[bearishgurl]

When paramount posted his CalWatchdog video to begin this thread, I have to admit I was not paying attention to Prop B or the 2012 SD mayoral campaigns when they were going on as I don’t live in SD and don’t watch TV. Originally, I wanted to know the outcome of the litigation leading up to and following the “successful” placement of Prop B on the SD ballot. When I actually looked into the timeline as to how this thing actually found its way to the ballot, I was incredulous but when I then looked into the 2012 mayoral campaigns (after the primary) of both Bob Filner and Carl DeMaio, I was even MORE incredulous to learn that DeMaio actually received over 48% of the vote!

DeMaio could very well have actually been voted in as SD’s mayor, which would have been disastrous for the City, IMO. He is/was delusional with a capital “D.” I have to wonder where his legal counsel was during his campaign or if he even had any!

Not only was DeMaio in the pocket of Doug Manchester, one of the biggest commercial developers SD has ever seen and the biggest contributor to his mayoral campaign, he ran on the platform of “pension reform” and “pay freezes for all City workers,” neither of which he could actually deliver on in any way, shape or form.

In a news video with he and running-mate Bob Filner, linked below, taken during his campaign, DeMaio made the “prophetic” statement:

“The ballot measure has to comply with state labor law.”

Duh! . . . . B-but … it didn’t.

“(If I become mayor), I will require the maximum legal allowable pension contribution from City employees.” When Filner chimed in (by telephone), that “we already do that,” DeMaio just kept babbling on about “pension spiking.”

Filner then brought up the fact that City workers hadn’t been putting anything towards Social Security for decades (and so would have to rely on solely on their pensions).

The commentator than asked Filner if he thought voters knew what this ballot measure meant? He stated, “No, because Mr. DeMaio and (other) supporters of the referendum aren’t telling the truth.” He then gave examples of “pension spiking” (which occurred primarily in the City mgmt ranks) and clarified that (Joe Q rank-and-file worker) doesn’t have this opportunity and has an average pension of $27K annually. He further stated if he became mayor he would immediately cap all pensions at $100K.

By the time DeMaio stated, “Now, as we move forward, we’ve figured out how to actually reform pensions (and) move to 401K’s,” it became clear to me that DeMaio had absolutely NO IDEA what he was talking about. He was STILL delusional after everything was repeatedly pointed out to him by the commentator and Filner.

The commentator then asks Filner to have the last (brief) word where he states that the proposed prop will do nothing for city finances and does not even affect current workers, only (yet unhired) new hires and is a fraud.

Folks, this is precisely how the sheeple (in this case, SD voters) got led down that particular garden path. They listened to “credible-sounding” DeMaio, who talked out his a$$ but obviously never gave any consideration as to if the “implementation part” of his lofty agenda was actually “doable.”

The same can be said of some Piggs on this forum. The same handful of posters continually form new threads on the same tired topic (public pensions, for example) and throw in a link or two of a piece from the MSM (from somewhere . . . anywhere) done by ill-informed “reporters” who have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. It’s done specifically to incite joe6p and Piggs to the trough and give them a platform to moan collectively and endlessly about how unfair life has been for them. Nothing constructive ever gets discussed because no one has been willing to state that they will step up to the plate in attempt to get to the root of the issue . . . that is … in CA, to work on reforming the current laws or induce their representatives to do so.

It’s really neither CAR’s nor my responsibility to continually “police” these threads and attempt to explain and re-explain why things are as they are wtr past or present collective bargaining agreements in place for state and local government workers. I do on occasion because I find it disheartening to read the repeated ignorance of the general public on this topic who in turn gets all their info from the ignorant MSM who is only telling half (or less) of the story.

The VOSD covered DeMaio extensively before, during and after his mayoral campaign. I haven’t read all of their articles but the ones I did read seemed to be fair and accurate depictions of his campaign and of him as a person, IMHO.

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/government/thehall/article_c54f3c1e-6d77-11e1-893b-0019bb2963f4.html

Why don’t some disenchanted SD resident-Piggs here complain in writing to their councilperson that if City has (presumably qualified) legislative analysts on staff and attorneys versed in same who could waste copious amounts of City time and resources to author the ill-fated “Prop B,” why don’t they deploy them to more productive tasks? Why are all these gubment “professionals” wasting your tax dollars putting together long, drawn-out go-nowhere propositions, all the while KNOWING they won’t go anywhere? Why not have their legislative staff work with your representatives in attempt to reform some of the labor law on CA’s books as it applies to municipal collective bargaining?

THAT is the only solution to the problem. This is not even my opinion. It is a fact.

*********************************************

I think that, in the end, SD voters came to their senses and went with 26+ year “career politician” Filner. At least we can all agree that, unlike DeMaio, he actually DOES understand the “lay of the land” as he’s had PLENTY of practice. In the City of SD, there’s something to be said for not throwing more good money after bad … especially now. Filner is SD’s first Democratic Mayor in 30 years. That’s HUGE and speaks volumes about the electorate, even if it IS a “nonpartisan” office!

And no, I’m not currently a registered Democrat.

Inasmuch as I thought inappropriate a couple of stances Filner took on private citizens’ issues during his 20-year representation of SD South County residents of the 50th and, later, the 51st Congressional District, he was an INFINITELY better candidate for SD mayor than DeMaio.

The same is true of Gov. Brown. He WELL KNOWS the “lay of the land” and actually helped form state legislation back in the day. There was no one more qualified than him to be governor of CA during his campaign.

Sometimes, the election of “charismatic idiots” (ex: Carl DeMaio) can prove to be extremely dangerous to the wellbeing of their constituencies, ESPECIALLY if they sound “semi-credible” to the masses who are told they need CHANGE for change’s sake and they are just the person who can make it all happen! Again, I think SD voters figured it all out in the end.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=zk]BG, your staunchest supporter writes a well-crafted, gentle post with constructive criticism, and your response is to point out where you think she’s wrong. And where other Piggs are worse than you. My question is this: Do you know you’re an insufferable boor and you don’t care? Or do you think other people are overreacting to you? Or do you see it some other way? I’m genuinely curious. [/quote]

I both agree and disagree with CAR on several issues, she knows this and I and consider her very intelligent. I don’t consider any Pigg to be my “staunchest supporter.” I think we are all individuals with our own life experiences and no one Pigg has a “staunch supporter” here who thinks they can say or do no wrong.

I have personally turned in a Pigg for continual “stalking” and they were subsequently banned from the forum. And they weren’t stalking me and it isn’t who you might think it is.

Another Pigg posted behavior here that could be construed to be stalking by a third Pigg and subsequently quit doing it within 24 hrs. And again, I was not the victim but was nevertheless horrified that they would post here exactly what they did, even if they DID do it unbeknownst to the victim, who undoubtedly later read it and never posted here again.

Both of these instances were comprised of actions which occurred both on and off the internet.

My commenting on another’s post on this and any other threads is NOT “stalking” under ANY of its definitions. It was due to someone posting about their situation and I commented my take on it.

As flyer posted, they’re going to do what they want, anyway, so what’s the point of posting a strong opinion and be criticized for it? He’s got a good point.

I myself have endured a LOT of jabbing, ribbing, and outright “insults” here over the years and the list goes on … but I would have to agree with flyer in this particular instance.

Maybe the Piggs just want to pat each other on the back … and that’s okay.

However, I think it would be more constructive if we could all discuss the elephant standing in the room. But that’s just me.

As I stated before, I’m entitled to my opinion and so are you and every other Pigg. When you, zk, and other Piggs spout your lengthy opinions here and post enough quoted material to fill a chapter, it doesn’t bother me a bit. I don’t have to read them if I don’t wish to.

Sometimes I see CAR notices the same problem with a post long before I notice it and likewise, responds to it.

No, I don’t “know everything.” There are several subjects which I consider myself a bit “handicapped” in. But what I DO know, I know very well.

Yes, I think said Pigg is a bit “thin-skinned” and is also carrying a chip on his shoulder. Especially since I stated up front that what I posted is not about them but instead the situation they previously posted about. I don’t even know this individual so how could it possibly be about them?

Okay, so sue me. I’ll admit that I’m one of the many thousands of “no-growth advocates” in CA. I came by my position on this issue honestly. zk, if you think I am an “insufferable boor” then you are free to “ignore” me.

I find a few posters here to be same, but realize many of their posts are borne of simple ignorance. So I reply in attempt to shed light on the problems with what they posted before the masses begin buying into the hogwash. Ignorant posts tend to attract more ignorant posters until several posters are sucked into the same ignorant vortex … usually spewing from the ignorant MSM. It’s not entirely these posters’ fault because the media and even elected officials and “respected” candidates for local public office seem so “credible” when they openly spew this stuff!

[cont’d on the following thread]:

http://piggington.com/ot_public_employee_unions_attack_the_city_of_san_diegoprop_b

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]Not “stalking” in the actual sense, but the aggressive tenacity in which you try to pry more and more information from people about their personal lives — information that isn’t anyone’s business, especially on the internet — is where the problem lies. When people are reluctant to give out that information, you tend to “fill in the blanks” with whatever information you might have picked up by searching through other threads, etc….}[/quote] For the record, CAR, I haven’t have the time to “search” old threads. I remember what these posters have stated on threads which I have participated in. They either posted it in response to one of my posts or another’s post in a thread in which I, myself participated in.

This is due to my near “photographic memory.”

I don’t need to “fill in the blanks.” I can use what is posted and give a personal opinion on a subject based upon the information given. It is not a “legal” opinion. It is simply MY opinion, based solely upon the information given. I usually preface my opinions with a disclaimer that my opn was based solely upon the prior posts of the forum member.

Lots of posters start threads on this forum describing their issue and then asking, “What do the Piggs think?” Often, they don’t give enough information to get good answers. Does this mean they only want to hear from posters who agree with them? Or does it mean that posters who might have viable answers shouldn’t ask for more information? If the questioner chooses not to provide more info when asked, the quality and number of opinions on the thread goes down. It’s often a balance between giving out more info than the poster feels comfortable with and still being able to receive valuable opinions.

Of course, if any Pigg doesn’t like the opinion or “advice” another Pigg suggests for them, they don’t have to take it. You don’t have to shoot the messenger . . . or even explain why you can’t use the advice. Just move on.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=paramount]The USPS is broke for the same reason San Diego and LA are broke: Excessive total compensation for these govt workers.[/quote]

No, paramount. The USPS isn’t actually “broke.” They haven’t replaced those who have retired in recent years and got rid of stamp machines in many branch post offices because the public isn’t using their services as much as they once were.

I myself used to send and receive a ton of mail. Now I pay bills online and use couriers such as UPS and FedEx to send/receive because they are often cheaper and more efficient than US Mail.

Now, I don’t get to much more mail than the Pennysaver and a couple of small bills and misc rpts every month or every few months. I’m just another representative of Suzy Q Public.

Even law offices (traditionally among the biggest users of US Mail) who used to have to send voluminous snail mail of every shape and size and certified mail for proof of service every day now have fax service agreements, e-mail proof of service agreements, e-filing privileges with courts, fax and e-mail discovery privileges (with gov’t agencies) and automatic scanning machines for 500+ pg documents in order to be able to e-mail them instead of having to continually wrap and mail (expensive) 6-20 lb parcels, etc.

Technology and the proliferation of couriers available to everyone in recent years has stolen work from the USPS, never to be returned. However, the USPS will always have its place but its “market share” of what it does best will be permanently shrunken.

If you have ever taken any visual and hand-eye coordination speed tests to compete for USPS jobs, you would find out they aren’t easy to score high enough on to get hired. Only the very highest scorers get called for interviews and the majority of people taking these tests, even repeatedly, fail them.

The “shrinkage” of the role of the USPS has nothing to do with its past or current workers’ compensation.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=earlyretirement][quote=moneymaker][quote=bearishgurl]

I agree with all of this. The summer of 2010 (after the tax credits expired) until the spring of 2012 (and maybe later, if using all cash) was a great time to buy both investment RE and a residence in SD County.

I’m looking forward to Rich’s upcoming graphs, as well.[/quote]

Actually I think the best time to buy was in the Spring of 2009 with the $8000 tax cedit, as I was fortunate enough to do.[/quote]

Hmm.. I’m not so sure about that. I don’t know how things were like here in San Diego back then. But prices sure fell quite a bit after the tax credit expired in other areas. For example, I remember making an offer on a house in Plano, Texas back then before it expired. On a big 5 bedroom house in a nice area in a good school district they were asking $339,000.

I offered $300,000 cash. They felt offended and said no way. I remember at the time explaining to them that once the home housing tax credit program expired, prices were going to plummet. And they did at least there.

A few months had gone by and I forgot about the house. I remember getting an email from my realtor and he emailed me asking me if I was still interested as now the seller’s realtor was interested in my $300,000 offer. I had already purchased another property so I said no.

Well the house ended up going for something like $289,000 several months later. Waiting for the credit to expire in that neck of the woods was a much smarter move vs. paying $8,000 “less” before it expired.

Sometimes less is not more. :)[/quote]

I think the tax credits ratcheted up asking prices of listings in the price range of your TX listing all over the nation, ER. But they really had little to no effect on asking prices of listings over $500K. I think buyers of move-up and luxury homes have much less interest in an $8K “tax credit” that may need to eventually be recouped.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter] . . . Just because people put (some) information about their situations on the internet doesn’t mean they want to be stalked.[/quote]

Now, CAR, you must know that my posts have never risen to the level of “stalking.” However, I can’t say the same for a couple of other Piggs. You know I have no interest in that and that isn’t me.

You must admit that this statement is just a bit over the top ;=)

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]I think that anyone who locked in a mortgage payment on rental property at market value (e.g. did not grossly overpay) in the last year or so will do quite well.

They locked in at a low price in the real estate cycle at rates that likely translate into positive cash flow on day 1. There have been few times in the last 40 years in San Diego when one could have pulled this off. And no period as favorable as the last year or so.

Just look at Rich’s house payment to rent ratios. Which he says he will update soon.[/quote]

I agree with all of this. The summer of 2010 (after the tax credits expired) until the spring of 2012 (and maybe later, if using all cash) was a great time to buy both investment RE and a residence in SD County.

I’m looking forward to Rich’s upcoming graphs, as well.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter] . . . I think people get upset by BG’s posts because she tends to make them too personal. That just seems to be her style; but if you ignore the bits that come across as personal attacks, she adds a lot to this site, IMHO. She knows a lot about subjects that many of us don’t know much about.[/quote]

It’s not only MY style, CAR. As you may be aware, I’ve been ripped a new a$$hole by Piggs in a few occasions over the years. Case in point:

http://piggington.com/people_who_can039t_afford_their_house_but_get_to_keep_it#comment-198772

http://piggington.com/people_who_can039t_afford_their_house_but_get_to_keep_it?page=4

I was “lamenting” in Nov/Dec ’11 that sold prices of SFRs had drastically fallen in my area in recent months and I feared I would never be able to recover my large downpayment upon sale, which I had made nearly 11 years prior. I felt the home values in my area over-corrected in the form of lower and lower asking and sales prices, mainly due to dozens of low, low-priced closings of REO’s and SS’s and tons of recently-built existing “shadow inventory” (mostly in adjacent zip codes of the same city as mine). I felt I didn’t deserve this because I had never removed any equity from my property and kept my mtg payments current throughout the years.

This is what I was (essentially) told by Piggs:

You bought in the “wrong area.” Get over it.

You’re not entitled to “make a profit.” (Assuming recovering my downpayment and little to nothing for the improvements I made would be “a profit” to me.)

RE is not guaranteed to go up.

RE sometimes goes down.

Ad nauseum.

It was a GREAT thread, btw. It had lots of “case scenarios” to discuss, including my own.

A few of those same Piggs are now lamenting that RE prices are going up and they shouldn’t be because homes are becoming too expensive (even though we are experiencing the lowest fixed mtg rates in history and the vast majority of SD Co markets are currently only equal to 2003 values).

Why did the Piggs read me the riot act? Because I put it OUT THERE as a topic of discussion.

Duh …

This is the internet, folks. If a Pigg puts it out there (and Ren DID) that he has house and car payments and minor children, lives in RIV Co (but wishes to move back to SD Co someday), works in SD Co, and is thinking of buying rental property in FL or maybe AZ, that’s all OUT THERE. It’s now fodder for a topic of discussion.

It’s the same as if a celebrity’s bikini top comes loose while walking on the beach at Malibu and her half-nude photo shows up on the internet. She put it out there (however inadvertently), all the while knowing telephoto lenses follow her everywhere.

By posting your personal info and/or possibly asking for advice, you put your “case scenario” out there for discussion.

And that’s okay. We don’t know who you are and don’t care. I joined here to discuss mainly local RE issues. But how can we discuss specific RE issues on here if we don’t have some “case scenarios” to discuss? I don’t care what a Pigg’s screen name is or even if they’re lying while stating their issues. They “put out” their info which can be used in the thread’s discussion

Another unnamed Pigg who knows who he is recently stated on here that he diligently looked `up and down the (CA) coast’ for a retirement home in the past year-plus which cost $1M or less and essentially couldn’t find anything that didn’t need a lot of work so ended up retiring elsewhere. That’s a GREAT topic of discussion so I asked him:

Was he from SD and if so, had they thought of retiring here?

Where did he look “up and down the coast” and did he make any offers on property while on the trips?

He then posted that he and his spouse very much wanted to “retire” in SD County to be near relatives but could not find a “suitable” property here for $1M or less. (That’s another “topic of discussion.”) He further listed five or six areas where he was house-shopping along the coast which were among the most exclusive and sought-after enclaves in the state! So I asked him what he expected to pay for these properties.

In the end, he admitted that they talked themselves out of retiring in CA and weren’t really committed to doing what it takes to secure a retirement home in CA.

I found the whole thread interesting as well as instructive. It showed the value differences of different people and that sometimes people have to go thru a LOT of stuff in order to make a big life decision while others know exactly what they want and also know that what they want is entirely within their means.

It was nothing personal then and it’s not personal now. It’s trying to discuss something within the context of the thread that another poster put out there.

Ren seems to be taking it personally by his name-calling and taking words out of my mouth that were never there. But that’s okay. I never stated Ren was “stupid.” Essentially, I stated that I thought out-of-state rentals were too risky of an investment for people in Ren’s “station in life.” There is nothing wrong with Ren’s current station in life. I was there and so was almost everyone else who is in my “station in life.” I even still have a HS kid at home! However, at the time my kids were small, I never considered buying any properties more than 15 minutes away from where I was currently living. But that is just me. And I don’t regret that decision today.

In a nutshell, don’t post something on here if you don’t want it commented on. That’s what we do here. And if you don’t want to be “misunderstood,” you will need to clarify yourself as this is not telephone or video. Your words can only be construed literally.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flyer]As someone who has owned investment properties in San Diego and elsewhere for many years, and done very well–mostly because the timing was right–I don’t really think anyone jumping into the market now can predict with complete certainty what their real estate or other investments will yield in 10, 20 or 30 years–I know we never thought we could.

My feeling is–if you are truly in a positive financial position, and want to get into the game at this point in our economic history–do so–but also keep a few “Mil” around for retirement–just in case “life happens.”

In the meantime, my philosophy has always been to live the life you want to live now–today–if at all possible–because you never really know what the future may bring.[/quote]

flyer, if I am understanding your post correctly, I would have to agree with it wholeheartedly. As I stated earlier in this thread, I don’t believe the same success can be had today with becoming a small-scale landlord in CA that one could have had buying investment RE in decades past. This is mostly due to much higher purchase prices today and therefore much higher taxes and carrying costs. Your “cautionary advice” about leaving a few Mil around for retirement (or at least 1 mil, if one is considering trying their hand at landlording) is solid.

I don’t think the financial success of 30+ year LL’s (to the degree they were successful given their actual financial investment) can be repeated today by ~new LL’s … anywhere in CA. They hung in for the long haul, through thick and thin, no matter what happened in their lives. Most of them managed their own rental properties and that is to be commended in my book.

Today’s new LL’s are untested for the long haul …. and frequently have 10x the carrying costs of pre-Prop 13 LL’s. In addition, those “old school” LL’s did most of all of the labor on their rental properties, thus saving themselves many thousands over the years and most of today’s LL’s likely do not.

For these reasons, a rental property in CA would have to be purchased today for a price far under its recent sold comps (likely for all cash) and possibly fixed up by the buyer/prospective LL (mostly DIY) in order to make the investment pan out financially in the long haul. This is due to inevitable unexpected vacancies.

There are a couple of things a new LL can’t predict. Those are future vacancy rates and ongoing desirability of their rental properties to future tenants. These are especially important considerations if they are expecting to buy them with mortgages.

As an aside, I’ve gotten many articles in e-mail over the past couple of years on the subject of distant suburbs and exurbs “dying” or “expected to die” all over the US. I’m not seeing that here but the time may very well come when workers in SD County no longer can or want to commute more than 1/2 hour one way to/from work every day.

Therefore, the best rental properties to buy today may very well be within just a few miles of job centers and on or within 2 blocks of public transportation. These areas may not have the “look or feel” that prospective LL’s who have always lived in *newer* subdivisions are used to but they very possibly might turn out to be the best rental investments.

These are same areas that 65+ yo Joe6p LL has owned rental properties in and consistently rented them out for the past 30+ yrs.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Ren][quote=bearishgurl]I’m ingoring no one, Ren. In CA, those `successful LL’s in a variety of markets over the past 40 years’ you speak of here bought their (SFR) rental properties for $20K to $90K and are currently paying $300 to $750 annual property taxes on them. Some inherited their rental properties, complete with low property taxes appurtenant thereto. They bought properties within 25 miles of their residence or the residence or business of a relative or longtime biz partner who is managing some or all of them…[/quote]I don’t like to use this term much, but… LOL. You have a bad habit of describing in excruciating detail (including weirdly exact ranges) what you think happens to people, then applying them to an entire county and generation, as if everyone went through the same scenario. I live over here in Real Life, where every situation is unique.[/quote]

Sorry, I just noticed I made a typo on the post above that Ren replied to. “$20K to $90K” is an error. It should read “$20K to $40K.” I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

There were a LOT of properties ALL OVER SD County in this price range at that time. These were the typical starter homes and rental investments of the era.

There is nothing “weirdly exact” about the range of property taxes I was posting, Ren. It is what it is. Obviously, you and I live in different worlds. I live in a world where MANY owners, whether in residence … or not, have taxes in those ranges … on some blocks, more than half the owners do. IOW, you live in an “encumbered world” and I live in a mostly “unencumbered world.” With the rampant urban sprawl of CA in the last ~20 years, this is an apt description of the two worlds of CA.

Nothing wrong with either choice. Different strokes for different folks.

I often see and talk to these senior LL’s when they are working on their investment properties. One is taking care of their aunt’s rental house because she is now too old to work on it. They’re digging french drains and concreting over for flood control for the driveway, garage and foundation, replacing windows, building fences and patching the roof, etc, sometimes with the help of an adult child or other relative. And they actually just live two blocks or <1 mile away! Yes, at the age of 60-75, that's real life for them!

The vast majority of the IE’s parcels within 20 miles of the SD County line (where you live) are less than 20 years old and this region went through a deep depression a few years back. Thus, the homeowners who bought there between 2000 and 2006 became deeply underwater … many more than 50%. ALL of their taxes were high until they were likely reduced wholesale by the RIV County assessor pursuant to Prop 8. Excepting for a few scattered disabled veterans, there are no owners within subdivisions in your area with property taxes of less than $750 per yr on improved property, unless they purchased a small cheap condo in distress within the last ~2 years.

If you think I’m pulling these numbers out of my ass, why don’t you start plugging in APN numbers off parcel maps which were platted (and built) more than 35 years ago and sold for no more than $20-$40K in 1978 and prior and have not sold since.

Here, I’ll help you get started with a link:

https://www.sdctreastax.com/ebpp3/(5mbsnv551yqju2i24yc5qmrv)/Start.aspx

Why don’t you start your “number plugging” here with (pulls random numbers out of ass) SD County Parcel Map Nos. 471 and 542. Use 8 digits for a SFR (not 10 for a condo) and … have fun!

Let me know when you’re done and then you can move on over to LG for “further study” ;-]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]Consumer choices drive inequality? I don’t think so. What’s happened over the last few decades, and magnfied over the last decade is that the share of corporate revenues that end up in the hands of the workers who actually produce that revenue has declined dramatically.

See charts here: http://dispatches.us/post/11571145361/workers-wages-fall-corporate-profits-soar

Corporate profits are at record levels, measured both in real dollars and as a share of GDP. The delta in that income has remained in the hands of business owners, while wages have shrunk. The result is that the wealth built by those record profits remain in the hands of those who own the stock. That has always been the case, except that prior to the last few decades, workers have shared in that growth. That’s not the case now.

It has almost nothing to do with irresponsible consumption.[/quote]

The OP’s video states that CEO’s are paid on avg 380 times the pay of the average worker in their organization so I agree with SK, also.

Here’s a recent chart naming names and showing the CEO and avg worker pay at each company.

http://www.payscale.com/ceo-income

We all know “low income” people who use newer cell phones and appear to live in a nice rental unit. What we don’t see is that most of them qualify for “Lifeline” cell phone service which costs only about $16 per month for unlimited local calling. And we don’t see the amount of their Section 8 or other program housing voucher. Most of these vouchers are worth $1200-1800 per month. These are just two examples of “extra compensation” to the lowest wage earners which are hidden from the general public.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Essbee][quote=bearishgurl]
Ren, I don’t really care about any Piggs’ finances here. It’s not only me, but that old, crotchety Suze Orman would actually advise you not to pass go or collect $200 if you were carrying vehicle loan(s).[/quote]

0.9% financing was too good to ignore…[/quote]

This is all the more reason why one should pay them off first before making more volatile investments such as distant rental properties. Those 0.9% interest deals are no picnic for the long haul because they usually MUST be paid off in 24 months or all the “deferred interest” of a 36, 48 or 60 month loan gets tacked on and the loan recast (if the borrower is not too far behind in payments).

In other words, if a new vehicle buyer with an over 720 FICO score borrows $30K at 0.9% interest at 24 months, the monthly payments would be a hefty $1251 mo.

For 36 months at 3.4%, they are $878

For 48 months at 3.4%, they are $670

For 60 months at 3.4%, they are $545

http://www.myfico.com/HelpCenter/Autos/Purchasing_New_Car.aspx

$1251 on just ONE vehicle is a BIG extra payment every month, even for households with annual incomes over $150K. It’s enough to put a dent in the ability to service debt on and unforeseen repairs for or damage to out-of-state rentals, IMO.

The borrowed amount of $30K is for discussion purposes only and I’m not sure if a 3.4% auto loan can be taken out everywhere for those varying lengths of loans on new vehicles.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Ren, I don’t really care about any Piggs’ finances here. It’s not only me, but that old, crotchety Suze Orman would actually advise you not to pass go or collect $200 if you were carrying vehicle loan(s).[/quote]

Suze Orman? Really? If I was to advise someone how to learn about finances, I would advise them NOT to listen to Suze Orman.[/quote]

I was being facetious, SK. I don’t listen to her because I don’t like her voice.

But I HAVE listened to her call-in shows in the past where people call in with a list of their debts, asking her if they should buy something or invest in something. After hearing their story, she usually admonishes them to pay off their vehicles and consumer debt before making a big purchase or taking on other investments.

Besides, she’s slightly older and therefore slightly more “crotchety” than I am :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=livinincali]How do you propose to reduce wealth inequality when consumer choices drive the wealth inequality in the first place. Every day a consumer goes to Walmart to buy groceries instead of the local grocery it increases the wealth inequality. Every time a consumer goes out and buys the latest and greatest iPhone rather than keeping the one they have increases the wealth inequality. Consumers making choice to consume and to go in debt to consume rather than save increases the wealth inequality. Every time you put more money into your 401K it makes Wall Street a little more wealthy.

What is wealthy? Taking a little bit from a lot of people. There’s plenty of stupid consumers that voluntarily give away a little bit of their productivity everyday.[/quote]

livinincali, I agree that it is often people who make themselves “poor” by their personal decisions on consumption.

I have commissary privileges so don’t shop at WalMart but I DO know that what food it carries is quite a bit cheaper than the Big 3 in SoCal, that is … Vons, Ralphs and Albertsons.

I can also see why a lot of people from all walks of life shop at 99 cent stores.

I prefer certain brands of food and household items and these brands can’t usually be found at 99 cent stores.

I think a lot of people who are considered “poor” or “near poor” make the consumption decisions they do because they have entitlements to help pay for necessities. If they didn’t, they likely wouldn’t be such heavy consumers.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Ren]My finances are none of your business, but your number is close enough. We also have two white collar professional incomes, 750-820ish ficos, and no debt other than the primary mortgage. We buy Mazdas instead of BMWs (wifey has to reign me in on that one).[/quote]

[quote=Ren]. . . Of course I look at the rate of return, but never count on appreciation. That’s just not the point – income is. I like to view the entire rent as adding to it. Someone else will buy me multiple properties – paying the PITI and maintenance for 30 years and then funding my retirement (not to mention my primary residence, the kids’ college, and all our car payments). . .[/quote]

Ren, I don’t really care about any Piggs’ finances here. It’s not only me, but that old, crotchety Suze Orman would actually advise you not to pass go or collect $200 if you were carrying vehicle loan(s).

[Author]

Posts