[bearishgurl]

I was just looking at the OP’s link, which listed Livermore (CA, where cow pasture and grapes meet “Big Development”) as Refin’s 5th “hottest area” for 2013.

Good L@rd. Livermore is not “Lizardland.” It is current/former cow pasture. HOWEVER, it is w-a-a-a-a-y out there on the 205 and just a hop and a skip from that VERY heavily-distressed outlier known as “Tracy.” The closet BART station is in Dublin …. ~26 miles away (which is essentially meaningless, due to sheer traffic volume).

For the life of me, why would workers be attracted to Livermore, unless they work at the Lawrence Livermore Lab? Am I missing something? I just drove thru there again last year and Livermore (with its infamous “cow” statue), is part of my old “stomping grounds.”

IIRC, the older stock in Livermore has good-sized lots and I think it would be a very nice place to “retire.” But to commute from it every weekday to work?? Maybe this was feasible back in 1965 on 2-4 lane state hwys to no further than Oakland . . . but today??

Uhhhh, I don’t think so.

[bearishgurl]

I guess Gen Y has no problem at all with massive congestion and hard-to-find street parking (as in MM, Chula Vista 91914 and 91915 and other lizardland-type areas of the county).

Last night, News8 had a longish spot on how Chula V (primarily 91915) increased in sold prices 18% (IIRC) in the 4th quarter of 2012. This area of SFR’s, condo and townhouses of 6-12 yrs old is among the MOST congested in the county. So much so, that only ONE VEHICLE can pass at a time thru many of its residential streets due to maxed-out parallel-parking on both sides of these narrow “streets” and those infamous (useless if one can’t make a tight quarter turn in a narrow easement with their monster SUV) “rear-garages.” And most of the multifamily projects down there have inadequate off-street parking and NO garages.

Why should I care about this? Even though 6-12 mi away from me, I actually think this is good news. Rising values in shackville will no doubt eventually lift all those “squat-mod owners” (there were thousands of them) out of their underwater status. If all that *new* heavily-taxed and HOA’d inventory in southeastern ChulaV gets bought up, ALL boats will be raised.

Then those folks with generous close-in lots in 91910, 91911 and 91950 (myself incl) just might be able to get multiple offers from young buyers, due to “low or no inventory” available in their “preferred adjacent-but-distant” lizardland 🙂

[bearishgurl]

Well, I think there is a “disconnect” in the mind when it comes to coastal RE (within coastal counties) in CA with ctr70 and several others on this board.

The properties they are seeing on the street along with their respective surrounding areas, what these properties sold for in the trough of three years ago AS WELL AS what they are selling for now have not been up to these individuals’ “standards” and never will be. This problem is not fixable.

Based upon his prior posts, I think the OP HAS purchased investment property here but cannot, for whatever reason, actually see himself settling here for the long term.

There is actually nothing wrong with this mindset. Buying in CA coastal county locations, whether for a personal residence or an investment is not for everyone.

I see today that (expensive) Boulder, CO (which I “pushed” on this OP on several occasions) has the WORST employee satisfaction of any region in the country, acc to Forbes:

Heading the list of the unhappiest U.S. cities to work in is Boulder, Colo., with an index score of 3.45. Boulder workers expressed the most pessimism in the Growth Opportunities and Compensation categories, which scored 2.81 and 3.29, respectively.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/01/09/the-happiest-and-unhappiest-cities-to-work-in-right-now/

The Boulder region is lowest on `available growth opportunities’ of anywhere in the nation and home to several large tech companies. This is likely due to the sunshine/ski/mtn biking/camping/river rafting/hiking and hot-air ballooning “tax” there :=]

In other words, “We won’t be promoting you and we don’t give raises – just ‘bonuses.'” If you don’t like it here, you are free to leave.”

I thought SD County was bad in this regard but it apparently didn’t make the bottom ten OR the top ten “happiest places to work in.”

That’s not to say Boulder isn’t a good “retirement area,” and since the OP is not an “employee,” per se, he might still like it, but Boulder is no doubt is MUCH more expensive to live in than Seattle.

I’ve never been to Seattle, ctr70. You just so happen to be moving in the middle of its renowned “rainy, dreary season.” Keep us Piggs posted as to how you like living and doing biz there!

[bearishgurl]

paul florez, from your responses, it seems to me that the LA had the buyer already picked out from the get go, but had to “list” the property for a minute and a half to “appease” the SS (stiffed) lender in effort to make them more amenable to accepting a low offer.

Without looking at the record myself, I would have no way of knowing whether the buyer was related to the LA or LB. And even then, it is difficult to truly know. But it DOES appear that the buyer had an agreement with the LA to use her again in the quick-turnaround resale of the property for closer to its market price (for a quick profit).

Ask yourself why a buyer in October of 2009 would need a “short sale” three years later in a VERY established neighborhood less than three miles from dtn SD. And why would a lender be duped into such a scam (unless there was a structural problem discovered AFTER the 10/09 sale)?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]It should also be noted that the unions were fighting the “pension holidays” all the way, precisely because they knew that they (unions and workers) would be the ones to take the blame when it all came crashing down. But, politicians being politicians and all…they were able to expand spending on other things because of the “savings” on pension contributions, and could brag (temporarily) that pensions were “free” and all of the new programs and goodies handed out to special interest groups could go on forever, too.

Yes, it was stupid, and many of us were saying so back then. :([/quote]

Yes, I vividly remember those years, what with our exalted (elected AND appointed) “leaders” constantly patting each other on the back (mostly when the TV cameras were pointed in their direction) :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]BG,

You keep harping about SAHMs, but miss the fact that they **are** working and providing very real benefits that have financial value. They are not *paid,* but they ARE working.

How much do you think it would cost to have someone watch/teach your kids 24/7, do all your cleaning, shopping, cooking, bill paying, managing the schedule, etc.? Even if you get the cheapest full-time nanny/maid/personal assistant, you’d be paying many tens of thousands of dollars per year. To get a very competent person (or multiple people, most likely) to do this 24/7 would cost nearly $100K/year on the open market.[/quote]

Actually, I have nothing against SAHM’s. And I recognize the value of all those “services” and I also know that some of these “services” are just “eliminated” when there is no one at home to oversee them and life goes on. Unfortunately, a SAHM is not salaried and thus, does not accumulate a SS record in her own name. And I recognize the value of a former teacher, such as yourself, wanting to teach their own kids but also realize that your property taxes already pay for someone else to do the job, which will only cost you transportation expenses and possibly uniforms (I’m eliminating “lunches” because you already prepare them and that costs time and money). If you want to teach your children a curriculum that is not taught in the public school system, then that is your personal choice.

I realize that I was never qualified to teach school to my kids. ESPECIALLY the critical A-G requirements needed for college admission in CA. An eighth grade math book is over my head and out of my skillset. I’d rather stick with what I know and do best and let the pros at school do their work … as they were trained to do. I have the utmost respect for what they go thru, both to obtain their jobs and keep them. But this is just me.

What I was trying to say here is that it doesn’t take 50 years to raise children. A typical working life could occur between 16-66 years old (or any years in between). All it takes to qualify for SS is ten years of a solid work history. Perhaps you, CAR, already have that. I don’t know. It’s not even about education. There are many jobs one can do for ten years that only require a GED.

So many women of generations before me did NO PAID WORK their entire lives and thought their place was in the home. When their spouses died or they divorced, they were positively “destitute.” It is not a good life plan for a young woman of today to think they don’t need skills to work. One never knows when they will HAVE to work in order to survive. And it never wise to stake your entire future on another individual (your current “partner”) whether you are male or female. There are so many variables and you don’t know what the future will bring.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]SK and CAR, if that’s your argument, then how do you have data to back up your claim when the things you claim hasn’t happen yet. The boomer haven’t enter retirement, so how can you be sure they will die as early as their parents’ generation? My argument is due to medical advancements today and going forward, boomers will live longer. We won’t know who’s right until 50+ years from now. So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree for now, until the last boomer die, then we’ll know who’s right.[/quote]

The first “boomers” (born 1946 to 1947) have already or will this year reach 66 years of age. They are allowed to retire at 66 with a full SS benefit. The retirement age creeps up to 67 for those born 1960 and later.

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/retirechart.htm

In general, boomers had access to health education in public schools as well as free public health vaccines (however primitive – ex. polio sugar cube). In addition, they were subject to warnings on cigarette pkgs from an early age. For these reasons and the “fitness and jogging crazes” of decades past, there are many more boomers alive and fit today to weather their later years in much better shape than their parents and grandparents (I like to think myself is included, lol).

For these reasons, I think many boomers will live longer than previous generations but I don’t know how many years longer, since longitivity is primarily hereditary. But I DO believe that boomers will live their “golden years” with far less disability than their predecessors and thus have a MUCH better quality of life overall, because of their advance knowledge of known health risks and implementation of a healthier lifestyle.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN] . . . Also, keep in mind medical advances has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. We’re talking about the ability to completely regrow human parts from you own stem cell and do the surgery. With your own DNA, the likely hood of rejection is minimal, if at all. Then, there’s also the fact that we’re pretty close to finding the cure to AIDS. We’re working hard to find a cure to cancer. Then there’s nano-tech that doesn’t exist 20 years ago and it will only get better 20 years from now. So, yes, I expect us to live much much longer.[/quote]

Yes, AN, we (as a nation) are “working hard” to find a cure for cancer but there are so many different kinds and that cure eludes us. When one is terminal with cancer, they need to know when to throw in the towel, IMHO. I can honestly say that I would do same in that position as I’ve seen way too much in this regard.

The truth is, stage 3+ and 4 almost always come back … with a vengeance, EVEN if one obtains a “remission.” There IS NO CURE!

For most cancers, I think a “cure” is way off … if ever (“biologic agents” be damned).

For most terminal cancer patients, the “treatment” is way worse than letting the disease just take its course. It WILL, sooner or later, anyway.

Sorry for the pessimism, but I am a realist … and am now a self-proclaimed “expert” in funeral arrangements. Heck, I’m even getting “ready to roll” myself because you never know …. :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]BG, what you say about gen before you will be what us Gen X/Y will say about your generation. I can say with a certainty your generation will live longer than the gen before you. You’ll have access to stuff like, new cancer treatments, new AIDS treatments, new body party replacements using your own stem cell, etc. So, yes, on average, Boomers WILL live longer than their parents. So, you will use more than you put in to SS.[/quote]

I agree that we will live longer than WWII and Greatest Gen (not too many of these folks left). All I’m saying is that we put a LOT more into “the system” than our forebears did and are the first generation who very well may not see our “investment” come back to us in full. This is due to overpaying recipients who shouldn’t have qualified to get as high a benefit as they did and allowing some recipients to base their benefits on another’s work record when they didn’t contribute to “the system” themselves. I don’t care what anybody says. At all times after WWII, it was a personal choice of an individual (usually female) to stay out of the workforce for life. There are other ways to take care of someone until death who never worked and was never able to save anything for retirement. In other countries, the financial duty to care for indigent senior citizens falls on their family … as it should be. That same family benefited from the care and attention that (now indigent) non-working parent was able to give them when they were growing up.

Believe it or not, I am against “means testing” for OASDI benefits. A high-paid worker and/or worker with a long career deserves his/her SS based upon their contributions.

Since OASDI is funded by FICA employer and employee contributions, it should be used solely to help fund the retirements of those workers who contributed to it and no one else.[/quote]Unless you agree to stop SS payment upon complete drainage of the $ you put in, then it makes no difference if you put in $5 and get $10 in SS or $5k and get $5005 from SS. This is why I mentioned that your generation will most likely out live your parents’ generation. Which means your generation will most likely extract more from SS than your parents’ generation. Even if you put in more. There are a lot more exotic procedures today to keep you alive and I’m assuming that there will be even more in the future. So, how much you put in doesn’t matter as much as how much you take out from the system.[/quote]

AN, that’s easy for you to say because you have only been working a few years. I’d like to hear how you feel about the matter 30 years from now … after reviewing your annual SS report :=0

We didn’t put in “a little more” than our parents did. Collectively, boomers probably put in 8-12 times as much as both Greatest Gen and WWII Gen combined! Remember that payroll FICA deductions (not sure they were called that back then) didn’t start until 1935 or 1936.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Old_Age_%26_Survivors_Insurance

The amount one “extracts” from the system is directly proportionate to how much they (or their “sponsor”) put into it. The problem is that it has minimum payments ($380 mo? regardless of contribution) and most of its current beneficiaries are overpaid every month in proportion to their contributions.

I am MORE than okay with taking my and my employers’ contribution as a lump sum when I am eligible for it, in lieu of a monthly “annuity.” I don’t even care whether they pay me any interest for all those years.

Actually, I think we should have the option of taking a lump sum of our contributions at 62. I’ve seen too many people die after working their entire lives without collecting a dime (exc spouse $250 benefit).

I can manage whatever amt it is from there. At least I will have collected it.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]BG, what you say about gen before you will be what us Gen X/Y will say about your generation. I can say with a certainty your generation will live longer than the gen before you. You’ll have access to stuff like, new cancer treatments, new AIDS treatments, new body party replacements using your own stem cell, etc. So, yes, on average, Boomers WILL live longer than their parents. So, you will use more than you put in to SS.[/quote]

I agree that we will live longer than WWII and Greatest Gen (not too many of these folks left). All I’m saying is that we put a LOT more into “the system” than our forebears did and are the first generation who very well may not see our “investment” come back to us in full. This is due to overpaying recipients who shouldn’t have qualified to get as high a benefit as they did and allowing some recipients to base their benefits on another’s work record when they didn’t contribute to “the system” themselves. I don’t care what anybody says. At all times after WWII, it was a personal choice of an individual (usually female) to stay out of the workforce for life. There are other ways to take care of someone until death who never worked and was never able to save anything for retirement. In other countries, the financial duty to care for indigent senior citizens falls on their family … as it should be. That same family benefited from the care and attention that (now indigent) non-working parent was able to give them when they were growing up.

Believe it or not, I am against “means testing” for OASDI benefits. A high-paid worker and/or worker with a long career deserves his/her SS based upon their contributions.

Since OASDI is funded by FICA employer and employee contributions, it should be used solely to help fund the retirements of those workers who contributed to it and no one else.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=moneymaker]The smart ones don’t carry, but I believe many still do carry the prime ones.[/quote]

Chase still has many thousands of CA-originated “portfolio” Alt-A and prime mortgages which they “inherited” from WAMU who “inherited” them from Great Western Bank (and originated some themselves). I have one and is/was a “prime” borrower. Ditto for Downey Savings and a few others, including independents and some credit unions.

These mortgages are mostly indexed to the COFI and here in CA, our branch of the FHLBB (in SF) is known as the “11th District,” hence, in CA they are tied to the “11th Dist Cost of Funds Index.”

There is no reason to pay them off or refi because they have been adjusting downward monthly all by themselves in the last eight years or so and the index has cratered in recent years, so much so that the index plus the margin in some cases is less than the “floor payment” of 2.45% to to 2.75% (equal to the “margin”).

All were 30-yr mortgages and all the while they were/are fully amortizing.

Smart borrowers of these mtgs NEVER made less than the fully-amortized payment when they had the option to do so (the first 60 months of the loan). Hence, they have no deferred interest to pay and their payments never fluctuated very much.

In addition, they are “assumable” for a small fee to a qualified borrower.

It is unfortunate that programs exactly like I describe here do not exist anymore. There are variations of them available today but have backstops built into their annual caps (such as annually-adjusted level payments which cannot fluctuate up or down more than 7.5% in either direction when the loan is recast … every 12 mos). I suspect this was later added to “protect” stupid borrowers from themselves but the provision has been to the lender’s benefit, because a borrower on this program obviously has not been able to take advantage of the very lowest rates in recent years.

I think mortgage lending decisions should be made locally, by local lending institutions, with local loan officers and local appraisers employed by them and the mortgages kept in-house. This practice would have eliminated all the shenanigans which occurred during the “bubble years,” namely because they would have been loaning their own money and also servicing the loan.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]What would members of Gen X/Y think if they contribute all their lives to SS and then find out at the 11th hr (age 65) that their benefits will be drastically reduced or eliminated?

Boomers, in general, worked hard all their lives in much lesser circumstances than younger workers of today and many are still working. They *deserve* to retire.[/quote]I’m part of the Gen X/Y you’re referring to and I’m expecting my benefits will be drastically reduced or eliminated. That’s why I’m not counting on them in my planning. FYI, those WWII and Greatest generation paid into the system all their lives as well and they die a lot earlier, which mean they take out less. So your entire argument sounds like the boomer will be a biggest drainer yet due to their longevity and the medical advancements.[/quote]

AN, what those older gens paid into the “system” was minuscule compared to what boomers paid into the system. And the vast majority of women in those gens did not qualify for SS in their own right. All along, these previous gens have been getting SS COLA’s almost every year the last 40 years. Due to their ultralow payroll deductions during their working years, I figure it took them =<5 years of "retirement" at age 62 or 65 to use up their contributions ... yes, even collecting a ~$500 mo benefit. And I would estimate that 45% of them made no SS contributions at all in their lifetimes!

In recent decades, these older gens haven't "died a lot earlier." They lived and live with incapacity, both physical and mental, which costs everyone.

I just don't see boomers living with the length and degree of incapacity that their forebears did and are, due to all the reasons I noted above and more, including education about causes of bone loss, Alzheimers, effects of smoking, etc.

For instance, the older gens were ignorant of the consequences of smoking when they started at a young age and continued to smoke throughout their working lives. Now we are all paying for their oxygen and medical bills due to chronic COPD/emphysema (which is a very slow, agonizing death).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=poorgradstudent]The Baby Boomers really are a ticking time bomb. Can we send them all to Canada and Mexico?[/quote]

Surprising to most (but not to me), many “boomers” have been fit and athletic all their lives and have never smoked.

Previous generations of Americans (WWII and Greatest Gen) became incapacitated MUCH younger and did not live as long as boomers will due to:

-disease while young (which we now have vaccinations for);

-smoking and all other forms of tobacco use;

-drank MUCH more hard liquor;

-had high-cholesterol diets throughout their lives due to cultural practices;

-didn’t go to the gym or work out;

-didn’t have access to doctors/dentists;

-died in childbirth

etc.

Just go into any nursing home or board and care facility during mealtime and see what they’re feeding their patrons. I would not consider it a “healthy” diet but it is all they will eat.

In addition, most of the women of these generations were/are a drain on society since they didn’t have 40 quarters of SS contributions deposited on their own behalf because they didn’t work enough or work at all. Many were/are paid HUGE SS checks because they are collecting the SS benefit of a deceased spouse or former spouse.

In contrast, the majority of boomer women worked FT at least 40 quarters (10 years) and fed into the SS “system” and most worked MUCH more than that. I’ll try to find some links discussing this, but I’ve read that boomer women worked more years over their lives than Gen X women did. One reason is likely due to the fact that boomer women would lose their jobs if they didn’t return to work at 6 weeks post-partum (10 wks for cesarean birth), that is, until the passage of the FLMA in 1993.

I don’t think boomers will be such a “drain” on entitlements. Unlike previous generations (who boomers supported during their prime working years) they actually “earned” their own SS benefits. I don’t think Medicare is going to be around much longer, at least not in the form it is today.

I agree with livinincali that withholding expensive medical treatment for terminal cancer patients who cannot pay for it is good option. It doesn’t even work for patients who CAN pay for it and for that reason, I’m against aggressive cancer treatment for all but the most curable patients or those who are offering themselves for a clinical study (regardless of outcome, to help curable pts down the road). I also think there is a lot of waste in the Medicare/Tricare durable equipment racket. For example, I know several sr citizens (incl relatives) who have very expensive motorized chairs they never use. The list goes on.

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

What would members of Gen X/Y think if they contribute all their lives to SS and then find out at the 11th hr (age 65) that their benefits will be drastically reduced or eliminated?

Boomers, in general, worked hard all their lives in much lesser circumstances than younger workers of today and many are still working. They *deserve* to retire.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=livinincali][quote=equalizer]
A Blackrock investor would say that they are doing what needs to be done in 0% rate environment. It is a very interesting asset class, possibly better than lumber. If they are too successful, they may outbid first time buyers with 100% cash and possibly overpay creating resentment from people who are losing out of the American dream?[/quote]

The question is how long does it take for a CA style legislator to pass even more tenant protections.I have a feeling that it might really suck to be a landlord in the state if a hedge fund rental group does anything that is viewed as “unfair”.[/quote]

Obviously, they will have RE law firms chained to their ankle in every state they do biz in. So far, it does not appear that they have purchased any residential properties in CA but they may in the future.

If they even provide ONE BK, SS or foreclosed upon (due to “cash out”) scumbag with shot credit an oppty to rent a nice rehabbed home, they are providing a “community service” above and beyond the call of duty, IMHO. This is after these “poor, unfortunate” families got to “reaffirm” their luxury vehicles in BK and keep their flat screens, boats, $3000 beds, designer furniture, etc, all bought with *phony* home equity that the rest of us are now paying for in the form of vanished equity.

The only reason this group has any security deposit at all is because they squatted so long while waiting for their SS to close (or be foreclosed upon) all the while fully employed while claiming to be “indigent with no assets” to their stiffed lender (to get them to agree to accept an ultralow SS offer or “pretend” to be interested in a “modification”).

I frankly don’t think these opportunists deserve to rent a nice place anywhere and I personally wouldn’t rent to them. I would be afraid that after the calculated stunts they pulled with their mtg lender(s), they would quickly stiff me on rent and then try to sue me for injury on the premises or something like that after I hung a 3-day notice. As far as I’m concerned, they can live in the least desirable areas, parents’ back bdrms (IF they’ll have them) and/or in mobile homes until their credit completely recovers.

The vast majority of these losers got “used” to a life they could never afford at any time in their lives (due to loose credit) and will never be able to afford again. They just can’t “envision” themselves living a lower “lifestyle” than their former credit-fueled one and will be attracted to the “new,” clean homes that Blackstone will remodel for lease.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=moneymaker]I don’t know anything about Blackstone. Was at a new building lately though and had to ask who was in charge, well seems hardly anyone there spoke english. so so much for money going to hard working skilled Americans.[/quote]

That’s here in SD, MM. I don’t believe Blackstone has entered the CA market yet or if they even plan to.

Other states (much further from the int’l border) don’t have a never ending supply of workers who can live cheaper across the border and work cheaper, like SD does.

Their video was showing “Americans” doing the rehab work.

Just because the local worksite you visited didn’t have English-speaking workers, that doesn’t mean their foreman can’t speak English, nor does it mean they don’t have a legal right to work here. CA gen’l and subcontractors are “supposed” to file an I-9 on all their workers at the time of hire.

[Author]

Posts