[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]Yes, we definitely disagree on this.

While *some* private sector employees (investors?) take risks, public sector employees take even greater risks, especially those in public safety.[/quote]

This has been thoroughly debunked. Even the more purportedly dangerous jobs like police and firefighters have on-the-job mortality rates that are pretty far down the scale relative to plenty of other occupations. And, job contentment among this group is also pretty high.

http://www.livescience.com/1431-survey-reveals-satisfying-jobs.html

[quote=CA renter]
I do not suscribe to the theory that “financial risks” (a.k.a. gambling) entitle someone to reap greater rewards than someone who provides a good or performs a service that is more beneficial to society.

This is definitely where we disagree.[/quote]

The problem is that defining “financial risks” is very difficult. For example, the proprietary trader is taking different risks from the stock broker who is taking different risks than the real estate agent who is taking different risks than the investor providing capital to a company, etc. Generalizing about the actual “value added” by the various members of the financial services industry is tough, although I’ll agree that in aggregate they (we) are overpaid. But parsing it all out and figuring out who should get what ain’t easy. I’m confident that you’ll live your life quite disappointed with the results.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]Yes, we definitely disagree on this.

While *some* private sector employees (investors?) take risks, public sector employees take even greater risks, especially those in public safety.[/quote]

This has been thoroughly debunked. Even the more purportedly dangerous jobs like police and firefighters have on-the-job mortality rates that are pretty far down the scale relative to plenty of other occupations. And, job contentment among this group is also pretty high.

http://www.livescience.com/1431-survey-reveals-satisfying-jobs.html

[quote=CA renter]
I do not suscribe to the theory that “financial risks” (a.k.a. gambling) entitle someone to reap greater rewards than someone who provides a good or performs a service that is more beneficial to society.

This is definitely where we disagree.[/quote]

The problem is that defining “financial risks” is very difficult. For example, the proprietary trader is taking different risks from the stock broker who is taking different risks than the real estate agent who is taking different risks than the investor providing capital to a company, etc. Generalizing about the actual “value added” by the various members of the financial services industry is tough, although I’ll agree that in aggregate they (we) are overpaid. But parsing it all out and figuring out who should get what ain’t easy. I’m confident that you’ll live your life quite disappointed with the results.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]Yes, we definitely disagree on this.

While *some* private sector employees (investors?) take risks, public sector employees take even greater risks, especially those in public safety.[/quote]

This has been thoroughly debunked. Even the more purportedly dangerous jobs like police and firefighters have on-the-job mortality rates that are pretty far down the scale relative to plenty of other occupations. And, job contentment among this group is also pretty high.

http://www.livescience.com/1431-survey-reveals-satisfying-jobs.html

[quote=CA renter]
I do not suscribe to the theory that “financial risks” (a.k.a. gambling) entitle someone to reap greater rewards than someone who provides a good or performs a service that is more beneficial to society.

This is definitely where we disagree.[/quote]

The problem is that defining “financial risks” is very difficult. For example, the proprietary trader is taking different risks from the stock broker who is taking different risks than the real estate agent who is taking different risks than the investor providing capital to a company, etc. Generalizing about the actual “value added” by the various members of the financial services industry is tough, although I’ll agree that in aggregate they (we) are overpaid. But parsing it all out and figuring out who should get what ain’t easy. I’m confident that you’ll live your life quite disappointed with the results.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]Yes, we definitely disagree on this.

While *some* private sector employees (investors?) take risks, public sector employees take even greater risks, especially those in public safety.[/quote]

This has been thoroughly debunked. Even the more purportedly dangerous jobs like police and firefighters have on-the-job mortality rates that are pretty far down the scale relative to plenty of other occupations. And, job contentment among this group is also pretty high.

http://www.livescience.com/1431-survey-reveals-satisfying-jobs.html

[quote=CA renter]
I do not suscribe to the theory that “financial risks” (a.k.a. gambling) entitle someone to reap greater rewards than someone who provides a good or performs a service that is more beneficial to society.

This is definitely where we disagree.[/quote]

The problem is that defining “financial risks” is very difficult. For example, the proprietary trader is taking different risks from the stock broker who is taking different risks than the real estate agent who is taking different risks than the investor providing capital to a company, etc. Generalizing about the actual “value added” by the various members of the financial services industry is tough, although I’ll agree that in aggregate they (we) are overpaid. But parsing it all out and figuring out who should get what ain’t easy. I’m confident that you’ll live your life quite disappointed with the results.

[davelj]

[quote=threadkiller]Wouldn’t it be nice if when our troops come home they could buy a home that was affordable in the 50’s, instead of built in the 50’s.[/quote]

The average American home was 1,200 square feet in the 1950s. I’m pretty sure that most troops would find that size home affordable today in most places.

The problem is that the average American home today is almost 2,400 square feet. And, admittedly, most troops are going to have a tough time with that implied mortgage.

Frankly, most people probably have a lot more house than they need. I would like to think that our Troops are smart enough not to buy into The Lie that they need a big house to be happy.

[davelj]

[quote=threadkiller]Wouldn’t it be nice if when our troops come home they could buy a home that was affordable in the 50’s, instead of built in the 50’s.[/quote]

The average American home was 1,200 square feet in the 1950s. I’m pretty sure that most troops would find that size home affordable today in most places.

The problem is that the average American home today is almost 2,400 square feet. And, admittedly, most troops are going to have a tough time with that implied mortgage.

Frankly, most people probably have a lot more house than they need. I would like to think that our Troops are smart enough not to buy into The Lie that they need a big house to be happy.

[davelj]

[quote=threadkiller]Wouldn’t it be nice if when our troops come home they could buy a home that was affordable in the 50’s, instead of built in the 50’s.[/quote]

The average American home was 1,200 square feet in the 1950s. I’m pretty sure that most troops would find that size home affordable today in most places.

The problem is that the average American home today is almost 2,400 square feet. And, admittedly, most troops are going to have a tough time with that implied mortgage.

Frankly, most people probably have a lot more house than they need. I would like to think that our Troops are smart enough not to buy into The Lie that they need a big house to be happy.

[davelj]

[quote=threadkiller]Wouldn’t it be nice if when our troops come home they could buy a home that was affordable in the 50’s, instead of built in the 50’s.[/quote]

The average American home was 1,200 square feet in the 1950s. I’m pretty sure that most troops would find that size home affordable today in most places.

The problem is that the average American home today is almost 2,400 square feet. And, admittedly, most troops are going to have a tough time with that implied mortgage.

Frankly, most people probably have a lot more house than they need. I would like to think that our Troops are smart enough not to buy into The Lie that they need a big house to be happy.

[davelj]

[quote=threadkiller]Wouldn’t it be nice if when our troops come home they could buy a home that was affordable in the 50’s, instead of built in the 50’s.[/quote]

The average American home was 1,200 square feet in the 1950s. I’m pretty sure that most troops would find that size home affordable today in most places.

The problem is that the average American home today is almost 2,400 square feet. And, admittedly, most troops are going to have a tough time with that implied mortgage.

Frankly, most people probably have a lot more house than they need. I would like to think that our Troops are smart enough not to buy into The Lie that they need a big house to be happy.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

That being said, the increases in compensation ARE due to the bubbles, and I have always agreed that some concessions need to be made. But if the public workers make those concessions (let’s say, rolling back compensation to 1997 levels, with adjustments for inflation/deflation and population growth), then EVERYONE else who benefitted from the bubbles needs to take a similar hit. That means that the wealthy would need to see similar drops in their wealth as asset prices revert to ~1997 levels. After all, rolling back public compensation would only be fair if their purchasing power (and that means REAL purchasing power — asset prices, included) was rolled back to the same level. How well do you think that would go over?[/quote]

Here’s where I disagree. Public employees take little to no risk in their careers. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s *almost* impossible to get fired from a public position. And even if total compensation were cut back to some degree, growth in total compensation is still quite predictable over the long run (as any cutbacks are a blip). This is not the case in the private sector. While I am also frustrated by the seeming intractability of the private sector bubble compensation – the fact remains that these folks took risks. Now, they may be over-compensated for the risks they took but… they took them. Not so in the case of public sector employees. Consequently, the two are not comparable for the dimension on which you’d like them to be comparable.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

That being said, the increases in compensation ARE due to the bubbles, and I have always agreed that some concessions need to be made. But if the public workers make those concessions (let’s say, rolling back compensation to 1997 levels, with adjustments for inflation/deflation and population growth), then EVERYONE else who benefitted from the bubbles needs to take a similar hit. That means that the wealthy would need to see similar drops in their wealth as asset prices revert to ~1997 levels. After all, rolling back public compensation would only be fair if their purchasing power (and that means REAL purchasing power — asset prices, included) was rolled back to the same level. How well do you think that would go over?[/quote]

Here’s where I disagree. Public employees take little to no risk in their careers. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s *almost* impossible to get fired from a public position. And even if total compensation were cut back to some degree, growth in total compensation is still quite predictable over the long run (as any cutbacks are a blip). This is not the case in the private sector. While I am also frustrated by the seeming intractability of the private sector bubble compensation – the fact remains that these folks took risks. Now, they may be over-compensated for the risks they took but… they took them. Not so in the case of public sector employees. Consequently, the two are not comparable for the dimension on which you’d like them to be comparable.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

That being said, the increases in compensation ARE due to the bubbles, and I have always agreed that some concessions need to be made. But if the public workers make those concessions (let’s say, rolling back compensation to 1997 levels, with adjustments for inflation/deflation and population growth), then EVERYONE else who benefitted from the bubbles needs to take a similar hit. That means that the wealthy would need to see similar drops in their wealth as asset prices revert to ~1997 levels. After all, rolling back public compensation would only be fair if their purchasing power (and that means REAL purchasing power — asset prices, included) was rolled back to the same level. How well do you think that would go over?[/quote]

Here’s where I disagree. Public employees take little to no risk in their careers. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s *almost* impossible to get fired from a public position. And even if total compensation were cut back to some degree, growth in total compensation is still quite predictable over the long run (as any cutbacks are a blip). This is not the case in the private sector. While I am also frustrated by the seeming intractability of the private sector bubble compensation – the fact remains that these folks took risks. Now, they may be over-compensated for the risks they took but… they took them. Not so in the case of public sector employees. Consequently, the two are not comparable for the dimension on which you’d like them to be comparable.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

That being said, the increases in compensation ARE due to the bubbles, and I have always agreed that some concessions need to be made. But if the public workers make those concessions (let’s say, rolling back compensation to 1997 levels, with adjustments for inflation/deflation and population growth), then EVERYONE else who benefitted from the bubbles needs to take a similar hit. That means that the wealthy would need to see similar drops in their wealth as asset prices revert to ~1997 levels. After all, rolling back public compensation would only be fair if their purchasing power (and that means REAL purchasing power — asset prices, included) was rolled back to the same level. How well do you think that would go over?[/quote]

Here’s where I disagree. Public employees take little to no risk in their careers. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s *almost* impossible to get fired from a public position. And even if total compensation were cut back to some degree, growth in total compensation is still quite predictable over the long run (as any cutbacks are a blip). This is not the case in the private sector. While I am also frustrated by the seeming intractability of the private sector bubble compensation – the fact remains that these folks took risks. Now, they may be over-compensated for the risks they took but… they took them. Not so in the case of public sector employees. Consequently, the two are not comparable for the dimension on which you’d like them to be comparable.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

That being said, the increases in compensation ARE due to the bubbles, and I have always agreed that some concessions need to be made. But if the public workers make those concessions (let’s say, rolling back compensation to 1997 levels, with adjustments for inflation/deflation and population growth), then EVERYONE else who benefitted from the bubbles needs to take a similar hit. That means that the wealthy would need to see similar drops in their wealth as asset prices revert to ~1997 levels. After all, rolling back public compensation would only be fair if their purchasing power (and that means REAL purchasing power — asset prices, included) was rolled back to the same level. How well do you think that would go over?[/quote]

Here’s where I disagree. Public employees take little to no risk in their careers. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s *almost* impossible to get fired from a public position. And even if total compensation were cut back to some degree, growth in total compensation is still quite predictable over the long run (as any cutbacks are a blip). This is not the case in the private sector. While I am also frustrated by the seeming intractability of the private sector bubble compensation – the fact remains that these folks took risks. Now, they may be over-compensated for the risks they took but… they took them. Not so in the case of public sector employees. Consequently, the two are not comparable for the dimension on which you’d like them to be comparable.

[davelj]

[quote=urbanrealtor]

1: Vantage point units will totally sell.
A landlord with a pre-mapped building that cash flows positive is in no hurry to fire sale them but I would expect that at some point in the next few years, the nominal prices will cause selling to make more sense than renting.
Further, VP can sell them off slowly and at its leisure (while still pulling rents). The only question in that strategy is the cost of HOA obligations for the project owner.[/quote]

I’m not even thinking about VP… Zell (ERP) rarely sells his apartment buildings. I don’t think this will be an issue for downtown supply for so long into the future that it’s not even worth contemplating.

[quote=urbanrealtor]

3: The mean rate (taken over the course of the year) for closings in downtown is about 75/month.
The instantaneous rate of change on this is highly correlated to season (about 50 per october to march and about 100 per month april to september) but it works out the same. About 900 per year. Currently, there is about 400 active for sale in 92101 with roughly translates to about 5 months of inventory.
In a distress-heavy area, that is an impressive mean closing speed.
There are currently about 139 pendings listed in 92101. That means there are approximately 3 units for every one buyer as of today.
If you ask Jim Klinge about this, he will probably tell you that this is a healthy ratio with a just a hint of tilting toward a seller’s market.
[/quote]

I just wonder how much inventory is *really* out there. Again, I think most of the specuvestors are gone or will be gone by year’s end (2011). Now we’re seeing some unemployment-related foreclosures and short sales, but those are slowing down. So, my REAL question is how many new, unoccupied, un-owned units are sitting in downtown’s inventory. For example, how many units in Bayside have been purchased (to use just one example)? I wouldn’t be surprised if there are 1,000 new units sitting in inventory downtown. Having said that… I just don’t know. I’m pretty sure that I can get my hands on that data soon, though. But if you know these actual numbers, by all means… inquiring minds and all. I’d love to be wrong about this.

[Author]

Posts