[EconProf]

I spent a month in Australia and New Zealand last year and decided it was the one area I would chose to live in outside the U.S. The people are great, property laws and courts decent, and the economy capitalist, so they will do fine in the long run.
Barnaby33 may be right about their stage in the bubble-popping cycle, and certainly knows their market from living there. I’d be more focused on the long run and have faith that their people and government will make for a bright future.
The Aussie’s dollar fall of about 30% makes their prices even more attractive now than one year ago. And yes, if you believe the US$ will fall in the years ahead, then Australian real estate should do well as a currency play.

[EconProf]

I spent a month in Australia and New Zealand last year and decided it was the one area I would chose to live in outside the U.S. The people are great, property laws and courts decent, and the economy capitalist, so they will do fine in the long run.
Barnaby33 may be right about their stage in the bubble-popping cycle, and certainly knows their market from living there. I’d be more focused on the long run and have faith that their people and government will make for a bright future.
The Aussie’s dollar fall of about 30% makes their prices even more attractive now than one year ago. And yes, if you believe the US$ will fall in the years ahead, then Australian real estate should do well as a currency play.

[EconProf]

I spent a month in Australia and New Zealand last year and decided it was the one area I would chose to live in outside the U.S. The people are great, property laws and courts decent, and the economy capitalist, so they will do fine in the long run.
Barnaby33 may be right about their stage in the bubble-popping cycle, and certainly knows their market from living there. I’d be more focused on the long run and have faith that their people and government will make for a bright future.
The Aussie’s dollar fall of about 30% makes their prices even more attractive now than one year ago. And yes, if you believe the US$ will fall in the years ahead, then Australian real estate should do well as a currency play.

[EconProf]

I spent a month in Australia and New Zealand last year and decided it was the one area I would chose to live in outside the U.S. The people are great, property laws and courts decent, and the economy capitalist, so they will do fine in the long run.
Barnaby33 may be right about their stage in the bubble-popping cycle, and certainly knows their market from living there. I’d be more focused on the long run and have faith that their people and government will make for a bright future.
The Aussie’s dollar fall of about 30% makes their prices even more attractive now than one year ago. And yes, if you believe the US$ will fall in the years ahead, then Australian real estate should do well as a currency play.

[EconProf]

What jumps out from the data shown is how the poor ought to see environmentalists as their natural enemy. Their housing costs–both rents and purchase prices–are worse wherever land prices are highest. Land prices are most influenced by geographical constraints (notice how all the expensive cities are next to water), population trends, and the strength of environmental laws creating land shortages.
Accordingly, the most expensive cities for the poor tend to be liberal bastions: San Fran, NY, San Luis Obispo, Seattle, Santa Barbara, etc. The cities that remain cheap despite growing populations are Phoenix, Atlanta, Las Vegas, any city in Texas, etc.

[EconProf]

What jumps out from the data shown is how the poor ought to see environmentalists as their natural enemy. Their housing costs–both rents and purchase prices–are worse wherever land prices are highest. Land prices are most influenced by geographical constraints (notice how all the expensive cities are next to water), population trends, and the strength of environmental laws creating land shortages.
Accordingly, the most expensive cities for the poor tend to be liberal bastions: San Fran, NY, San Luis Obispo, Seattle, Santa Barbara, etc. The cities that remain cheap despite growing populations are Phoenix, Atlanta, Las Vegas, any city in Texas, etc.

[EconProf]

What jumps out from the data shown is how the poor ought to see environmentalists as their natural enemy. Their housing costs–both rents and purchase prices–are worse wherever land prices are highest. Land prices are most influenced by geographical constraints (notice how all the expensive cities are next to water), population trends, and the strength of environmental laws creating land shortages.
Accordingly, the most expensive cities for the poor tend to be liberal bastions: San Fran, NY, San Luis Obispo, Seattle, Santa Barbara, etc. The cities that remain cheap despite growing populations are Phoenix, Atlanta, Las Vegas, any city in Texas, etc.

[EconProf]

What jumps out from the data shown is how the poor ought to see environmentalists as their natural enemy. Their housing costs–both rents and purchase prices–are worse wherever land prices are highest. Land prices are most influenced by geographical constraints (notice how all the expensive cities are next to water), population trends, and the strength of environmental laws creating land shortages.
Accordingly, the most expensive cities for the poor tend to be liberal bastions: San Fran, NY, San Luis Obispo, Seattle, Santa Barbara, etc. The cities that remain cheap despite growing populations are Phoenix, Atlanta, Las Vegas, any city in Texas, etc.

[EconProf]

What jumps out from the data shown is how the poor ought to see environmentalists as their natural enemy. Their housing costs–both rents and purchase prices–are worse wherever land prices are highest. Land prices are most influenced by geographical constraints (notice how all the expensive cities are next to water), population trends, and the strength of environmental laws creating land shortages.
Accordingly, the most expensive cities for the poor tend to be liberal bastions: San Fran, NY, San Luis Obispo, Seattle, Santa Barbara, etc. The cities that remain cheap despite growing populations are Phoenix, Atlanta, Las Vegas, any city in Texas, etc.

[EconProf]

Anecdotal evidence is not very useful in determining whether our city workers are overpaid or underpaid. In any such large group there will be some overpaid slobs as well as some workhorses who give the city and its citizens far more in productivity than their annual pay. Among those whose output far exceeds their pay will be some $110k plus workers.
A better indicator might be turnover. How many city workers quit in order to work in the private sector? Darned few actually. This suggests they know they have a good thing.
BTW, compared to the private sector, what is costly to the employers (i.e., taxpayers), is benefits, not wages. The city workers know this and accordingly seldom quit because they like the safety and retirement benefits of government jobs. Who can blame them? The real blame lies with the spineless city councils that cave in to the unions’ demands.

[EconProf]

Anecdotal evidence is not very useful in determining whether our city workers are overpaid or underpaid. In any such large group there will be some overpaid slobs as well as some workhorses who give the city and its citizens far more in productivity than their annual pay. Among those whose output far exceeds their pay will be some $110k plus workers.
A better indicator might be turnover. How many city workers quit in order to work in the private sector? Darned few actually. This suggests they know they have a good thing.
BTW, compared to the private sector, what is costly to the employers (i.e., taxpayers), is benefits, not wages. The city workers know this and accordingly seldom quit because they like the safety and retirement benefits of government jobs. Who can blame them? The real blame lies with the spineless city councils that cave in to the unions’ demands.

[EconProf]

Anecdotal evidence is not very useful in determining whether our city workers are overpaid or underpaid. In any such large group there will be some overpaid slobs as well as some workhorses who give the city and its citizens far more in productivity than their annual pay. Among those whose output far exceeds their pay will be some $110k plus workers.
A better indicator might be turnover. How many city workers quit in order to work in the private sector? Darned few actually. This suggests they know they have a good thing.
BTW, compared to the private sector, what is costly to the employers (i.e., taxpayers), is benefits, not wages. The city workers know this and accordingly seldom quit because they like the safety and retirement benefits of government jobs. Who can blame them? The real blame lies with the spineless city councils that cave in to the unions’ demands.

[EconProf]

Anecdotal evidence is not very useful in determining whether our city workers are overpaid or underpaid. In any such large group there will be some overpaid slobs as well as some workhorses who give the city and its citizens far more in productivity than their annual pay. Among those whose output far exceeds their pay will be some $110k plus workers.
A better indicator might be turnover. How many city workers quit in order to work in the private sector? Darned few actually. This suggests they know they have a good thing.
BTW, compared to the private sector, what is costly to the employers (i.e., taxpayers), is benefits, not wages. The city workers know this and accordingly seldom quit because they like the safety and retirement benefits of government jobs. Who can blame them? The real blame lies with the spineless city councils that cave in to the unions’ demands.

[EconProf]

Anecdotal evidence is not very useful in determining whether our city workers are overpaid or underpaid. In any such large group there will be some overpaid slobs as well as some workhorses who give the city and its citizens far more in productivity than their annual pay. Among those whose output far exceeds their pay will be some $110k plus workers.
A better indicator might be turnover. How many city workers quit in order to work in the private sector? Darned few actually. This suggests they know they have a good thing.
BTW, compared to the private sector, what is costly to the employers (i.e., taxpayers), is benefits, not wages. The city workers know this and accordingly seldom quit because they like the safety and retirement benefits of government jobs. Who can blame them? The real blame lies with the spineless city councils that cave in to the unions’ demands.

[EconProf]

I’d guess $2000 – 2500.

[Author]

Posts