[EconProf]

What’s going on here is that we are in a deflationary environment that is spreading to many areas once thought to be immune to price declines: housing of course, but now rents, vehicle prices new and used, cost of labor & contractors, restaurant meals, etc, etc.
In fact, deflation is everywhere but in taxes and the size of government! Property taxes due next Friday (anyone’s going down?), income taxes due the following Wednesday.
Not to worry…Obama is our President and Schwartzenneger is our Governor. Our future is assured.
Apologies for the rant.

[EconProf]

What’s going on here is that we are in a deflationary environment that is spreading to many areas once thought to be immune to price declines: housing of course, but now rents, vehicle prices new and used, cost of labor & contractors, restaurant meals, etc, etc.
In fact, deflation is everywhere but in taxes and the size of government! Property taxes due next Friday (anyone’s going down?), income taxes due the following Wednesday.
Not to worry…Obama is our President and Schwartzenneger is our Governor. Our future is assured.
Apologies for the rant.

[EconProf]

What’s going on here is that we are in a deflationary environment that is spreading to many areas once thought to be immune to price declines: housing of course, but now rents, vehicle prices new and used, cost of labor & contractors, restaurant meals, etc, etc.
In fact, deflation is everywhere but in taxes and the size of government! Property taxes due next Friday (anyone’s going down?), income taxes due the following Wednesday.
Not to worry…Obama is our President and Schwartzenneger is our Governor. Our future is assured.
Apologies for the rant.

[EconProf]

What’s going on here is that we are in a deflationary environment that is spreading to many areas once thought to be immune to price declines: housing of course, but now rents, vehicle prices new and used, cost of labor & contractors, restaurant meals, etc, etc.
In fact, deflation is everywhere but in taxes and the size of government! Property taxes due next Friday (anyone’s going down?), income taxes due the following Wednesday.
Not to worry…Obama is our President and Schwartzenneger is our Governor. Our future is assured.
Apologies for the rant.

[EconProf]

This is really shabby journalism, and is the reason newspapers like the LA Times are increasingly viewed as irrelevant.
First of all the Black/White unemployment has historically been a 2:1 ratio. For a variety of reasons, blacks have fairly consistently had about twice the unemployment rate of whites, whatever the white rate is. The article complains of a 12% rate for blacks with a 8% rate for whites (not sure when measured, or where), which I’d call an improvement over historical norms.
They later state that thousands of teachers and educators are about to get laid off across the state. Reality: every year at about this time school districts mail out scary notices to mobilize their ranks and alarm parents. Come September pretty much everyone gets rehired. It is a political game aided and abetted by the MSM. The fact is, the unemployment rate for teachers is way below that of the private sector.
As Richs’ posts have pointed out, the big employment cutbacks in San Diego, mirroring the nation, are in manufacturing, retail, finance, construction, etc.–all private sector. In other words, the taxpayers who support the public sector. In what categories are the jobs growing or stable? Government, education, and health services–all public sector or largely government funded.
I’d wager that the cuts in hours and cuts in pay are also far more common in the taxpaying private sector as well. Let’s hear a bit less whining from government workers and the biased media.

[EconProf]

This is really shabby journalism, and is the reason newspapers like the LA Times are increasingly viewed as irrelevant.
First of all the Black/White unemployment has historically been a 2:1 ratio. For a variety of reasons, blacks have fairly consistently had about twice the unemployment rate of whites, whatever the white rate is. The article complains of a 12% rate for blacks with a 8% rate for whites (not sure when measured, or where), which I’d call an improvement over historical norms.
They later state that thousands of teachers and educators are about to get laid off across the state. Reality: every year at about this time school districts mail out scary notices to mobilize their ranks and alarm parents. Come September pretty much everyone gets rehired. It is a political game aided and abetted by the MSM. The fact is, the unemployment rate for teachers is way below that of the private sector.
As Richs’ posts have pointed out, the big employment cutbacks in San Diego, mirroring the nation, are in manufacturing, retail, finance, construction, etc.–all private sector. In other words, the taxpayers who support the public sector. In what categories are the jobs growing or stable? Government, education, and health services–all public sector or largely government funded.
I’d wager that the cuts in hours and cuts in pay are also far more common in the taxpaying private sector as well. Let’s hear a bit less whining from government workers and the biased media.

[EconProf]

This is really shabby journalism, and is the reason newspapers like the LA Times are increasingly viewed as irrelevant.
First of all the Black/White unemployment has historically been a 2:1 ratio. For a variety of reasons, blacks have fairly consistently had about twice the unemployment rate of whites, whatever the white rate is. The article complains of a 12% rate for blacks with a 8% rate for whites (not sure when measured, or where), which I’d call an improvement over historical norms.
They later state that thousands of teachers and educators are about to get laid off across the state. Reality: every year at about this time school districts mail out scary notices to mobilize their ranks and alarm parents. Come September pretty much everyone gets rehired. It is a political game aided and abetted by the MSM. The fact is, the unemployment rate for teachers is way below that of the private sector.
As Richs’ posts have pointed out, the big employment cutbacks in San Diego, mirroring the nation, are in manufacturing, retail, finance, construction, etc.–all private sector. In other words, the taxpayers who support the public sector. In what categories are the jobs growing or stable? Government, education, and health services–all public sector or largely government funded.
I’d wager that the cuts in hours and cuts in pay are also far more common in the taxpaying private sector as well. Let’s hear a bit less whining from government workers and the biased media.

[EconProf]

This is really shabby journalism, and is the reason newspapers like the LA Times are increasingly viewed as irrelevant.
First of all the Black/White unemployment has historically been a 2:1 ratio. For a variety of reasons, blacks have fairly consistently had about twice the unemployment rate of whites, whatever the white rate is. The article complains of a 12% rate for blacks with a 8% rate for whites (not sure when measured, or where), which I’d call an improvement over historical norms.
They later state that thousands of teachers and educators are about to get laid off across the state. Reality: every year at about this time school districts mail out scary notices to mobilize their ranks and alarm parents. Come September pretty much everyone gets rehired. It is a political game aided and abetted by the MSM. The fact is, the unemployment rate for teachers is way below that of the private sector.
As Richs’ posts have pointed out, the big employment cutbacks in San Diego, mirroring the nation, are in manufacturing, retail, finance, construction, etc.–all private sector. In other words, the taxpayers who support the public sector. In what categories are the jobs growing or stable? Government, education, and health services–all public sector or largely government funded.
I’d wager that the cuts in hours and cuts in pay are also far more common in the taxpaying private sector as well. Let’s hear a bit less whining from government workers and the biased media.

[EconProf]

This is really shabby journalism, and is the reason newspapers like the LA Times are increasingly viewed as irrelevant.
First of all the Black/White unemployment has historically been a 2:1 ratio. For a variety of reasons, blacks have fairly consistently had about twice the unemployment rate of whites, whatever the white rate is. The article complains of a 12% rate for blacks with a 8% rate for whites (not sure when measured, or where), which I’d call an improvement over historical norms.
They later state that thousands of teachers and educators are about to get laid off across the state. Reality: every year at about this time school districts mail out scary notices to mobilize their ranks and alarm parents. Come September pretty much everyone gets rehired. It is a political game aided and abetted by the MSM. The fact is, the unemployment rate for teachers is way below that of the private sector.
As Richs’ posts have pointed out, the big employment cutbacks in San Diego, mirroring the nation, are in manufacturing, retail, finance, construction, etc.–all private sector. In other words, the taxpayers who support the public sector. In what categories are the jobs growing or stable? Government, education, and health services–all public sector or largely government funded.
I’d wager that the cuts in hours and cuts in pay are also far more common in the taxpaying private sector as well. Let’s hear a bit less whining from government workers and the biased media.

[EconProf]

I really just don’t get your reasoning.
If you have $250k to buy, you can really get a good deal now and drive a hard bargain, true enough. But at the rate things are falling in price, in 6 – 12 months you can get the same place for less. Why buy now?
Furthermore, if you must buy now, with that kind of liquidity, you can get a terrific loan. If this is going to turn into a rental in a year or two, nothing like a 5% loan to make it cash flow. A common and profitable tactic is to buy a rental property with an owner-occupier rate loan.
Preserving your liquidity really keeps your options open; sinking it all into an all-cash purchase does not.

[EconProf]

I really just don’t get your reasoning.
If you have $250k to buy, you can really get a good deal now and drive a hard bargain, true enough. But at the rate things are falling in price, in 6 – 12 months you can get the same place for less. Why buy now?
Furthermore, if you must buy now, with that kind of liquidity, you can get a terrific loan. If this is going to turn into a rental in a year or two, nothing like a 5% loan to make it cash flow. A common and profitable tactic is to buy a rental property with an owner-occupier rate loan.
Preserving your liquidity really keeps your options open; sinking it all into an all-cash purchase does not.

[EconProf]

I really just don’t get your reasoning.
If you have $250k to buy, you can really get a good deal now and drive a hard bargain, true enough. But at the rate things are falling in price, in 6 – 12 months you can get the same place for less. Why buy now?
Furthermore, if you must buy now, with that kind of liquidity, you can get a terrific loan. If this is going to turn into a rental in a year or two, nothing like a 5% loan to make it cash flow. A common and profitable tactic is to buy a rental property with an owner-occupier rate loan.
Preserving your liquidity really keeps your options open; sinking it all into an all-cash purchase does not.

[EconProf]

I really just don’t get your reasoning.
If you have $250k to buy, you can really get a good deal now and drive a hard bargain, true enough. But at the rate things are falling in price, in 6 – 12 months you can get the same place for less. Why buy now?
Furthermore, if you must buy now, with that kind of liquidity, you can get a terrific loan. If this is going to turn into a rental in a year or two, nothing like a 5% loan to make it cash flow. A common and profitable tactic is to buy a rental property with an owner-occupier rate loan.
Preserving your liquidity really keeps your options open; sinking it all into an all-cash purchase does not.

[EconProf]

I really just don’t get your reasoning.
If you have $250k to buy, you can really get a good deal now and drive a hard bargain, true enough. But at the rate things are falling in price, in 6 – 12 months you can get the same place for less. Why buy now?
Furthermore, if you must buy now, with that kind of liquidity, you can get a terrific loan. If this is going to turn into a rental in a year or two, nothing like a 5% loan to make it cash flow. A common and profitable tactic is to buy a rental property with an owner-occupier rate loan.
Preserving your liquidity really keeps your options open; sinking it all into an all-cash purchase does not.

[EconProf]

Not mentioned in the comments so far is the great family atmosphere in Scripps Ranch and the strong community spirit. Good schools, bigger lots, and a soon-to-open Trader Joe’s are all pluses. We raised a family there for 22 years before moving away, & often miss the place. Live in a cul-de-sac if you want instant friends.

[Author]

Posts