- This topic has 41 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 5 months ago by
patb.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 24, 2011 at 12:22 PM #731231October 24, 2011 at 9:53 PM #731259
Anonymous
GuestForeign immigrants who invest a minimum of $500,000 on an American home should get residence visas, say Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah). In order to attract additional foreign investment in the U.S. economy, Schumer and Lee will soon present associated legislation before Congress.
October 24, 2011 at 10:47 PM #731261as
Participant“Nah, the article says high level Chinese execs are making abovelist cash offers.
Give us your tired your poor no scratch that your half million cash”
The article should say the high level”corrupted” Chinese execs….
Most of the rich people in China are corrupted Chinese officials. They send their kids to US to study, so they can transfer their money to overseas at the same time.
Once the US let them in, they will corrupt the US gradually.
The Americans know too little about the corruption in China.
October 25, 2011 at 11:04 AM #731290Diego Mamani
Participant[quote=sd_matt]Anything but let the prices fall to affordable levels.[/quote]
Exactly! Another moronic policy designed to keep housing prices unrealistically inflated.
October 25, 2011 at 11:16 AM #731291ParticipantI don’t think this is a win-win policy, as some have said. For one, it will create upward pressure for house prices, so that less and less Americans will be able to afford houses.
Foreigners who want to buy houses in the US are already doing it, so this “extended tourist visa” proposal is not likely to increase the existing foreign demand noticeably.
And why do we need foreigners? There are plenty of cash-rich American investors ready to come in, buy houses, fix them up, and then rent them out at affordable levels. All we are waiting for is for Congress and the White House to stop doing everything they can to keep housing prices artificially inflated.
Once house prices come down to reality, investors will come in and buy. Families that are upside down or at risk of default will be able to stay in their houses, simply by changing their status from overextended debtors to renters, and problem solved. Years later, as these families accumulate savings and build a credit history, they’ll be able to buy the houses back with 20% down loans.
Now, that would be a win-win scenario!
October 25, 2011 at 11:25 AM #731292sdrealtor
ParticipantIs it possible that home prices have already come down to a real sustainable level? Homes are affordable pretty much everywhere in this country now. If we didnt have tons of upside down homeowners now we would be fine going forward. The issue now is what to do with all the people who overpaid and are upside down? If we quickly liquidate them all we crash the market and overshoot to the down side which no doubt is what sideline sitters want but is that what is best for the market and the economy. I dont know but to be so sure it is, well I think thats a bit presumptive.
November 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM #732065wild.t.a.
ParticipantHey, how about letting all those ridiculously smart immigrants that we educate at elite schools stay in the US for 10 years on worker’s visa after they graduate? Because right now we’re basically educating them and then sending them back to their home country because they can’t find jobs in the US–especially since the job market is already crap and the employer’s would have to petition for a work visa which is an added cost and something most companies aren’t willing to do at the moment.
November 3, 2011 at 3:12 AM #732109patientrenter
Participant[quote=Diego Mamani]I don’t think this is a win-win policy, as some have said. For one, it will create upward pressure for house prices, so that less and less Americans will be able to afford houses…..[/quote]
That’s right.
At the heart of this is yet another government effort to prevent home prices going down – and thereby becoming more affordable for Americans. All the other arguments are smoke being blown to distract from this very simple price boosting goal.
Would American society work better over the long term if homes were cheaper, or more expensive? Sure, if you already have a home, or you are part of the financial industry, you personally will “get yours” if home prices are kept high. But, ultimately, homes are a consumer good. Like any consumer good, we are better off if we can get more for less, not vice versa. Only if we assume that we can re-sell our home in the future for far more than we paid for it does that consumer good logic stumble. But assuming that home prices can continue to outpace incomes forever is assuming that a Ponzi scheme can continue forever. Home prices are a much higher multiple of the average young person’s pay than they were 40 years ago. We can’t sustain that home price pattern in the future, at least not with any fairness to the next generation of Americans.
November 3, 2011 at 4:50 AM #732115CA renter
Participant[quote=patientrenter][quote=Diego Mamani]I don’t think this is a win-win policy, as some have said. For one, it will create upward pressure for house prices, so that less and less Americans will be able to afford houses…..[/quote]
That’s right.
At the heart of this is yet another government effort to prevent home prices going down – and thereby becoming more affordable for Americans. All the other arguments are smoke being blown to distract from this very simple price boosting goal.
Would American society work better over the long term if homes were cheaper, or more expensive? Sure, if you already have a home, or you are part of the financial industry, you personally will “get yours” if home prices are kept high. But, ultimately, homes are a consumer good. Like any consumer good, we are better off if we can get more for less, not vice versa. Only if we assume that we can re-sell our home in the future for far more than we paid for it does that consumer good logic stumble. But assuming that home prices can continue to outpace incomes forever is assuming that a Ponzi scheme can continue forever. Home prices are a much higher multiple of the average young person’s pay than they were 40 years ago. We can’t sustain that home price pattern in the future, at least not with any fairness to the next generation of Americans.[/quote]
Another great post, PR.
November 3, 2011 at 6:22 AM #732118scaredyclassic
ParticipantAmericans like to believe we all have a good chance of becoming rich.
In truth most won’t.
But anyone can own a house and maybe make a few bucks.
People like casinos and swelling house prices.
I think both are not good.
November 3, 2011 at 7:12 AM #732120briansd1
Guest[quote=patientrenter] Home prices are a much higher multiple of the average young person’s pay than they were 40 years ago. We can’t sustain that home price pattern in the future, at least not with any fairness to the next generation of Americans.[/quote]
Except that houses have become bigger and more luxurious in the last 40 years.
Our expectations have changed.
November 3, 2011 at 8:41 AM #732128an
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=patientrenter] Home prices are a much higher multiple of the average young person’s pay than they were 40 years ago. We can’t sustain that home price pattern in the future, at least not with any fairness to the next generation of Americans.[/quote]
Except that houses have become bigger and more luxurious in the last 40 years.
Our expectations have changed.[/quote]
Wasn’t the median home size 40 years ago were around 1100-1300 sq-ft? Weren’t they 3/1 or 3/2 houses?November 3, 2011 at 4:31 PM #732184Participant[quote=briansd1]…..
Except that houses have become bigger and more luxurious in the last 40 years…..[/quote]Most young second generation Californians, if they were trying just to buy the land their parents’ first home sits on, at the same age at which their parents bought that house, would have to pay a price that is a higher multiple of their incomes than their parents paid. Prices of homes have gone up faster than typical incomes over the last 40 years.
November 3, 2011 at 5:24 PM #732189
CoronitaParticipant[quote=as]”Nah, the article says high level Chinese execs are making abovelist cash offers.
Give us your tired your poor no scratch that your half million cash”
The article should say the high level”corrupted” Chinese execs….
Most of the rich people in China are corrupted Chinese officials. They send their kids to US to study, so they can transfer their money to overseas at the same time.
Once the US let them in, they will corrupt the US gradually.
The Americans know too little about the corruption in China.[/quote]
WTF?? Speaking from experience?
November 3, 2011 at 8:16 PM #732195Participant[quote=patientrenter][quote=briansd1]…..
Except that houses have become bigger and more luxurious in the last 40 years…..[/quote]Most young second generation Californians, if they were trying just to buy the land their parents’ first home sits on, at the same age at which their parents bought that house, would have to pay a price that is a higher multiple of their incomes than their parents paid. Prices of homes have gone up faster than typical incomes over the last 40 years.[/quote]
Exactly.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.