Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
blahblahblah
ParticipantConstruction said I was a Baby Boomer. Clearly I’m not, even according to you.
I was just agreeing with you and trying to help make your point; also letting you know your demographic in case you weren’t sure.
ParticipantConstruction said I was a Baby Boomer. Clearly I’m not, even according to you.
I was just agreeing with you and trying to help make your point; also letting you know your demographic in case you weren’t sure.
ParticipantIf you were born in 1967 you are as Gen-X as they come. This has been discussed before on this board, but Generation X covers those born between 1961-1981. The core of Generation X (as defined by Douglas Coupland, who wrote the novel “Generation X” which popularized the term) were in their twenties between 1987 and 1991.
ParticipantIf you were born in 1967 you are as Gen-X as they come. This has been discussed before on this board, but Generation X covers those born between 1961-1981. The core of Generation X (as defined by Douglas Coupland, who wrote the novel “Generation X” which popularized the term) were in their twenties between 1987 and 1991.
ParticipantThe monthly cost of purchasing a home using conventional financing (20% down, fixed rate 30 year mortgage) should be roughly equivalent to (or slightly less than) the rent for a comparable property, after adjusting for tax deductions and maintenance expenses. This was the rule for home purchases for a long time and has only recently fallen out of fashion. Most of us here believe that this criteria will again become the norm in the near future — if it doesn’t we will happily rent properties since it’s cheaper.
Basically if you understand junior high arithmetic, “the fundamentals” are easy to figure out. Of course that rules out about 90% of the US population.
ParticipantThe monthly cost of purchasing a home using conventional financing (20% down, fixed rate 30 year mortgage) should be roughly equivalent to (or slightly less than) the rent for a comparable property, after adjusting for tax deductions and maintenance expenses. This was the rule for home purchases for a long time and has only recently fallen out of fashion. Most of us here believe that this criteria will again become the norm in the near future — if it doesn’t we will happily rent properties since it’s cheaper.
Basically if you understand junior high arithmetic, “the fundamentals” are easy to figure out. Of course that rules out about 90% of the US population.
ParticipantThe next bubble will be something completely different. Last time it was tech stocks, this time it is houses, next time it will be bio stocks or energy stocks or south sea trading shares or tulips. Houses are not going to have another run like this for a long, long time; the psychology is not going to be there to support it.
Nominal home values might not decrease a whole lot once the US starts inflating its debt away, but real values are going to decline for a long time…
ParticipantThe next bubble will be something completely different. Last time it was tech stocks, this time it is houses, next time it will be bio stocks or energy stocks or south sea trading shares or tulips. Houses are not going to have another run like this for a long, long time; the psychology is not going to be there to support it.
Nominal home values might not decrease a whole lot once the US starts inflating its debt away, but real values are going to decline for a long time…
Participanttothjj has nailed it. It’s the folks rolling over from the sale of a previous home, combined with the remainder of the clueless 100% financing crowd, people who have come into substantial inheritances, with a few $300K/yr households and TJ narcojefes thrown in for good measure. The financially prudent middle-class first-time buyer is not participating, unless rich Aunt Martha just kicked it and left them a $300K windfall.
Participanttothjj has nailed it. It’s the folks rolling over from the sale of a previous home, combined with the remainder of the clueless 100% financing crowd, people who have come into substantial inheritances, with a few $300K/yr households and TJ narcojefes thrown in for good measure. The financially prudent middle-class first-time buyer is not participating, unless rich Aunt Martha just kicked it and left them a $300K windfall.
ParticipantAgreed, WHATAD, the US figure of 6.4/1000 is actually nothing to be proud of considering how wealthy we are. Cuba, as poor as it is, is better than us at keeping babies healthy — it just shows how screwed up our priorities are that it’s not a national shame that we don’t have the best infant care in the world. Why don’t our presidential candidates talk about that? Maybe it doesn’t sell well to the public…
ParticipantAgreed, WHATAD, the US figure of 6.4/1000 is actually nothing to be proud of considering how wealthy we are. Cuba, as poor as it is, is better than us at keeping babies healthy — it just shows how screwed up our priorities are that it’s not a national shame that we don’t have the best infant care in the world. Why don’t our presidential candidates talk about that? Maybe it doesn’t sell well to the public…
ParticipantThird world simply indicates that the living conditions for the majority of the population are lower than those in the first world. Infant mortality is a good indicator, because it correlates closely with the availability of clean water, sewage systems, garbage collection, and electricity for refrigeration. Countries lacking in this infrastructure will have high infant mortality, in many cases simply because of dehydration caused by diarrhea (it is hard for us here to believe but when you’ve visited the small towns in these countries you’ll understand). I don’t have a number for the Phillipines, but here are the numbers for the US, Mexico, China and India (in deaths per 1000 live births):
US: 6.4
Mexico: 19.6
China: 22.1
India: 34.6Full table available here.
It is true that all of these countries produce lots of great talent in many fields; it’s also true that they’re unlikely to have a significant effect on our housing market here in SD. Even a married couple making $200K combined income and raising a couple of kids will have to stretch to afford a $700K house once you figure in maintenance, taxes, HOA fees, etc…
ParticipantThird world simply indicates that the living conditions for the majority of the population are lower than those in the first world. Infant mortality is a good indicator, because it correlates closely with the availability of clean water, sewage systems, garbage collection, and electricity for refrigeration. Countries lacking in this infrastructure will have high infant mortality, in many cases simply because of dehydration caused by diarrhea (it is hard for us here to believe but when you’ve visited the small towns in these countries you’ll understand). I don’t have a number for the Phillipines, but here are the numbers for the US, Mexico, China and India (in deaths per 1000 live births):
US: 6.4
Mexico: 19.6
China: 22.1
India: 34.6Full table available here.
It is true that all of these countries produce lots of great talent in many fields; it’s also true that they’re unlikely to have a significant effect on our housing market here in SD. Even a married couple making $200K combined income and raising a couple of kids will have to stretch to afford a $700K house once you figure in maintenance, taxes, HOA fees, etc…
-
AuthorPosts
