[bearishgurl]

[quote=no_such_reality]….Unlike the past in which the workers provide all the labor and were necessary, today, workers are quickly becoming unnecessary.[/quote]

nsr, come back and tell us all this next time you are looking to get a door or countertops installed or a new roof :=0

Or better yet, why don’t you just hire a “robot” to lay your tile while you stay home from work “supervising” the job :=D

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CDMA ENG]…Our children will have it tougher as more labor than before will be available. If the labor force does not decrease to the point where the demand for it is high then supply side will always drive labor down. It’s just that simple…[/quote]

I don’t think its as simple as you make it out to be here, CDMA.

First of all, the availability (or unavailability) of any kind of labor depends entirely upon locale. In many locales in the US, there is never enough available would-be employees at any given time.

In addition, boomers retiring en masse will free up many “career-track” positions, but of course, some of these positions may very well then be eliminated. But the sheer NUMBERS of boomers leaving the workforce should create openings for new workers (millenials) and others who have been chronically unemployed in recent years through no fault of their own.

I don’t foresee all the doom and gloom that you do but realize that in places like San Diego, CA (15 mi from the int’l border) a large portion of its population who wants to work will be without work, due to a never-ending supply of low-wage workers and also the presence of thousands of “American” workers who have chosen to live on the other side of the border so they can work in SD County for less wages (be more “competitive”) and still have enough money to live comfortably on.

Due to geography, this phenomenon has been ever present and will never leave this area but there IS an alternative. It’s called “relocation.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun] . . . “Rent controlled” units are much, much cheaper, but they’re also rare, since they stopped “making” new ones in the 70s, and only units that have remained continuously in a family are allowed to continue being controlled.[/quote]

LOL, that sounds a little like a “grandfather clause” similar to the benefits afforded CA property owners under Props 13, 58 and 193!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]In the case of L.A. some of those old hoods have degraded quite a bit in the last 20 years.

That whole urban revitalization thing is not quite happening in most of L.A.[/quote]

I understand your “perception,” Shoveler.

But the reality is that one is paying for location to own in the “Downeys and Montebellos of the world.” That location is worth X amt of money to a LOT of people (prospective residents and biz owners alike).

You can’t fix this. You can’t attribute that level of convenience to the (relatively cheap) Moreno Valley and you won’t find a typical “Moreno Valley tract home” in the middle of Montebello :=]

Take your pick.

At some point, these inner-city areas will HAVE to “gentrify” because their locations are irreplaceable, rendering them immune from obsolescence.

I can’t say the same for Moreno Valley.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]…My point is, everyone has those non-financial issues, and moving into an inherited house never comes down to just money. There are always other considerations. Which is why it does NOT happen more often than it does…[/quote]

SK, I can’t go into all the particulars, but I am seriously “stuck” here until next summer. I “could” pay off my small mortgage now but it is fully assumable for a small fee and I am in hopes that a (neighbor?) buyer might want to assume it and pay cash for the rest of the PM. It is currently at 3.7%.

If I decide to rent my house out, I may pay it off at that time to simplify things for myself (and the PM who is left to manage it). I’ll have to run all the numbers through my prospective tax return to decide what to do.

Again, I think the micro-areas where one of the heirs tends to keep the family home are the $200K-$350K areas (or were in that price range during the downturn). They are not in upper MC areas like DC (which would cost too much for any one heir to buy out any others). In the working-class areas, there seem to be more estates where at least one of the heirs needs somewhere to live at the time of their (last) parent’s death and finds a way to buy out the rest of the heirs (even if any other heirs have to carry a note for a time). Or one of the heirs took care of their remaining (infirm) parent during the last years of their life because that parent wasn’t in a financial position to move to a board and care facility and so is left the (modest) family home. I do see all of these scenarios all around me … even legally-disabled heirs inheriting their longtime family home. I’ve also seen heirs move an air mattress in (from their home across town) and spend their wknds cleaning up and rehabbing a home for a few months (which they inherited) to ready it for tenants and then lease it out.

This phenomenon IS common all over the state and will continue to be so as long as Props 58/193 remain on the books as written.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=CDMA ENG]
Or maybe…

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/08/income-inequality-explained-why-wages.html%5B/quote%5D

Absolutely. I’ve said this very thing many times before. The problem is that we have to figure out how to allocate resources in a world where there is falling demand for First World workers who (used to) make a good living. Some of that is due to technology, and some of that is due to the off-shoring of good jobs/importing cheap labor.

Do we relegate all of those former First-World workers to the welfare rolls? Do we expect them to take menial jobs in service of the wealthy few…eating crumbs and living in crowded mud huts, while the rich get richer? How do you see that ending?

What sort of solutions do you see as an answer to the problem?[/quote]

Years ago, I might have said more education for former workers who perhaps worked in the US auto industry is the solution. But I don’t believe that anymore. LOTS of people today (ESP young people) have bachelor degrees (even in practical fields) and are still flipping burgers and working as baristas, etc, all the while deferring their (often exorbitant) student loans.

I think we need all kinds of workers everywhere, but sadly, many locales don’t have “affordable housing” available where its rents would be in line with the wages this group is actually making. Hence, in SD County, many of these adult workers must live in parents’ homes indefinitely, live 4 to a 2 bdrm apt, 6-8 to a small rental house or live in TJ.

[bearishgurl]

If that is you, scaredy, I think you look GREAT despite very tiny “love handles” 🙂

WOW, very inspirational, given the relatively short time you’ve been bodybuilding! I’m sort a “gym rat” myself but, of course, I don’t lift as heavy of free weights as you do or with as many reps.

I think I could also stand to lose ten but that depends on whom you ask :=0

I don’t think I could do the protein-powder thing on a regular basis because I don’t like it so much. I would have to spike it with something else.

CONGRATS!!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]

Okay, then your mom’s home and your sister’s home are not too dissmilar in value. Your sister must have truly loved her home not to want to have your mom’s home for $3500 yr less (for now … much more as the years go by) in taxes.

SK, per chance, did your mom’s death occur in one of the years where property values were down (2008-2011)?

Thx, and sorry for so many questions. I’m not trying to make any “identification” here and have no way of doing so. I’m just trying to understand the motivation of typical “CA heirs” who pass up an oppt’y for severely-lowered property taxes for the balance of their lifetimes and going forward … and on a property in a very decent neighborhood, at that![/quote]

The house was sold in mid-2006. Sales prices had already started to drop there, they dropped further and now they’ve recovered to just about the same place they were then. Properties there are a great bargain.

I have a question for you BG. I suspect your home is either paid for or close to paid for and you’ve got a shit load of equity. Why don’t you sell your house and buy different house for $150K less? I’m sure there must be a home for $150K less somewhere not too far from where you now live. With that downward move, you would easily save $3,500 a month. If you think my siblings or I should have jumped at the opportunity to save $3,500 a years by moving down, why haven’t you done everything in your power to do that?[/quote]

SK, I thought you posted on this thread that your mom’s house was larger than the one your sis owned in the same area. So, for her, taking it over would not have been a move down but would have involved the sale of her current home when prices were falling.

I agree with you that homes are a bargain in DC as I have been in a few of them with spacious, step-down LR’s and dramatic floor-to-ceiling rock FPs with very nice views (co-workers’ gatherings). The reason that they are still a relative “bargain” kind of escapes me, but after reading on this board for a few years, I would suspect that most of DC’s stock is too old and dated to appeal to today’s family-raising homebuying set (even though you and I both know the public schools are exceptional around there).

I think what you meant by your posting above is that you think I would save $3500 per yr (not per month) if I sold and bought a house for $150K less. However, I cannot move until after my last kid graduates from HS (next summer). I currently have about 60% equity and am in the process of making repairs so if I DO decide to sell, I can get the best price possible (or the best tenant possible). In addition, I have pets and it would be folly for me to move between now and then because it would have to be within the same school district where I likely wouldn’t be able to find a $300-$350K house anymore and wouldn’t want to stick around long enough to deal with a heavy fixer because I want to leave SD County next year and try out another area. Whether I decide to buy or rent in the new locale (and sell or rent out my house here) still remains up in the air. I won’t be making that decision until the spring.

In any case, buying a house just $150K less than what I sold mine for would result in a “wash” between my current tax bill and my new tax bill because my current house, even with a recent Prop 8 upward assessment for FY 13/14, is still assessed at about $150K less than its market value.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]I’ve heard stories of people renting a 3 bdr apartment for $400/mo. Generally this is pretty rare though.[/quote]

3/4 bdrm (1600-2000 sf) rent-controlled apts (flats) in SF typically rent for $2000 – $2500 mo. That is the cheapest I’ve heard of and SF’s rents are probably on par with Manhattan (NY, NY’s) rents.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Okay, is each one on sts facing Mission Bay (whether or not the home’s orientation faces the bay) or in “Princess Del Cerro” (facing south or SE, towards SDSU).

Thx.[/quote]

In Del Cerro, not Princess Del Cerro. For people that grew up there in the 60’s, the two are not the same, though the orientation of the homes is not dissimilar. Most streets in both neighborhoods run generally from east to west, so the front of the homes face either north or south depending on which side of the street they’re on. Very few homes in Del Cerro face the bay, except for a handful up on the hill. The bay is more than 10 miles away. SDSU is due south of almost all of the west side of Del Cerro and due south of all of Princess Del Cerro.[/quote]

Okay, then your mom’s home and your sister’s home are not too dissmilar in value. Your sister must have truly loved her home not to want to have your mom’s home for $3500 yr less (for now … much more as the years go by) in taxes.

SK, per chance, did your mom’s death occur in one of the years where property values were down (2008-2011)?

Thx, and sorry for so many questions. I’m not trying to make any “identification” here and have no way of doing so. I’m just trying to understand the motivation of typical “CA heirs” who pass up an oppt’y for severely-lowered property taxes for the balance of their lifetimes and going forward … and on a property in a very decent neighborhood, at that!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]

I’m not quite understanding you. Was your mom’s house in Allied Gardens or Del Cerro? And is your sister’s house in Allied Gardens or Del Cerro?

Thanks for any clarification :)[/quote]

Both are in Del Cerro.[/quote]

Okay, is each one on sts facing Mission Bay (whether or not the home’s orientation faces the bay) or in “Princess Del Cerro” (facing south or SE, towards SDSU).

Thx.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Okay, SK, fair enough. But, just so we’re on the same page, the tax savings is more than a “few bucks.” It adds up to many, many thousands of dollars over the course of the lifespan of a typical retiree.

If you all don’t mind, I don’t mind … but I (if given this oppt’y), would have done everything in my power to make “mom’s house” mine, whether or not I chose to actually reside there 🙂

Location and/or condition be damned.[/quote]

It would have saved her about $3,500 a year. There are a lot of homes in Allied Gardens where the savings wouldn’t have been that much. Even with the low taxes, it wouldn’t have made a good rental, rents just aren’t high enough.[/quote]

I’m not quite understanding you. Was your mom’s house in Allied Gardens or Del Cerro? And is your sister’s house in Allied Gardens or Del Cerro?

Thanks for any clarification 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV] . . . My siblings and I all had homes where we were quite content, so, like most people in our position, we decided just to sell the house rather than to save a few bucks in property taxes and live in a house that none of us wanted to live in.[/quote]

Okay, SK, fair enough. But, just so we’re on the same page, the tax savings is more than a “few bucks.” It adds up to many, many thousands of dollars over the course of the lifespan of a typical retiree.

If you all don’t mind, I don’t mind … but I (if given this oppt’y), would have done everything in my power to make “mom’s house” mine, whether or not I chose to actually reside there 🙂

Location and/or condition be damned.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
SK, if you are referring to “her” as your mom, why didn’t your sister “buy” your mom’s house from you and your other sibling(s)? Had she done so, she would have had a much lower tax bill and a bigger house in the same area she lives in now.

In light of the tangible benefits of taking over your mom’s home, I don’t understand why your sister thought it would be a “hassle” to do so.

Perhaps the area where you grew up (Del Cerro?) is now too expensive for most people to purchase with all cash or mostly cash. I was referring to neighborhoods in the $200K to $350K range in recent years as having a lot of all-cash or nearly all-cash purchasers (and they are not ALL “investors”).

Those with well-established parents who have real property holding(s) in CA are the ones who have and will end up being the “haves” going into the future while newcomers who come in and buy in newer areas will end up being the “have nots” due to the combination of taking out high-LTV mortgages plus having high carrying costs in the form of MR … and often HOA dues as well. This is just my opinion based upon what I’ve seen the combo of these monthly charges do to family finances in the long haul.

I would have to pull actual plat maps and then examine the corresponding titles to show the prevalence of recent all-cash or near all-cash sales in different areas. This would be a time-consuming but yet “interesting” endeavor.

Just like the “real” cause of the Vallejo (CA) BK which I had posted late last year that I planned to examine in detail and report my findings here, I just haven’t had an extended block of time to devote to the project.

I’m getting ready to leave on another road trip so won’t be able to devote any time to this right now. I promise that I am putting this task on my “to-do” list for my spare, spare time for the balance of 2013 :=]

Luckily, I already have a nice selection of county plat maps from “well-established” areas in my possession :)[/quote]

It was my sister’s choice to not move into my mother’s house. She didn’t want to. For her, it would have been too big of a hassle and not worth it. It is a perfect opportunity for what you think happens all the time. She’s not wealthy by any means, but she has her home that she can afford and for a few thousand dollars a year in tax savings, she didn’t want to move….[/quote]

I understand. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your sister ALREADY OWNED her home in the same area as your mom’s home at the time of your mom’s death. Therefore, she possibly couldn’t “re-qualify” for a mortage at the time of your mom’s death to buy the rest of her siblings out (yourself incl) so opted to stay put.

This is perfectly understandable but I’m just wondering why the rest of you siblings weren’t interested in taking over mom’s home. The tax savings alone would have been a “gold mine” on into your retirement years.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]. . . Agree with SK. We live in an older, established neighborhood in a very desirable area, and very, very, very few were purchased with cash. . . . [/quote]

As I recall, CAR, you posted here that you purchased a house on the same street and/or in the same subdivision as the one you had been renting for several years. You made your initial offer BEFORE it ever hit the MLS, and, I can’t recall exactly, but you later got an agent to represent you to make counter offers?? (I’m unclear if your house ever did get put in the MLS.) You heard from an elderly neighbor that she wanted to move, and, above all, you wanted to remain in your neighborhood. That is why it took you so long to find a suitable house to buy. There just wasn’t any available listings in your “established area.”

That’s how it is in MANY established areas in CA coastal counties.

This proves my point. Many “potential listings” in “desirable, established areas” in CA coastal counties are “sewed up.” Unless one is actually on the same block or walks by the same houses every day, they really have no way of knowing if someone wants to sell before they list.

If your house had been in the MLS, you may have had to compete with many other offers and perhaps would not have “won” the bid on it.

My understanding is that you “could have” paid all cash for the house, but since your spouse had provable W-2 income, you guys were a candidate for a mortgage so you CHOSE to take one out for part of your purchase money. Congratulations! LOTS OF PROSPECTIVE BUYERS TODAY AREN’T QUALIFIED FOR A MORTGAGE. This doesn’t mean they are “deadbeats” who have low credit scores. All it means is that they are “retired” or otherwise have assets but not enough easily-provable “income” (which are not one and the same in a lender’s eyes). These people are not any less of a buyer than those with W-2 income. Neighbors using all cash for a home purchase can actually close faster than a buyer who will take out a mtg and typically have a shorter window for or less contingencies and thus are less of a headache to deal with because they intimately understand the neighborhood AND the house they have made an offer on.

I think the biggest fallacy in CA coastal counties is in the conclusions people reach when comparing the perceived “lifestyles” of those residing in their “owned” *newer* mcmansions and those residing in their 1947 bungalows :=]

[Author]

Posts