Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
EconProf
ParticipantInterestingly, being a landlord in such a popular location has its own set of problems, as my friend describes them:
1. Rents are escalating so fast in his area that he hopes some of his tenants will move.
2. He does raise rents occasionally, but gets enormous pushback from tenants, even though he raises them to somewhat below what a new tenant would pay. So he always gives rent comps when he raises rents, and they still hate him for it. One even sued him, claiming retaliation.
3. For landlord Piggs who are envious of having easy-to-rent units, it is actually no fun to get 40 phone calls after running a Craigslist ad for one day.
How, exactly, does one chose? He has learned to be very picky about income, job stability, education level, age (no young party-types), and students (they don’t stay).ParticipantRemember McGovern?
Please, Democrats, PLEASE make Bernie Sanders your candidate.June 21, 2015 at 5:27 PM in reply to: Career Advice wrto an Environment Undergoing Change of Ownership #787394ParticipantYou have so exhaustively listed all the pros and cons of staying vs. leaving that I have no doubt you will make the right decision on your own.
No one here knows more about the choice than you do.
Your analysis shows others how job seekers should weigh the costs and benefits of a switch.Participanttrust HLS
ParticipantI should add that the Marshall can do the lockout 5 business days after the court date, which translates to 7 days because of weekends. So, potentially in AZ the lockout can occur on the 19th of the month (5 + 7 + 7).
Any Pigg landlords know what the time period is in CA?ParticipantUnless you already have extensive knowledge in this field, there would be a steep learning curve involved. You would likely make many expensive mistakes, and learn a lot in the process. So if you kept on building houses, your costs would go down rapidly and your design savvy up by the time you built, say, five houses. Economies of scale come with building in volume, as all tract builders have learned.
April 5, 2015 at 7:56 PM in reply to: State of the economy and affect on housing in S California #784482ParticipantAll this may be irrelevant if interest rates don’t go up after all. Forecasters have been predicting interest rate increases for so long now and have been wrong. Tonight in premarket trading the 10-year bond is down to 1.83%.
At the beginning of 2014 it was at 3% and all predictions were for it to go to 4% by the end of 2014. Instead, it went down to 2%. At the beginning of 2015 most predictions were for it to go up throughout the year. Instead, it is falling, and I don’t see it above 2% at year end.
The reason is primarily a weak economy. The latest figures on a whole slew of economic indicators are pointing to a nearly flat economy this year: job creation, wage stagnation, weak exports due to a strong dollar, the rest of the world flat or in recession, weak consumer spending despite the gift of plummeting oil prices (thank you, fracking) to our family budgets, the list of bad news so far in 2015 goes on. Some economists say we are already in a recession.
The weak economy will convince the Fed to not take the punch bowl away for quite some time.ParticipantNow that we know you have kids and dogs and a neighborhood you like, it is pretty easy to advise you to stay put. Attack those expenses, question every outlay, and buy a Dave Ramsey book to learn how to budget and save. No need to disrupt your family and suffer the transaction costs, financial and otherwise, of a move.
And start to look at your finances through a balance sheet approach, not just income or cash flow. Compare your personal balance sheet now compared to three years ago. Depending on the car debt and credit card balances you have (presumably) built up, you are likely in good shape thanks to buying before the runup in prices. So again, go back and analyze those expenses.
In a few years, your house debt will be less (adding to your net worth), and your house will likely be worth more. Plug in a conservative assumption of house appreciation between now and then to determine your likely net worth then. That should convince you to tough it out.ParticipantThe “transaction costs” of selling and then renting or buying a cheaper place are huge. Commissions, fixup costs of the house, searching for a replacement, the cost of moving & downsizing possessions, school changes if you have kids–the list goes on and on, and the costs are psychic as well as monetary.
And you would be throwing away a terrific 30-year loan. By owning this house for only four years, your net worth has increased by $170,000. Let it ride and it will probably keep growing.
Instead, attack your expenses with a vengeance. Live under a budget.ParticipantWe will never run out of oil. Never.
What might happen is as we run low on it, its price will go up, forcing both conservation on the demand side and new exploration & extraction efforts on the supply side. Plus alternative energy efforts. Flexible prices are a signaling system. That’s the beauty of free markets and the profit system–they encourage voluntary actions that efficiently allocate resources.Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=cvmom]I have been depressed to see our zoning processes in action. Money talks, that’s for sure. The voices of residents are much less important. Seems to me that CV homeowners better get ready for the negative impacts to our lifestyle and property values. I am glad our kids will soon be out of school, and we can move if we choose to.[/quote]
If it were up to the current residents there’d never be any development after their property was built. Welcome to NIMBYism. What are the really big negatives of a mixed use density project.
1) Traffic
2) Traffic
3) Traffic
4) Low income housing requirements (aka. I support affordable housing as far away as possible from my million+ dollar property)[/quote]
People are naturally suspicious of change, and that is what makes us all NIMBYs. Developers are automatically seen as the bad guys, and we can all cite instances to back up our beliefs.
However, density is actually environmentally more friendly than SFRs. And if the project is designed correctly, where you can walk to shopping and entertainment, an increasing subset of the population actually wants such a neighborhood. Look at the popularity of living in downtown San Diego–an alien concept just 20 years ago. Those residents take pride in not needing 2-3 cars per household, and they get more exercise than typical suburbanites. Add the fact that millenials are no longer lusting for a SFR as soon as they can afford it, and you have a recipe for a development that may be in high demand.ParticipantThis is going to be a long, drawn-out battle about density between developers and nearby residents. The residents live in wealthier SFR’s and higher end multifamily buildings with elevated prices and rents due to their great location and demographics. They would be negatively impacted by what the developers want: cramming lots more retail and high density apartments and condos (with perhaps lower prices and rents that go with packing more people onto that expensive land). So each side has its own interests in mind in this classic battle.
Participant[quote=barnaby33]EconProf, are you trolling? Do you believe Jeebus is putting more dinosaurs under the dirt for you? Global conventional oil production has peaked. It actually did so around 05. It seems mighty disingenuous to ask a leading question, put a number randomly extracted from some orifice, then throw in some jingoistic non-sense as evidence or proof. What kind of econ do you teach?
EROEI is a bitch, and non conventionals are expensive. Peak Oil was never about the alarmism you are attempting to attribute to it. Rather the sure and certain knowledge that as a planet we are over the hump on the cheap stuff. It was however a way to plan for a less energy dense future. Unless of course that PhD of yours will allow you to defy the laws of thermodynamics, then all bets are off.
Josh[/quote]
Actually Barnaby, I haven’t posted a single entry since I started this thread, so I don’t know who you are referring to.
My point still stands: The market system is underappreciated as an efficient way to allocate resources and harness technology. In this case, the high price stimulated exploration, new extraction techniques, and conservation, so prices fell. Peak Oil alarmists underestimated capitalism’s virtues, so their predictions have turned out wrong.
You’re welcome.ParticipantApparently the Obama administration now agrees with flu.
They just dropped their proposal to tax 529 accounts.
Perhaps they read the pro and con arguments on Piggington. -
AuthorPosts
