling it over and perhaps we could do it offline once the transaction closes.[/quote]

Regardless I don’ think there is any point to betting on a single property anyway. Cherry picking one particular property doesn’t change the fact that generally speaking prices are much more likely to go down in the next two years than up.

How about this for a bet: I say December 2012 Case Shiller for San Diego will be at least 10% lower than December 2010. Dinner at Donovans.[/quote]

Sorry but I dont disagree. Case Shiller could well be lower. I dont play the averages, I play to beat the averages.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=deadzone][quote=sdrealtor]Not coppin out. Just struggling with disclosing a private information to someone I dont know. If I had met deadzone at a meetup or one of the longtime piggs could vouch for him, I’ll be all over it. I’m mulling it over and perhaps we could do it offline once the transaction closes.[/quote]

Regardless I don’ think there is any point to betting on a single property anyway. Cherry picking one particular property doesn’t change the fact that generally speaking prices are much more likely to go down in the next two years than up.

How about this for a bet: I say December 2012 Case Shiller for San Diego will be at least 10% lower than December 2010. Dinner at Donovans.[/quote]

Sorry but I dont disagree. Case Shiller could well be lower. I dont play the averages, I play to beat the averages.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=deadzone][quote=sdrealtor]Not coppin out. Just struggling with disclosing a private information to someone I dont know. If I had met deadzone at a meetup or one of the longtime piggs could vouch for him, I’ll be all over it. I’m mulling it over and perhaps we could do it offline once the transaction closes.[/quote]

Regardless I don’ think there is any point to betting on a single property anyway. Cherry picking one particular property doesn’t change the fact that generally speaking prices are much more likely to go down in the next two years than up.

How about this for a bet: I say December 2012 Case Shiller for San Diego will be at least 10% lower than December 2010. Dinner at Donovans.[/quote]

Sorry but I dont disagree. Case Shiller could well be lower. I dont play the averages, I play to beat the averages.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=deadzone][quote=sdrealtor]Not coppin out. Just struggling with disclosing a private information to someone I dont know. If I had met deadzone at a meetup or one of the longtime piggs could vouch for him, I’ll be all over it. I’m mulling it over and perhaps we could do it offline once the transaction closes.[/quote]

Regardless I don’ think there is any point to betting on a single property anyway. Cherry picking one particular property doesn’t change the fact that generally speaking prices are much more likely to go down in the next two years than up.

How about this for a bet: I say December 2012 Case Shiller for San Diego will be at least 10% lower than December 2010. Dinner at Donovans.[/quote]

Sorry but I dont disagree. Case Shiller could well be lower. I dont play the averages, I play to beat the averages.

[Author]

Posts