Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
EconProf
Participant[quote=La Jolla Renter]The 2 biggest issues I believed Obama would fix was healthcare and the black community (specifically employment, race relations, and education) once an for all.
I don’t know how the average family of four is doing with their promised $2,500 a year healthcare savings, but my personal ppo has gone from $313 to $1089 under Obama care.
Obama failed the black community by every measure I can see unless I put on my Al Sharpton CNN glasses. When the media love affair wears off, history will figure this one out.[/quote]
Exactly right LJR.
We all thought race relations would get better under Obama, and instead they got worse. While it is hard to measure such an ambiguous concept of “race relations”, and thus compare them under one administration vs. another, I did see recently how black males’ support of Trump jumped from 11% to 22%. Sorry, I can’t remember the source. But I wonder if it is connected to the remarkable drop in unemployment rates under Trump. A notable feature of this drop has been the observation that it has dropped the most for the historically least educated, poorest, and minority segments of society.
Back when unemployment rates were high, employers could be choosy and demand perfection among their applicants. Now, with the ranks of the unemployed shrinking, they must take some risks, hire those they think they can train, and BTW, pay them more in order to attract them. All this is ideal for minorities, those with less education, those with a troubled past, etc.
The high GDP growth rate–low unemployment environment that Trump has created will do more to help minorities than any number of government-sponsored “training courses” or useless college majors, or bigger welfare payments to help this segment of society.
Whatever you may think of Trump personally, he is accomplishing objectives that liberals claimed to want. The irony is delicious.Participant[quote=svelte][quote=EconProf]In terms of accomplishing liberals’ goals, Trump should be applauded. On many fronts–not all–he is succeeding. A booming economy, record low unemployment, wages picking up steam, state tax revenues exceeding all predictions. These are priorities liberals say they want. Perhaps that’s why his popularity is climbing.
[/quote]Well, you’re giving him a bit more credit than he deserves. The economy was improving every day when he took office, which brings lower unemployment and higher wages with it. Unless you can show me a definite spike in those figures after he took office, tend not to credit him with those.
There have been a few things I’ve liked that he has done, but he seems to have always screwed them up in the end. A small tax cut would have been great, but the over-the-top cut he implemented increased the deficit. Funny how Republicans are anti-deficit until they control the government…
I also liked his states-rights stance when he was first elected, but he seems to have jettisoned that also. Witness his desire to take away California’s right for strict car emission standards.
Finally, the stock market has certainly improved under his watch, no doubt about it. Which I’m fine with, as long as he doesn’t undo so many financial safeguards that we go right back into another financial crisis.
I’m an undeclared, neither Dem nor Rep, so I can pick and choose the best from both sides. I’ve liked both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama. Though mostly in retrospect – I was much more critical of them while in office. But I’ll tell you this: Trump will easily go down as the worst president in my lifetime and probably all the way back to 1900. Worse than even Nixon and Carter. Just horrific.[/quote]
OK, here’s the spike: The growth rate during Obama’s 8 years averaged under 2%. This despite the historical tendency for deep recessions to be followed by strong recoveries. Under Trump the annual growth rate is approximately 3% per year, a difference that has a big long run impact over time.
BTW, I’m not saying Trump is a nice guy. His tweets are adolescent, his comments gross, his personal history shameful, and his tweets damaging even to his supporters. But ironically, by doing the opposite of what Obama did for 8 years, he is accomplishing some surprisingly good things.ParticipantPhaster: you are correct, sadly enough.
Pension plan managers essentially have to predict future outflows and future inflows in order to determine their solvency. The outflows are fairly easy to predict–# of pensioners, amount owed to each, their longevity, etc.
Inflows are future contributions from employees and employers, plus investment returns. Today’s politicians and pension managers overstate their likely future returns by saying it will be between 7 and 8 percent. (Private sector companies must be more realistic and are at about 4%). This allows government plans to push the true cost into the future, a future that is now arriving with a vengeance.
Again, think what a normal recession or stock market correction would do to these underfunded pension plans. Public services will be cut and taxes raised. People will flee the pension-irresponsible states like CA, NJ, IL, and go to the states with more honest and realistic public sector pension plans.Participant[quote=spdrun]And who says that CA can’t default on those obligations if things get dire? Overpaid ex-cops are a very small voting bloc…[/quote]
I wish it were that simple. But the courts have decided, due to something called “the California rule” that those promised pensions must be honored, no matter what the costs to local taxpayers. So the school districts and local counties and cities must drastically raise taxes or cut services and employees to pay the pensioners.ParticipantSpeaking of pension problems….
That is yet another reason to leave California. It is well established that our public sector CA pension systems are grossly underfunded, a result of overly generous pension benefits, super early retirement plans, and “kicking the can down the road” by failing to levy high taxes on current taxpayers.
But the math is catching up with CA, as we now face vastly higher taxes or reduced government services to pay for public sector retirees. Pension costs can eat up a quarter to a third of localities labor costs, up from a tiny amount a few years ago.
And this is with a buoyant stock market and booming economy feeding the investment income of those pension plans. Think what would happen if we had a normal recession, or a stock market cut in half (it has quadrupled from its low). How ironic is it that the Trump economy is currently propping up CA tax revenues such that they are exceeding past projections.Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]What people don’t say much is that despite a large number of out migration, the emigration and birth death rate keep California growing at about 1500 people per-day.
There seems to not be enough people leaving.[/quote]
Shoveler: You are correct that the population of CA is still growing, despite more Californian’s moving out than other states’ residents moving in. The apparent exodus is more than offset by immigrants, legal and illegal, coming to California, plus our high birth rate (large Hispanic population).
But we are not growing by much. Here are the last one year’s population growth rate for CA compared to the states Californians may be moving to, according to WorldPopulationReview.com:CA .61%
NV 1.96
AZ 1.53
WA 1.69
TX 1.41
OR 1.37Participant[quote=NeetaT]I think it all boils down to the massive / alarming increase in the transfer of wealth from the private sector to the public sector. One example is property tax. Although it comes out to approximately 1.25% of 80% of the assessed value when you include assessments and voter approved bonds, the average property tax in San Diego, CA. is approximately $600.00 per month. On Average, if a person is paying $2,000.00 in rent, at least $500.00 of that rent is property tax baked into the rent. Now do you think for a minute that the government is going to lower the property tax percentage to lets say 1/2% of 80% of the assessed value to make housing more affordable? Not on your life! The government in CA is absolutely bent on doing whatever it can to add on new taxes and increase existing taxes. The transfer of wealth from the private sector to the public sector is what’s making people flee CA. The only reason that I am still in CA, is because my wife has a job that she can’t seem to get away from.[/quote]
I agree with your point that CA property taxes are high, and are one more reason to leave the state, although I could quibble with the numbers you present.
While Prop 13 limits property taxes to about 1.25% of property values and limits annual increases to 2% per year, Californians still pay more than the national average.
A $200,000 house in nearby states could cost about $600,000 in San Diego. A property tax of 2% of value there will cost $4000 per year. The same house in San Diego will pay $7500 per year in property taxes.
These numbers are approximate, of course. But the point remains that even with Prop 13 “protections”, Californians pay a lot in property taxes. And, BTW, Prop 13 is under attack and could well be altered in the years ahead.Participant[quote=spdrun]The problem with living in Phoenix is that you have to deal with Phoenix people, climate, and dust 🙂 Also, you were going against the initial commute direction (towards the city) and only going with the commute after crossing the city.[/quote]
Please explain your second sentence.
In half an hour, at 50 MPH, I went from one (far) side of the city to the opposite side, a distance of about 25 miles.ParticipantBack when I had apartments, I had the following policy on rent increases, which was explained to prospective tenants before renting to them:
“My rents are slightly under prevailing rents for comparable apartments. Over time, inflation and prevailing rents tend to go up. Your rent will be adjusted annually but will always be somewhat under prevailing rents.”The goal, obviously, was to keep tenants but not be stuck with way-below market rents, which I consider foolish.
This policy assumes that prevailing market rents for comparable units can be determined thanks to craigslist and visits to the competition, tenants can discover such information or be presented with it, and tenants are rational and do not act out of emotion. Alas, the latter was not always true.
October 16, 2017 at 2:04 PM in reply to: Recommendations for a Selling Broker who would accept 1% commission? #808188ParticipantSpeaking as a long-term investor, and long-term Pigg…
HLS is exceedingly knowledgeable. Call him.ParticipantYou have just destroyed the theme of this overlong, tiresome thread.
The Right-Wing media are vastly outnumbered by the Left-Wing media. There is Fox News vs. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, etc., etc.
Big city newspapers are overwhelmingly left-of-center.
You are correct that the now left-leaning Time magazine was once solidly conservative. What does that tell you?ParticipantLots of posters here are touting their astute purchases and sales, all made with perfect timing.
Except me.
I’ll admit to having terrible timing, and as an economist, that is embarrassing. However, I believe in letting it all hang out, so here it is.
In 2006 I bought into the gated community of Santaluz. The house proceeded to fall 40%, putting it clearly underwater. The only consolation was a terrific loan from the hated (and deservedly so) Chase Bank. It was tied to the 5-year Treasury Bond rate, so my interest rate remains about 2.7%.Lots of economists jokes come to mind. Economists who forecast with a crystal ball must learn to eat crushed glass. Economist forecasts–seldom right, always confident.
I was in good company: Fed chairman Greenspan, Bernanke, many others.
Fortunately the house is now a bit above the purchase price, and my commercial and apartment properties have done well.
It has been good to read all these posts from old-timers. It seems the discussions then were more substantial when the bubble was building and then bursting.
I suspect we are in another bubble.
Trust me, I’m an economist.ParticipantWhy should you set rents $500 below their fair market value? Are your tenants more deserving of charity than, say, the Salvation Army?
If you are sure of that $500 number, and can document it, why not raise your rent to $100 under market? Some tenants may move out of spite, but that is fundamentally irrational, since they will incur moving costs plus likely pay more in rent.
To ease the shock, you might give tenants a three-months advance warning (assuming they are now renting month-to-month). This also gives them time to verify that your new rents are still under market levels.
You might also advise new tenants that your policy is to raise rents annually, but keep them slightly under market. That way you never get so far behind.ParticipantTake a look at Santaluz, just east of RSF. A gated community with prices $1.3 to over $5 million. It is about one square mile in size, about 800 newer homes, and low density with lots of open space.
-
AuthorPosts
