San Diego Housing Still Overpriced

[Coronita]

Side question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generations

For clarity:

When one refers to baby boomers, does it include ’54-65′ or not?

I’ve seen references that it includes the “Generation Jones” but others specifically not…

Just curious because it seems like early BB (those born during 40′) are seemingly fairly ok even in this economic climate (at least the ones that I occasionally bump into).

I’m just curious if the shift from avid saver to reckless spender was a gradual shift that happened during the later part closer to the sixties….

[patientrenter]

The early baby boomers are doing OK, for the most part, flu, only they purchased their assets at the beginning of the wave of asset-price inflation that the entire baby boomer generation generated. If you bought your first home in 1971, or 1980, or even 1985, you have massive gains. Same is true for people who bought stocks.

So the baby boomer generation is affected very unevenly. Late baby boomers are probably the worst off, since they bought most of their assets when prices were already elevated, and when they have to liquidate their assets to pay for retirement or medical care, asset prices will be at their lowest. Early baby boomers start with much bigger gains, and should be able to liquidate a lot of assets before the full effect of the downtrend / higher taxation / inflation will be felt.

Laws of supply and demand have not been repealed, and never will. They apply to people and their assets as well as other goods and services.

[patientrenter]

The early baby boomers are doing OK, for the most part, flu, only they purchased their assets at the beginning of the wave of asset-price inflation that the entire baby boomer generation generated. If you bought your first home in 1971, or 1980, or even 1985, you have massive gains. Same is true for people who bought stocks.

So the baby boomer generation is affected very unevenly. Late baby boomers are probably the worst off, since they bought most of their assets when prices were already elevated, and when they have to liquidate their assets to pay for retirement or medical care, asset prices will be at their lowest. Early baby boomers start with much bigger gains, and should be able to liquidate a lot of assets before the full effect of the downtrend / higher taxation / inflation will be felt.

Laws of supply and demand have not been repealed, and never will. They apply to people and their assets as well as other goods and services.

[patientrenter]

The early baby boomers are doing OK, for the most part, flu, only they purchased their assets at the beginning of the wave of asset-price inflation that the entire baby boomer generation generated. If you bought your first home in 1971, or 1980, or even 1985, you have massive gains. Same is true for people who bought stocks.

So the baby boomer generation is affected very unevenly. Late baby boomers are probably the worst off, since they bought most of their assets when prices were already elevated, and when they have to liquidate their assets to pay for retirement or medical care, asset prices will be at their lowest. Early baby boomers start with much bigger gains, and should be able to liquidate a lot of assets before the full effect of the downtrend / higher taxation / inflation will be felt.

Laws of supply and demand have not been repealed, and never will. They apply to people and their assets as well as other goods and services.

[patientrenter]

The early baby boomers are doing OK, for the most part, flu, only they purchased their assets at the beginning of the wave of asset-price inflation that the entire baby boomer generation generated. If you bought your first home in 1971, or 1980, or even 1985, you have massive gains. Same is true for people who bought stocks.

So the baby boomer generation is affected very unevenly. Late baby boomers are probably the worst off, since they bought most of their assets when prices were already elevated, and when they have to liquidate their assets to pay for retirement or medical care, asset prices will be at their lowest. Early baby boomers start with much bigger gains, and should be able to liquidate a lot of assets before the full effect of the downtrend / higher taxation / inflation will be felt.

Laws of supply and demand have not been repealed, and never will. They apply to people and their assets as well as other goods and services.

[patientrenter]

The early baby boomers are doing OK, for the most part, flu, only they purchased their assets at the beginning of the wave of asset-price inflation that the entire baby boomer generation generated. If you bought your first home in 1971, or 1980, or even 1985, you have massive gains. Same is true for people who bought stocks.

So the baby boomer generation is affected very unevenly. Late baby boomers are probably the worst off, since they bought most of their assets when prices were already elevated, and when they have to liquidate their assets to pay for retirement or medical care, asset prices will be at their lowest. Early baby boomers start with much bigger gains, and should be able to liquidate a lot of assets before the full effect of the downtrend / higher taxation / inflation will be felt.

Laws of supply and demand have not been repealed, and never will. They apply to people and their assets as well as other goods and services.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu]Side question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generations

For clarity:

When one refers to baby boomers, does it include ’54-65′ or not?

I’ve seen references that it includes the “Generation Jones” but others specifically not…

Just curious because it seems like early BB (those born during 40′) are seemingly fairly ok even in this economic climate (at least the ones that I occasionally bump into).

I’m just curious if the shift from avid saver to reckless spender was a gradual shift that happened during the later part closer to the sixties….

[/quote]

My references to Baby Boomers include those born between 1946 and 1964. As mentioned above, the oldest Boomers are the best off; however I know a few of them who were significantly affected by the recent downturn in the housing and stock markets. They are not worth nearly as much as they thought they were. They are not happy about it.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu]Side question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generations

For clarity:

When one refers to baby boomers, does it include ’54-65′ or not?

I’ve seen references that it includes the “Generation Jones” but others specifically not…

Just curious because it seems like early BB (those born during 40′) are seemingly fairly ok even in this economic climate (at least the ones that I occasionally bump into).

I’m just curious if the shift from avid saver to reckless spender was a gradual shift that happened during the later part closer to the sixties….

[/quote]

My references to Baby Boomers include those born between 1946 and 1964. As mentioned above, the oldest Boomers are the best off; however I know a few of them who were significantly affected by the recent downturn in the housing and stock markets. They are not worth nearly as much as they thought they were. They are not happy about it.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu]Side question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generations

For clarity:

When one refers to baby boomers, does it include ’54-65′ or not?

I’ve seen references that it includes the “Generation Jones” but others specifically not…

Just curious because it seems like early BB (those born during 40′) are seemingly fairly ok even in this economic climate (at least the ones that I occasionally bump into).

I’m just curious if the shift from avid saver to reckless spender was a gradual shift that happened during the later part closer to the sixties….

[/quote]

My references to Baby Boomers include those born between 1946 and 1964. As mentioned above, the oldest Boomers are the best off; however I know a few of them who were significantly affected by the recent downturn in the housing and stock markets. They are not worth nearly as much as they thought they were. They are not happy about it.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu]Side question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generations

For clarity:

When one refers to baby boomers, does it include ’54-65′ or not?

I’ve seen references that it includes the “Generation Jones” but others specifically not…

Just curious because it seems like early BB (those born during 40′) are seemingly fairly ok even in this economic climate (at least the ones that I occasionally bump into).

I’m just curious if the shift from avid saver to reckless spender was a gradual shift that happened during the later part closer to the sixties….

[/quote]

My references to Baby Boomers include those born between 1946 and 1964. As mentioned above, the oldest Boomers are the best off; however I know a few of them who were significantly affected by the recent downturn in the housing and stock markets. They are not worth nearly as much as they thought they were. They are not happy about it.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu]Side question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generations

For clarity:

When one refers to baby boomers, does it include ’54-65′ or not?

I’ve seen references that it includes the “Generation Jones” but others specifically not…

Just curious because it seems like early BB (those born during 40′) are seemingly fairly ok even in this economic climate (at least the ones that I occasionally bump into).

I’m just curious if the shift from avid saver to reckless spender was a gradual shift that happened during the later part closer to the sixties….

[/quote]

My references to Baby Boomers include those born between 1946 and 1964. As mentioned above, the oldest Boomers are the best off; however I know a few of them who were significantly affected by the recent downturn in the housing and stock markets. They are not worth nearly as much as they thought they were. They are not happy about it.

[34f3f3f]

I agree with the original post that house prices are still too high, and will probably remain so. What I don’t really see is a direct correlation between this and baby-boomers. There are baby-boomers everywhere yet not everywhere had a bubble, at least in housing. The baby-boomer issue is about how to fund the huge health costs that are adding to the budget deficit at an alarming rate. Liquidating assets to fund retirement isn’t necessarily the way to go. Assets or net worth on their own are not of value. It’s the return on those investments that is important. I agree that it will probably be a combination of later retirement, and higher taxes rather than one or the other, that will ease the situation.

A radical solution might be to have government sponsored retirement schemes with central American countries. Retirees go there for lower tax, and cheaper health care, and manual workers flow the other way. This might stem illegal immigration and escalating health care costs, and bring badly needed dollars into those countries. This is happening already to an extent, as in Belize and Costa Rica, but you want to ensure that if exporting the US model for health care, the same costs don’t follow it. I accept criminal problems in some countries makes the idea unpalatable.

[34f3f3f]

I agree with the original post that house prices are still too high, and will probably remain so. What I don’t really see is a direct correlation between this and baby-boomers. There are baby-boomers everywhere yet not everywhere had a bubble, at least in housing. The baby-boomer issue is about how to fund the huge health costs that are adding to the budget deficit at an alarming rate. Liquidating assets to fund retirement isn’t necessarily the way to go. Assets or net worth on their own are not of value. It’s the return on those investments that is important. I agree that it will probably be a combination of later retirement, and higher taxes rather than one or the other, that will ease the situation.

A radical solution might be to have government sponsored retirement schemes with central American countries. Retirees go there for lower tax, and cheaper health care, and manual workers flow the other way. This might stem illegal immigration and escalating health care costs, and bring badly needed dollars into those countries. This is happening already to an extent, as in Belize and Costa Rica, but you want to ensure that if exporting the US model for health care, the same costs don’t follow it. I accept criminal problems in some countries makes the idea unpalatable.

[34f3f3f]

I agree with the original post that house prices are still too high, and will probably remain so. What I don’t really see is a direct correlation between this and baby-boomers. There are baby-boomers everywhere yet not everywhere had a bubble, at least in housing. The baby-boomer issue is about how to fund the huge health costs that are adding to the budget deficit at an alarming rate. Liquidating assets to fund retirement isn’t necessarily the way to go. Assets or net worth on their own are not of value. It’s the return on those investments that is important. I agree that it will probably be a combination of later retirement, and higher taxes rather than one or the other, that will ease the situation.

A radical solution might be to have government sponsored retirement schemes with central American countries. Retirees go there for lower tax, and cheaper health care, and manual workers flow the other way. This might stem illegal immigration and escalating health care costs, and bring badly needed dollars into those countries. This is happening already to an extent, as in Belize and Costa Rica, but you want to ensure that if exporting the US model for health care, the same costs don’t follow it. I accept criminal problems in some countries makes the idea unpalatable.

[34f3f3f]

I agree with the original post that house prices are still too high, and will probably remain so. What I don’t really see is a direct correlation between this and baby-boomers. There are baby-boomers everywhere yet not everywhere had a bubble, at least in housing. The baby-boomer issue is about how to fund the huge health costs that are adding to the budget deficit at an alarming rate. Liquidating assets to fund retirement isn’t necessarily the way to go. Assets or net worth on their own are not of value. It’s the return on those investments that is important. I agree that it will probably be a combination of later retirement, and higher taxes rather than one or the other, that will ease the situation.

A radical solution might be to have government sponsored retirement schemes with central American countries. Retirees go there for lower tax, and cheaper health care, and manual workers flow the other way. This might stem illegal immigration and escalating health care costs, and bring badly needed dollars into those countries. This is happening already to an extent, as in Belize and Costa Rica, but you want to ensure that if exporting the US model for health care, the same costs don’t follow it. I accept criminal problems in some countries makes the idea unpalatable.

[Author]

Posts