San Diego drastically outperforms Bay and LA on rents

[EconProf]

Thanks Flyer for the thoughtful and well-reasoned comments.
I think we can all agree that the real estate price boom occurring most everywhere is due largely to the artificially, and I might add, temporarily low interest rates. Given recent inflation numbers, this cannot last, as history sadly shows. The parallels between Biden and Fed chairman Powell and President Carter and Fed Chairman Arthur Burns are uncanny. The stagflation that followed those two lasted for years.

[Coronita]

N57

BINGO!

[sdrealtor]

[quote=EconProf]sdr, one additional point. You often accuse me of ungratefully criticizing SD, the place where I made my money. When I came to San Diego and invested there, it was indeed the golden state: two-party government, reasonable taxes and regulations, good schools, etc. Now I’m supposed to feel guilty because I see better opportunities elsewhere? I fully appreciate the advantages of San Diego, especially for the uber-rich. But for an increasing number of people, the exodus from CA is real, and I expect it will eventually happen in San Diego, which, as you have pointed out, is benefiting from people fleeing the LA and Bay area.[/quote]

Straw man. Never said you should feel guilty about leaving.

CA gave you what you have. No need to throw it under the bus.

Be grateful for what this wonderful state gave you. Respect the greatness it represents. Better opportunities? lol! Go and enjoy your life with your family.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=EconProf]sdr, thanks for making my point. Working from home means people are choosing to live away from the big cities and are moving into exurban areas, or entirely different states. Thus the move out of CA to neighboring states while keeping their job and “checking in” at the home office weekly or monthly.
Your comment that people moving “says nothing about politics”…? For many people,it might be fully explained by politics of the two areas.
Here in St. George are two trends that prove that. Direct flights from LA to little St. George were recently introduced to accommodate such workers. Housing developments near our airport are exploding. And if they spend 51% of their days here, they escape CA taxes. Second, many Californians have second homes here, and due to the COVID lockdowns in CA are spending more of their time in Utah where our schools and universities stayed largely open. Enrollment in the local university during COVID jumped about 10% while CA universities went to useless distance “learning”.[/quote]

St George is over 300 miles from salt lake city and is in the middle of nowhere. It has no industry to speak of, a college that is more comparable to a community college here than a research university and a population significantly smaller than Carlsbad. A few hundred or even thousand people going there isn’t even a rounding error vis a vis the CA population. CA still is the Golden State and more wealth is created in SD County than the entire state of Utah. SD companies received more venture funding this quarter then the entire State of Utah does for a full year. That won’t change. You’ll dominate the bingo halls

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=EconProf]sdr, one additional point. You often accuse me of ungratefully criticizing SD, the place where I made my money. When I came to San Diego and invested there, it was indeed the golden state: two-party government, reasonable taxes and regulations, good schools, etc. Now I’m supposed to feel guilty because I see better opportunities elsewhere? I fully appreciate the advantages of San Diego, especially for the uber-rich. But for an increasing number of people, the exodus from CA is real, and I expect it will eventually happen in San Diego, which, as you have pointed out, is benefiting from people fleeing the LA and Bay area.[/quote]

Straw man. Never said you should feel guilty about leaving.

CA gave you what you have. No need to throw it under the bus.

Be grateful for what this wonderful state gave you. Respect the greatness it represents. Better opportunities? lol! Go and enjoy your life with your family.[/quote]

I think I might have said you should feel guilty.

You benefit from a state and a gubmint jerb that makes you millions, then paying a few percent back a year just on your income is unbearable. Kinda like taking the money and running.

Even if this time is Carter esque, Carter lasted like 3.7 years. Then the glory days of Reagan deficit spending came, plus Iran Contra funding and atlrggggghhhh…

3.7 years of Carter less once you consider w campaigning a and lame sickness, the term is over almost as soon as it starts., And the beginning of a term carries in on the wave of the predecessor. So really your complaining about ford, or the first few years of Reagan’s term. That’s a microscopic timespan for an investor.

But economic history does not repeat itself that precisely anyway , and if you really believed this is Carter redux you’d be all in on gold, which went up 600 percent in 4 years. Are you? No, you are not. Maybe you have 7.5 perc gold in your portfolio, max. So no, you do not even really believe this is
Carter part 2.

Instead you believe we are doomed because Biden is president. Jesus. I need to move to the people’s republic of urlington … Or get off the internet ….

I feel like an idiotic idealistic college student arguing with a smirky old professor. I need to not be this way.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=EconProf]Given recent inflation numbers, this cannot last, as history sadly shows. The parallels between Biden and Fed chairman Powell and President Carter and Fed Chairman Arthur Burns are uncanny. The stagflation that followed those two lasted for years.[/quote]

Haha! What a clown comment! And from someone who uses EconProf as their handle.

Let’s get a couple facts straight. Arthur Burns first major govt office was Counselor to the President in 1969. And was that for President Carter? NOPE! That was for President Nixon! Then in 1970 Arthur Burns became Chairman of the Fed. Again while Nixon was president.

As inflation started to heat up, Nixon and Burns (Not Carter and Burns) imposed wage and price controls in 1971. This didn’t work so well but undeterred Nixon engaged in lots of deficit spending and then took the dollar off the gold standard. And then Nixon pressured Burns to loosen the money supply so that the economy would boom and Nixon would get reelected. In 1973 inflation had reached 8%. This wasn’t it’s peak, but keep in mind Carter is only the Governor of Georgia at this time.

Things only get worse re inflation for the next several years reaching 12% in 1974. (And worse for Nixon too as he is forced to resign leaving Gerald Ford president.)

January 20, 1977 Jimmy Carter takes over the presidency. A little more than a year later Arthur Burns is out at the fed. Replaced by William Miller, and thus ending any partnership between Carter and Burns. Another year later (Aug. 6, 1979) Paul Volker takes over as Chairman of the Fed Reserve.

So, let’s get this straight:

1970: Nixon appoints Arther Burns Chairman of Fed Reserver

1970-1974: Inflation starts to heat up under Nixon/Burns partnership that includes deficit spending, price and wage controls and taking the dollar off the gold standard.

1974-1976: Ford is president with Arthur Burns still the Fed Chairman. During this time inflation first rises to 12% but falls to 5% by late 1976

1977: Carter becomes president and Arthur Burns remains Chairman of the federal reserve. This partnership you want to blame everything on lasts only 14 months.

1979: Carter nominates Paul Volker to be new Chairman of Federal Reserve. (Volker is generally considered to be the man who tamed the 1970’s inflation)

Given all the above, it is stunning, yes absolutely stunning that someone who claims to be an economics professor would make such a misleading claim that inflation in the 1970s was largely the result of Carter and Burns. If anything you should be blaming Nixon and Burns. Nixon is the one who nominated Burns and had a long partnership with him. Carter should be paired with Volker who he nominated.

Of course that doesn’t fit with your completely delusional political views so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. But really, it’s time to stop making shit up and stop spreading misinformation.

[EconProf]

sdr: I bring facts to the table, you bring snark. You need to get out more. Especially regarding future trends affecting RE, not irrelevant comments that denigrate people and RE opportunities that are not in San Diego.

Scaredyclassic: You stated “…if you really believed this is Carter redux, you’d be all in gold…are you? No, you are not.”
Actually, I have $36,000 in gold, since last January. It is down from what I bought it at.

[scaredyclassic]

if 36,000 is a substantial part of your portfolio, then you’ll probably get a tax credit in ca. taxes are the least of your worries.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=EconProf]sdr: I bring facts to the table, [/quote]

Oh the irony!!!

[EconProf]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=EconProf]Given recent inflation numbers, this cannot last, as history sadly shows. The parallels between Biden and Fed chairman Powell and President Carter and Fed Chairman Arthur Burns are uncanny. The stagflation that followed those two lasted for years.[/quote]

Haha! What a clown comment! And from someone who uses EconProf as their handle.

Let’s get a couple facts straight. Arthur Burns first major govt office was Counselor to the President in 1969. And was that for President Carter? NOPE! That was for President Nixon! Then in 1970 Arthur Burns became Chairman of the Fed. Again while Nixon was president.

As inflation started to heat up, Nixon and Burns (Not Carter and Burns) imposed wage and price controls in 1971. This didn’t work so well but undeterred Nixon engaged in lots of deficit spending and then took the dollar off the gold standard. And then Nixon pressured Burns to loosen the money supply so that the economy would boom and Nixon would get reelected. In 1973 inflation had reached 8%. This wasn’t it’s peak, but keep in mind Carter is only the Governor of Georgia at this time.

Things only get worse re inflation for the next several years reaching 12% in 1974. (And worse for Nixon too as he is forced to resign leaving Gerald Ford president.)

January 20, 1977 Jimmy Carter takes over the presidency. A little more than a year later Arthur Burns is out at the fed. Replaced by William Miller, and thus ending any partnership between Carter and Burns. Another year later (Aug. 6, 1979) Paul Volker takes over as Chairman of the Fed Reserve.

So, let’s get this straight:

1970: Nixon appoints Arther Burns Chairman of Fed Reserver

1970-1974: Inflation starts to heat up under Nixon/Burns partnership that includes deficit spending, price and wage controls and taking the dollar off the gold standard.

1974-1976: Ford is president with Arthur Burns still the Fed Chairman. During this time inflation first rises to 12% but falls to 5% by late 1976

1977: Carter becomes president and Arthur Burns remains Chairman of the federal reserve. This partnership you want to blame everything on lasts only 14 months.

1979: Carter nominates Paul Volker to be new Chairman of Federal Reserve. (Volker is generally considered to be the man who tamed the 1970’s inflation)

Given all the above, it is stunning, yes absolutely stunning that someone who claims to be an economics professor would make such a misleading claim that inflation in the 1970s was largely the result of Carter and Burns. If anything you should be blaming Nixon and Burns. Nixon is the one who nominated Burns and had a long partnership with him. Carter should be paired with Volker who he nominated.

Of course that doesn’t fit with your completely delusional political views so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. But really, it’s time to stop making shit up and stop spreading misinformation.[/quote]

XBoxBoy:
Your history is largely correct, but it does not relate to what I said.
The parallels of that period to today in terms of policy and resulting inflation and all that it entailed are strikingly similar. Yes, we had big deficit spending combined with rapid increases in the money supply (M2). Inflation skyrocketed and so did interest rates. Stagflation (recession combined with inflation) resulted.
Today deficit spending relative to GNP and the total federal debt is unprecedentedly high, even higher than during the previous period, and is not needed to stimulate the economy. The Fed is accommodative with ultra loose money supply and low interest rates, just like Arthur Burns was. Like today’s Fed Chairman Powell, Burns said the inflation was only “temporary”, and due largely to oil prices.
I suspect this is the consensus opinion of most economists today, of whatever political stripe. Rich T. feel free to weigh in here.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=EconProf]Your history is largely correct, but it does not relate to what I said. [/quote]

Oh yes it does! You said:

[quote=EconProf]
Given recent inflation numbers, this cannot last, as history sadly shows. The parallels between Biden and Fed chairman Powell and President Carter and Fed Chairman Arthur Burns are uncanny. The stagflation that followed those two lasted for years.[/quote]

Which clearly establishes a relationship between Carter and Burns. And clearly implies that Carter and Burns were the cause/precedent that lead to years of stagflation.

Now you want to back track and say you were referring to the economic conditions and policies, not the people. There’s a name for what you’re doing. It’s called gaslighting and I for one am not buying it.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=EconProf]Your history is largely correct, but it does not relate to what I said. [/quote]

Oh yes it does! You said:

[quote=EconProf]
Given recent inflation numbers, this cannot last, as history sadly shows. The parallels between Biden and Fed chairman Powell and President Carter and Fed Chairman Arthur Burns are uncanny. The stagflation that followed those two lasted for years.[/quote]

Which clearly establishes a relationship between Carter and Burns. And clearly implies that Carter and Burns were the cause/precedent that lead to years of stagflation.

Now you want to back track and say you were referring to the economic conditions and policies, not the people. There’s a name for what you’re doing. It’s called gaslighting and I for one am not buying it.[/quote]

I fucking hate republicans. Don’t get me wrong, I also hate democrats. But I can’t fucking stand republicans.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=EconProf]Your history is largely correct, but it does not relate to what I said. [/quote]

Oh yes it does! You said:

[quote=EconProf]
Given recent inflation numbers, this cannot last, as history sadly shows. The parallels between Biden and Fed chairman Powell and President Carter and Fed Chairman Arthur Burns are uncanny. The stagflation that followed those two lasted for years.[/quote]

Which clearly establishes a relationship between Carter and Burns. And clearly implies that Carter and Burns were the cause/precedent that lead to years of stagflation.

Now you want to back track and say you were referring to the economic conditions and policies, not the people. There’s a name for what you’re doing. It’s called gaslighting and I for one am not buying it.[/quote]

Thanks and for lack of a better word. BINGO!

[sdrealtor]

[quote=EconProf]sdr: I bring facts to the table, you bring snark. You need to get out more. Especially regarding future trends affecting RE, not irrelevant comments that denigrate people and RE opportunities that are not in San Diego.

Scaredyclassic: You stated “…if you really believed this is Carter redux, you’d be all in gold…are you? No, you are not.”
Actually, I have $36,000 in gold, since last January. It is down from what I bought it at.[/quote]

I’m taking you to task for denigrating our great state. You chose to leave clearly stated to be with family. You are using that to complain about politics You don’t like. If your family didn’t move there would You have moved there? Of course not! You didn’t go for opportunity, You went to throw a baseball with your grandson.

You bring factless whining not facts. You bring politically slanted opinions. I’ve not seen data from you only nebulous claims.

The irony is you are celebrating economic growth and rapidly rising prices in St George. Won’t that quickly make it unaffordable to the working class? Then what?

[sdrealtor]

Today’s anecdote. House up the street in escrow. Buyers doing inspection today. Chatted up their agent. Young family with two kids moving down from L.A. Another from up north. With 12,500,000 people in the L.A. Metro I don’t think they be missed up there. It doesn’t require an onslaught of people moving from up there, just a small steady slow flow which shows no sign of abating any time soon.

[Author]

Posts