[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
Housing is still overpriced, even though it is more sane than at the peak of the bubble. [/quote]

Actually, on a price per square foot basis (as opposed to a “per house” basis), housing is below the long-term median. Recall that the average home had less than 1200 square feet in 1960 – today it’s more than twice that level. There are even – dare I say – bargains (!) in the under-$400K homes (even!) here in San Diego. But perhaps they’re not of the size or in a neighborhood of the ethnic or socioeconomic makeup that you prefer (or feel you deserve)…

[quote=CA renter]
We still have massive amounts of speculation driving costs, which does not make for a healthy market, IMHO. Oil prices are too high, food prices are too high. HEALTHCARE costs are too high. Education costs are too high.[/quote]

Oil prices were well within the inflation-adjusted range of the past 50 years until shortly prior to the various uprisings in the Middle East. I agree that oil prices are high, but that has little to do with debt. Likewise, food prices. You can blame the emerging economies, not debt, for that. The fact that health care costs are too high has nothing to do with debt – that’s the result of our own shitty health care system which we continue to coddle. Europe has lots of debt and their health care costs are not increasing like ours are.

Now, I’ll agree with you that debt has had a major influence on education costs. Undoubtedly, if we weren’t offering student loans to everyone who could fog a mirror, costs would be much lower. So, THAT is definitely debt-induced inflation – I’m with you there. But – even so – there are plenty of less expensive alternatives like sending kids to community college for two years and then sending them to the best state school they can get into. My point being that if parents feel like they’re spending too much on college educations – it’s because at some level they’re CHOOSING to do so, not because less expensive alternatives don’t exist. (I have no sympathy for people who think they’re being “forced” into debt because Muffy has to attend Amherst.)

[quote=CA renter]
I’m willing to bet that most people feel less secure in their financial position today than they did in 1995. [/quote]

Perhaps true. But perhaps they were mistaken in feeling that way in the first place and only now are they realizing what a precarious position they were in to begin with.

[quote=CA renter]
I do not think that housing prices are anywhere near sustainable over the long run, especially in the higher-mid range and up.[/quote]

Ah yes… the higher mid-range and up… the only range you would consider good enough for yourself, I suppose?

[quote=CA renter]
As mentioned before, those without children will feel things very differently than people with families. Our costs are multiplied, so we feel price increases much sooner than those who only have to worry about one person — especially if that one person has an above-average income.

If you were trying to pay for food, healthcare, education/childcare, etc. for a family, transporation costs for two, etc. you’d understand why I’m saying that people are being **forced into debt** in order to survive.[/quote]

Zero sympathy here. Having kids is a choice. If you can’t afford to take care of them in the manner to which you think they should be accustomed… perhaps having kids was a poor decision on your part. Or perhaps you should live in a less expensive locale. But don’t blame “debt” in the general sense.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
Housing is still overpriced, even though it is more sane than at the peak of the bubble. [/quote]

Actually, on a price per square foot basis (as opposed to a “per house” basis), housing is below the long-term median. Recall that the average home had less than 1200 square feet in 1960 – today it’s more than twice that level. There are even – dare I say – bargains (!) in the under-$400K homes (even!) here in San Diego. But perhaps they’re not of the size or in a neighborhood of the ethnic or socioeconomic makeup that you prefer (or feel you deserve)…

[quote=CA renter]
We still have massive amounts of speculation driving costs, which does not make for a healthy market, IMHO. Oil prices are too high, food prices are too high. HEALTHCARE costs are too high. Education costs are too high.[/quote]

Oil prices were well within the inflation-adjusted range of the past 50 years until shortly prior to the various uprisings in the Middle East. I agree that oil prices are high, but that has little to do with debt. Likewise, food prices. You can blame the emerging economies, not debt, for that. The fact that health care costs are too high has nothing to do with debt – that’s the result of our own shitty health care system which we continue to coddle. Europe has lots of debt and their health care costs are not increasing like ours are.

Now, I’ll agree with you that debt has had a major influence on education costs. Undoubtedly, if we weren’t offering student loans to everyone who could fog a mirror, costs would be much lower. So, THAT is definitely debt-induced inflation – I’m with you there. But – even so – there are plenty of less expensive alternatives like sending kids to community college for two years and then sending them to the best state school they can get into. My point being that if parents feel like they’re spending too much on college educations – it’s because at some level they’re CHOOSING to do so, not because less expensive alternatives don’t exist. (I have no sympathy for people who think they’re being “forced” into debt because Muffy has to attend Amherst.)

[quote=CA renter]
I’m willing to bet that most people feel less secure in their financial position today than they did in 1995. [/quote]

Perhaps true. But perhaps they were mistaken in feeling that way in the first place and only now are they realizing what a precarious position they were in to begin with.

[quote=CA renter]
I do not think that housing prices are anywhere near sustainable over the long run, especially in the higher-mid range and up.[/quote]

Ah yes… the higher mid-range and up… the only range you would consider good enough for yourself, I suppose?

[quote=CA renter]
As mentioned before, those without children will feel things very differently than people with families. Our costs are multiplied, so we feel price increases much sooner than those who only have to worry about one person — especially if that one person has an above-average income.

If you were trying to pay for food, healthcare, education/childcare, etc. for a family, transporation costs for two, etc. you’d understand why I’m saying that people are being **forced into debt** in order to survive.[/quote]

Zero sympathy here. Having kids is a choice. If you can’t afford to take care of them in the manner to which you think they should be accustomed… perhaps having kids was a poor decision on your part. Or perhaps you should live in a less expensive locale. But don’t blame “debt” in the general sense.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
Housing is still overpriced, even though it is more sane than at the peak of the bubble. [/quote]

Actually, on a price per square foot basis (as opposed to a “per house” basis), housing is below the long-term median. Recall that the average home had less than 1200 square feet in 1960 – today it’s more than twice that level. There are even – dare I say – bargains (!) in the under-$400K homes (even!) here in San Diego. But perhaps they’re not of the size or in a neighborhood of the ethnic or socioeconomic makeup that you prefer (or feel you deserve)…

[quote=CA renter]
We still have massive amounts of speculation driving costs, which does not make for a healthy market, IMHO. Oil prices are too high, food prices are too high. HEALTHCARE costs are too high. Education costs are too high.[/quote]

Oil prices were well within the inflation-adjusted range of the past 50 years until shortly prior to the various uprisings in the Middle East. I agree that oil prices are high, but that has little to do with debt. Likewise, food prices. You can blame the emerging economies, not debt, for that. The fact that health care costs are too high has nothing to do with debt – that’s the result of our own shitty health care system which we continue to coddle. Europe has lots of debt and their health care costs are not increasing like ours are.

Now, I’ll agree with you that debt has had a major influence on education costs. Undoubtedly, if we weren’t offering student loans to everyone who could fog a mirror, costs would be much lower. So, THAT is definitely debt-induced inflation – I’m with you there. But – even so – there are plenty of less expensive alternatives like sending kids to community college for two years and then sending them to the best state school they can get into. My point being that if parents feel like they’re spending too much on college educations – it’s because at some level they’re CHOOSING to do so, not because less expensive alternatives don’t exist. (I have no sympathy for people who think they’re being “forced” into debt because Muffy has to attend Amherst.)

[quote=CA renter]
I’m willing to bet that most people feel less secure in their financial position today than they did in 1995. [/quote]

Perhaps true. But perhaps they were mistaken in feeling that way in the first place and only now are they realizing what a precarious position they were in to begin with.

[quote=CA renter]
I do not think that housing prices are anywhere near sustainable over the long run, especially in the higher-mid range and up.[/quote]

Ah yes… the higher mid-range and up… the only range you would consider good enough for yourself, I suppose?

[quote=CA renter]
As mentioned before, those without children will feel things very differently than people with families. Our costs are multiplied, so we feel price increases much sooner than those who only have to worry about one person — especially if that one person has an above-average income.

If you were trying to pay for food, healthcare, education/childcare, etc. for a family, transporation costs for two, etc. you’d understand why I’m saying that people are being **forced into debt** in order to survive.[/quote]

Zero sympathy here. Having kids is a choice. If you can’t afford to take care of them in the manner to which you think they should be accustomed… perhaps having kids was a poor decision on your part. Or perhaps you should live in a less expensive locale. But don’t blame “debt” in the general sense.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
Housing is still overpriced, even though it is more sane than at the peak of the bubble. [/quote]

Actually, on a price per square foot basis (as opposed to a “per house” basis), housing is below the long-term median. Recall that the average home had less than 1200 square feet in 1960 – today it’s more than twice that level. There are even – dare I say – bargains (!) in the under-$400K homes (even!) here in San Diego. But perhaps they’re not of the size or in a neighborhood of the ethnic or socioeconomic makeup that you prefer (or feel you deserve)…

[quote=CA renter]
We still have massive amounts of speculation driving costs, which does not make for a healthy market, IMHO. Oil prices are too high, food prices are too high. HEALTHCARE costs are too high. Education costs are too high.[/quote]

Oil prices were well within the inflation-adjusted range of the past 50 years until shortly prior to the various uprisings in the Middle East. I agree that oil prices are high, but that has little to do with debt. Likewise, food prices. You can blame the emerging economies, not debt, for that. The fact that health care costs are too high has nothing to do with debt – that’s the result of our own shitty health care system which we continue to coddle. Europe has lots of debt and their health care costs are not increasing like ours are.

Now, I’ll agree with you that debt has had a major influence on education costs. Undoubtedly, if we weren’t offering student loans to everyone who could fog a mirror, costs would be much lower. So, THAT is definitely debt-induced inflation – I’m with you there. But – even so – there are plenty of less expensive alternatives like sending kids to community college for two years and then sending them to the best state school they can get into. My point being that if parents feel like they’re spending too much on college educations – it’s because at some level they’re CHOOSING to do so, not because less expensive alternatives don’t exist. (I have no sympathy for people who think they’re being “forced” into debt because Muffy has to attend Amherst.)

[quote=CA renter]
I’m willing to bet that most people feel less secure in their financial position today than they did in 1995. [/quote]

Perhaps true. But perhaps they were mistaken in feeling that way in the first place and only now are they realizing what a precarious position they were in to begin with.

[quote=CA renter]
I do not think that housing prices are anywhere near sustainable over the long run, especially in the higher-mid range and up.[/quote]

Ah yes… the higher mid-range and up… the only range you would consider good enough for yourself, I suppose?

[quote=CA renter]
As mentioned before, those without children will feel things very differently than people with families. Our costs are multiplied, so we feel price increases much sooner than those who only have to worry about one person — especially if that one person has an above-average income.

If you were trying to pay for food, healthcare, education/childcare, etc. for a family, transporation costs for two, etc. you’d understand why I’m saying that people are being **forced into debt** in order to survive.[/quote]

Zero sympathy here. Having kids is a choice. If you can’t afford to take care of them in the manner to which you think they should be accustomed… perhaps having kids was a poor decision on your part. Or perhaps you should live in a less expensive locale. But don’t blame “debt” in the general sense.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
The VOTERS determine who takes political office, not the unions. I can assure you that there are a number of politicians who do not feel at all like they are “on the same side of the table” as the rank-and-file union members.
[/quote]

You simply cannot be this naive. Look, you’re the one who is always harping about excessive executive pay. And I happen to agree!! But if I were to point out that it’s the shareholders (re: voters) who vote for the directors (re: politicians) that set the CEO’s (re: public employee) pay, you’d rightfully say, “Well that’s a total racket because it’s almost impossible to get rid of a director (re: politician) once s/he’s on the board (re: in office). So, most directors (re: politicians) pander to the CEO (re: public employees). They’re BOTH rackets – cronyism to the Nth degree. Sure, there’s some theoretical power in the hands of voters (re: shareholders), but in practice it doesn’t really exist. So my only request here is to be consistent instead of picking and choosing which crony-based relationships support your personal world view.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
The VOTERS determine who takes political office, not the unions. I can assure you that there are a number of politicians who do not feel at all like they are “on the same side of the table” as the rank-and-file union members.
[/quote]

You simply cannot be this naive. Look, you’re the one who is always harping about excessive executive pay. And I happen to agree!! But if I were to point out that it’s the shareholders (re: voters) who vote for the directors (re: politicians) that set the CEO’s (re: public employee) pay, you’d rightfully say, “Well that’s a total racket because it’s almost impossible to get rid of a director (re: politician) once s/he’s on the board (re: in office). So, most directors (re: politicians) pander to the CEO (re: public employees). They’re BOTH rackets – cronyism to the Nth degree. Sure, there’s some theoretical power in the hands of voters (re: shareholders), but in practice it doesn’t really exist. So my only request here is to be consistent instead of picking and choosing which crony-based relationships support your personal world view.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
The VOTERS determine who takes political office, not the unions. I can assure you that there are a number of politicians who do not feel at all like they are “on the same side of the table” as the rank-and-file union members.
[/quote]

You simply cannot be this naive. Look, you’re the one who is always harping about excessive executive pay. And I happen to agree!! But if I were to point out that it’s the shareholders (re: voters) who vote for the directors (re: politicians) that set the CEO’s (re: public employee) pay, you’d rightfully say, “Well that’s a total racket because it’s almost impossible to get rid of a director (re: politician) once s/he’s on the board (re: in office). So, most directors (re: politicians) pander to the CEO (re: public employees). They’re BOTH rackets – cronyism to the Nth degree. Sure, there’s some theoretical power in the hands of voters (re: shareholders), but in practice it doesn’t really exist. So my only request here is to be consistent instead of picking and choosing which crony-based relationships support your personal world view.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
The VOTERS determine who takes political office, not the unions. I can assure you that there are a number of politicians who do not feel at all like they are “on the same side of the table” as the rank-and-file union members.
[/quote]

You simply cannot be this naive. Look, you’re the one who is always harping about excessive executive pay. And I happen to agree!! But if I were to point out that it’s the shareholders (re: voters) who vote for the directors (re: politicians) that set the CEO’s (re: public employee) pay, you’d rightfully say, “Well that’s a total racket because it’s almost impossible to get rid of a director (re: politician) once s/he’s on the board (re: in office). So, most directors (re: politicians) pander to the CEO (re: public employees). They’re BOTH rackets – cronyism to the Nth degree. Sure, there’s some theoretical power in the hands of voters (re: shareholders), but in practice it doesn’t really exist. So my only request here is to be consistent instead of picking and choosing which crony-based relationships support your personal world view.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
The VOTERS determine who takes political office, not the unions. I can assure you that there are a number of politicians who do not feel at all like they are “on the same side of the table” as the rank-and-file union members.
[/quote]

You simply cannot be this naive. Look, you’re the one who is always harping about excessive executive pay. And I happen to agree!! But if I were to point out that it’s the shareholders (re: voters) who vote for the directors (re: politicians) that set the CEO’s (re: public employee) pay, you’d rightfully say, “Well that’s a total racket because it’s almost impossible to get rid of a director (re: politician) once s/he’s on the board (re: in office). So, most directors (re: politicians) pander to the CEO (re: public employees). They’re BOTH rackets – cronyism to the Nth degree. Sure, there’s some theoretical power in the hands of voters (re: shareholders), but in practice it doesn’t really exist. So my only request here is to be consistent instead of picking and choosing which crony-based relationships support your personal world view.

[davelj]

Bwahahahahaha!!

[davelj]

Bwahahahahaha!!

[davelj]

Bwahahahahaha!!

[davelj]

Bwahahahahaha!!

[davelj]

Bwahahahahaha!!

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
When you’re talking about debt used for consumption, all they’ve done is pulled demand forward, and made it more expensive to pay for things. They have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive. Those of us who try to live without debt are forced to pay higher prices because we’re competing with idiots who don’t understand that buying a hamburger today for $1.00 means paying $1.25 in the future, while still needing to buy more burgers in the meantime.
[/quote]

I’m curious. What are you not able to purchase today for what you deem to be a reasonable price that you would like to be able to purchase?

To use the example at the root of this blog, if you’re willing to stay put for several years, buying a house right now, given current interest rates, is quite reasonable. In fact, historically, the monthly cost of owning a house is below the historical median. So, I will assume that housing is not the issue it was for you (and me and most others here at the Pigg) five years ago.

I agree that we have too much debt. But I’d also point out that not all debt is bad and, in fact, a decent portion of it is reasonable give the intended uses. (Although I’ll agree that a lot of consumer debt – particularly revolving credit card and HELOC debt – is not good.) But, when you state that, “They [The Powers that Be?] have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive,” this seems more than a bit extreme. Who, exactly, can’t “survive” because they’re unwilling to take on debt?

[Author]

Posts