[CA renter]

Like others have said rents only go down when people leave the area.
—————

I respectfully disagree.

What about when all the empty homes now in “shadow” inventory come on the market. IIRC, about 1/3+ of the homes on the market right now are empty.

What happens when people double/triple up? It’s very easy for a couple or a single person to move back in with parents or take in a new roommate.

IMO, Drunkle is right about 1/3 HH income going to rent as being too high — especially for those who make $65K or less. Stupid, stupid, stupid — and yes, I’m calling all the renters “stupid” if they are making $65K (gross HH income)
and paying $2K+ rent.

Very soon, the credit bubble is going to bite all these fools on the a$$, and they will find themselves older and poorer than they were 10 years ago. It seems nobody is saving up for retirement or for emergencies. Most people cannot pay 50% of their net income toward housing and still manage to save after all other living expenses are paid. What about savings???? Maybe that’s why everyone is eyeball-deep in debt and everyone is panicking about the “weak consumer.”

Prices are determined by what buyers are able/willing to pay (and that includes rent). The newbie LLs think they are making a killing charging high rents, but their tenants will have to live with more people/unit in order to make these payments over time, IMO. These arrangements often end up with high turnover and LOTS of damage/maintenance issues.

Years ago, I was one of the only bears who argued that rents would go up in the beginning of the downturn. That being said, I also said rents would go down as inventory is released from reluctant sellers (banks, FBs and old-timers who missed the top). Time will tell which theory is right.

[CA renter]

Thank you, SD Realtor.

Once again, we have to remember that sales are picking up **because** prices are down.

In the lower-end neighborhoods, I believe you can buy now and risk only $30K-$60K in potential losses, at worst. This would be for $250K homes or less. That’s not bad, compared to $200K+ losses.

They are still offering “funky” mortgages, and the upward swing of the housing bubble is still fresh in everyone’s mind. They are anchoring to 2005 prices, and things look great to buy!

If the economy continues to get worse, rents will fall, and I think this is key. Rents are in their own bubble right now, IMO. Too many LLs asking $2K+/mo rent for really basic housing in average neighborhoods. I do not think this is sustainable over the long run.

[CA renter]

Thank you, SD Realtor.

Once again, we have to remember that sales are picking up **because** prices are down.

In the lower-end neighborhoods, I believe you can buy now and risk only $30K-$60K in potential losses, at worst. This would be for $250K homes or less. That’s not bad, compared to $200K+ losses.

They are still offering “funky” mortgages, and the upward swing of the housing bubble is still fresh in everyone’s mind. They are anchoring to 2005 prices, and things look great to buy!

If the economy continues to get worse, rents will fall, and I think this is key. Rents are in their own bubble right now, IMO. Too many LLs asking $2K+/mo rent for really basic housing in average neighborhoods. I do not think this is sustainable over the long run.

[CA renter]

Thank you, SD Realtor.

Once again, we have to remember that sales are picking up **because** prices are down.

In the lower-end neighborhoods, I believe you can buy now and risk only $30K-$60K in potential losses, at worst. This would be for $250K homes or less. That’s not bad, compared to $200K+ losses.

They are still offering “funky” mortgages, and the upward swing of the housing bubble is still fresh in everyone’s mind. They are anchoring to 2005 prices, and things look great to buy!

If the economy continues to get worse, rents will fall, and I think this is key. Rents are in their own bubble right now, IMO. Too many LLs asking $2K+/mo rent for really basic housing in average neighborhoods. I do not think this is sustainable over the long run.

[CA renter]

Thank you, SD Realtor.

Once again, we have to remember that sales are picking up **because** prices are down.

In the lower-end neighborhoods, I believe you can buy now and risk only $30K-$60K in potential losses, at worst. This would be for $250K homes or less. That’s not bad, compared to $200K+ losses.

They are still offering “funky” mortgages, and the upward swing of the housing bubble is still fresh in everyone’s mind. They are anchoring to 2005 prices, and things look great to buy!

If the economy continues to get worse, rents will fall, and I think this is key. Rents are in their own bubble right now, IMO. Too many LLs asking $2K+/mo rent for really basic housing in average neighborhoods. I do not think this is sustainable over the long run.

[CA renter]

Thank you, SD Realtor.

Once again, we have to remember that sales are picking up **because** prices are down.

In the lower-end neighborhoods, I believe you can buy now and risk only $30K-$60K in potential losses, at worst. This would be for $250K homes or less. That’s not bad, compared to $200K+ losses.

They are still offering “funky” mortgages, and the upward swing of the housing bubble is still fresh in everyone’s mind. They are anchoring to 2005 prices, and things look great to buy!

If the economy continues to get worse, rents will fall, and I think this is key. Rents are in their own bubble right now, IMO. Too many LLs asking $2K+/mo rent for really basic housing in average neighborhoods. I do not think this is sustainable over the long run.

[CA renter]

So many supply-side economists…

If prices go down 10%, but your wages go down 20%, are you better off?

What about all the manufacturing jobs Wal-Mart decimated when they started purchasing from overseas markets (slave labor)?

Are the retail jobs they provide better than the manufacturing jobs they displaced? What about the small retail shops that were shut down after Wal-Mart moved in? Did the sole proprietors make less or more before Wal-Mart came to town?

Did our unemployment rate take a dive as Wal-Mart grew?

Which would you rather have:

– good-paying jobs with benefits, while paying slightly higher costs for higher-quality goods?

OR

– low-wage jobs with no benefits and slightly lower costs for lower-quality goods.

BTW, the corporate “benefits” burden is shifted onto the taxpayers in emergency medicine, food stamps, and “free” meals at school for the kids, since their parents can’t afford food. Poor people — who are treated like commodities — tend to commit more crimes, so we likely have higher law enforcement costs, too. Can’t wait to see the plush retirement portfolios of all those wealthy W-M workers when they retire. For sure, taxpayers won’t have to pick up any of Wal-Mart’s slack there, no sireee.

I’d rather focus on the demand side than the supply side. If the demand (J6, the customer) is healthy, the rest will take care of itself.

Wal-Mart has HUGE margins, because they beat-up their suppliers and still keep prices high on the retail side, relatively speaking. With the exception of offering convenience (and they do this well), they are NOT doing us any favors.

[CA renter]

So many supply-side economists…

If prices go down 10%, but your wages go down 20%, are you better off?

What about all the manufacturing jobs Wal-Mart decimated when they started purchasing from overseas markets (slave labor)?

Are the retail jobs they provide better than the manufacturing jobs they displaced? What about the small retail shops that were shut down after Wal-Mart moved in? Did the sole proprietors make less or more before Wal-Mart came to town?

Did our unemployment rate take a dive as Wal-Mart grew?

Which would you rather have:

– good-paying jobs with benefits, while paying slightly higher costs for higher-quality goods?

OR

– low-wage jobs with no benefits and slightly lower costs for lower-quality goods.

BTW, the corporate “benefits” burden is shifted onto the taxpayers in emergency medicine, food stamps, and “free” meals at school for the kids, since their parents can’t afford food. Poor people — who are treated like commodities — tend to commit more crimes, so we likely have higher law enforcement costs, too. Can’t wait to see the plush retirement portfolios of all those wealthy W-M workers when they retire. For sure, taxpayers won’t have to pick up any of Wal-Mart’s slack there, no sireee.

I’d rather focus on the demand side than the supply side. If the demand (J6, the customer) is healthy, the rest will take care of itself.

Wal-Mart has HUGE margins, because they beat-up their suppliers and still keep prices high on the retail side, relatively speaking. With the exception of offering convenience (and they do this well), they are NOT doing us any favors.

[CA renter]

So many supply-side economists…

If prices go down 10%, but your wages go down 20%, are you better off?

What about all the manufacturing jobs Wal-Mart decimated when they started purchasing from overseas markets (slave labor)?

Are the retail jobs they provide better than the manufacturing jobs they displaced? What about the small retail shops that were shut down after Wal-Mart moved in? Did the sole proprietors make less or more before Wal-Mart came to town?

Did our unemployment rate take a dive as Wal-Mart grew?

Which would you rather have:

– good-paying jobs with benefits, while paying slightly higher costs for higher-quality goods?

OR

– low-wage jobs with no benefits and slightly lower costs for lower-quality goods.

BTW, the corporate “benefits” burden is shifted onto the taxpayers in emergency medicine, food stamps, and “free” meals at school for the kids, since their parents can’t afford food. Poor people — who are treated like commodities — tend to commit more crimes, so we likely have higher law enforcement costs, too. Can’t wait to see the plush retirement portfolios of all those wealthy W-M workers when they retire. For sure, taxpayers won’t have to pick up any of Wal-Mart’s slack there, no sireee.

I’d rather focus on the demand side than the supply side. If the demand (J6, the customer) is healthy, the rest will take care of itself.

Wal-Mart has HUGE margins, because they beat-up their suppliers and still keep prices high on the retail side, relatively speaking. With the exception of offering convenience (and they do this well), they are NOT doing us any favors.

[CA renter]

So many supply-side economists…

If prices go down 10%, but your wages go down 20%, are you better off?

What about all the manufacturing jobs Wal-Mart decimated when they started purchasing from overseas markets (slave labor)?

Are the retail jobs they provide better than the manufacturing jobs they displaced? What about the small retail shops that were shut down after Wal-Mart moved in? Did the sole proprietors make less or more before Wal-Mart came to town?

Did our unemployment rate take a dive as Wal-Mart grew?

Which would you rather have:

– good-paying jobs with benefits, while paying slightly higher costs for higher-quality goods?

OR

– low-wage jobs with no benefits and slightly lower costs for lower-quality goods.

BTW, the corporate “benefits” burden is shifted onto the taxpayers in emergency medicine, food stamps, and “free” meals at school for the kids, since their parents can’t afford food. Poor people — who are treated like commodities — tend to commit more crimes, so we likely have higher law enforcement costs, too. Can’t wait to see the plush retirement portfolios of all those wealthy W-M workers when they retire. For sure, taxpayers won’t have to pick up any of Wal-Mart’s slack there, no sireee.

I’d rather focus on the demand side than the supply side. If the demand (J6, the customer) is healthy, the rest will take care of itself.

Wal-Mart has HUGE margins, because they beat-up their suppliers and still keep prices high on the retail side, relatively speaking. With the exception of offering convenience (and they do this well), they are NOT doing us any favors.

[CA renter]

So many supply-side economists…

If prices go down 10%, but your wages go down 20%, are you better off?

What about all the manufacturing jobs Wal-Mart decimated when they started purchasing from overseas markets (slave labor)?

Are the retail jobs they provide better than the manufacturing jobs they displaced? What about the small retail shops that were shut down after Wal-Mart moved in? Did the sole proprietors make less or more before Wal-Mart came to town?

Did our unemployment rate take a dive as Wal-Mart grew?

Which would you rather have:

– good-paying jobs with benefits, while paying slightly higher costs for higher-quality goods?

OR

– low-wage jobs with no benefits and slightly lower costs for lower-quality goods.

BTW, the corporate “benefits” burden is shifted onto the taxpayers in emergency medicine, food stamps, and “free” meals at school for the kids, since their parents can’t afford food. Poor people — who are treated like commodities — tend to commit more crimes, so we likely have higher law enforcement costs, too. Can’t wait to see the plush retirement portfolios of all those wealthy W-M workers when they retire. For sure, taxpayers won’t have to pick up any of Wal-Mart’s slack there, no sireee.

I’d rather focus on the demand side than the supply side. If the demand (J6, the customer) is healthy, the rest will take care of itself.

Wal-Mart has HUGE margins, because they beat-up their suppliers and still keep prices high on the retail side, relatively speaking. With the exception of offering convenience (and they do this well), they are NOT doing us any favors.

[CA renter]

Until we are allowed to have open discourse about the problems in this country, it’s likely to get progressively worse.

The problem is **culture,** not race. But anytime people try to discuss it, the old race card gets pulled out and the names start flying around (racist, hater, xenophbe, etc.).

All of it is totally unproductive becase we (on all sides) are not allowed to discuss our experiences and feelings honestly.

Not saying there’s an answer, but if everyone could at least hear each other’s perspectives, we might come to some kind of understanding and start trying to work together to improve immigrant/native relations.

[CA renter]

Until we are allowed to have open discourse about the problems in this country, it’s likely to get progressively worse.

The problem is **culture,** not race. But anytime people try to discuss it, the old race card gets pulled out and the names start flying around (racist, hater, xenophbe, etc.).

All of it is totally unproductive becase we (on all sides) are not allowed to discuss our experiences and feelings honestly.

Not saying there’s an answer, but if everyone could at least hear each other’s perspectives, we might come to some kind of understanding and start trying to work together to improve immigrant/native relations.

[CA renter]

Until we are allowed to have open discourse about the problems in this country, it’s likely to get progressively worse.

The problem is **culture,** not race. But anytime people try to discuss it, the old race card gets pulled out and the names start flying around (racist, hater, xenophbe, etc.).

All of it is totally unproductive becase we (on all sides) are not allowed to discuss our experiences and feelings honestly.

Not saying there’s an answer, but if everyone could at least hear each other’s perspectives, we might come to some kind of understanding and start trying to work together to improve immigrant/native relations.

[CA renter]

Until we are allowed to have open discourse about the problems in this country, it’s likely to get progressively worse.

The problem is **culture,** not race. But anytime people try to discuss it, the old race card gets pulled out and the names start flying around (racist, hater, xenophbe, etc.).

All of it is totally unproductive becase we (on all sides) are not allowed to discuss our experiences and feelings honestly.

Not saying there’s an answer, but if everyone could at least hear each other’s perspectives, we might come to some kind of understanding and start trying to work together to improve immigrant/native relations.

[Author]

Posts