[EconProf]

[quote=spdrun](And 10 people moved to California in the time you took to write your rant. Productive people are often happy to pay a premium to live in the place that appeals to them.)[/quote]
Wrong.
The productive people are moving out–especially the young families, high earners, employers, etc. CA has had a NET outflow of 4 million to other states in recent years–sorry, can’t recall exactly how many years, but the 4 million figure has shown up in several articles. We only have a (slightly) growing population because of a high birth rate and foreign immigration, both of which could slow. Oh, and a big and growing welfare caseload because of our generous benefits–12% of the nation’s population and 34% of the welfare recipients.
Yes, we have great weather, but the demographic trends are ominous.

[EconProf]

To both the above posters, I was careful to say (like any CYA economist) that the positives outweigh the negatives, for a net benefit to society. While the scenario portrayed is not perfect, lets remember the horrendus job the government does at holding assets like boarded-up houses. That’s what we need to get away from, and it takes a private-sector, profit-motivated investor to do it.
And, livinincali, if they get burned going this route, as you suggest they will, hey…that’s capitalism. At least its the private sector, not the taxpayer as at present, who loses.

[EconProf]

Two observations:
1. This is another sign the housing market has hit bottom, and
2. This is an “efficient” market-clearing development that has more good results than bad.
It appears that large players, REITS, are discovering the profitability of buying distressed homes in bulk from government entities, fixing them up to be rental grade, renting them for 3 years, then selling them with half the cap. gain to go to the government.
I’d call that mostly good because it gets distressed and deteriorating houses fixed up and put to use, helping neighborhoods and renters seeking housing. The REITs can be far more efficient at fixup than many amature “flippers” since they have enormous economies of scale in knowing how and what to fix up, buying supplies in bulk, using the same knowledgeable contractors repeatedly, etc.
Instead of the inept government owning and (mis)managing these assets, a profit-motivated, cost-conscious private sector actor will take over, make (taxable) profits, and eventually put these fixed-up houses to better use. I’d call that mostly good.
The fact that REITs are doing this is an indicator the housing market, at least in Florida, has hit bottom, and also that large-scale landlording is a good place to be.

[EconProf]

While you may miss taking the kids to the mountains, you can take them to their lake or river cabin in the summers, which many Twin City residents do every weekend. 2 – 4 hours north are literally thousands of lakes for swimming, boating, fishing, water skiing, etc. Beware Friday afternoons and Sunday nights on the highways.
I spent my first 25 years in MN, and you will find the culture very different. Much more civic involvement, a strong middle class, good public education, and a lively two-party competition. Unemployment rate in the twin cities is 5 – 6%, so it is not surprising you both have good prospects there. While you will miss our weather, it is overall a better place to raise your children. Good luck.

[EconProf]

[quote=sdseeker]I am curious about the taxes (both property and income) compare to California. Could you share the approx. % for each?[/quote]
MN is a high property tax state compared to the national average. But by that I mean the property tax as a percentage of the property value–around 2 – 3%.
But since property prices are about half what a similar house would cost in a major CA city, you will end up paying about the same dollar amount.
Our Prop 13 keeps our total property taxes at about 1.2% (with bonded debt) of the property value.
MN income taxes are a bit above the national average, but not as steeply progressive as California’s. Our $48,000 per year earner pays a marginal rate of over 9% on any additional income. This is higher than millionaires pay in most states.

[EconProf]

I just filled up in Yuma for $3.72/gal.

[EconProf]

San Diego’s weather is now back to normal, and she would not likely need AC until late spring–not counting a couple of days of Santa Ana spells which she can live through. So reconsider moving out and sacrificing all the money already paid, especially since she is paid up for October. Meantime, take this thing to an attorney! If you can prove misrepresentation about AC from the beginning, the LL is the one who should be worried here. A good attorney will scare the bejesus out of this amature, and then likely negotiate a compromise and revised rental agreement.

[EconProf]

Why give everything to your kids? Big inheritances can stifle incentives and spoil your offspring. If you are going to have a big estate, better to carve out enough for you and your spouse to live on, designate some gifts for your children (and maybe their children’s education), and the rest to worthy charities where it can really do good for humanity. This assumes, of course, that you have enough to take care of those first priorities.

[EconProf]

Partnerships are a good way to end friendships. Partnerships seldom work out in the long run. Like lending to a relative, the nature of your relationship changes forever.

[EconProf]

The same offense will cost about $100 in most states. But this is CA, and I believe the fines are set in Sacramento by our dear leaders. The ones who claim to want to help the poor and downtrodden. This kind of fine costs a minimum wage worker about seven days’ labor.

[EconProf]

You have a foolish tenant on several counts. She rents a place one mile from the ocean and then cannot cope with a rare hot weather spell. (Americans seem increasingly unable to make rational dicisions based on real probablilities, real risk, actual costs and actual benefits.) Then she panics into offering $thousands to fix what is surely a temporary problem. To prove that she thinks with her heart instead of her head, she says this is “for the children”, a phrase that invariably comes from a superficial thinker. Instead, the $thousands she is offering should be put away for her dear childrens’ college fund, or more likely the drug rehab costs.
You have not mentioned that a husband is involved here, so I’ll make the assumption one is not present. If he were, he’d likely bring her down to earth on her spending decisions. OK, a sexest assumption on my part, but I’m sticking to it.
If you take her foolish money for central AC, it will come back to haunt you with guilty feelings. And what if she puts up the money, you schedule the install for early October, in the middle of a cold spell? Thereafter normal San Diego weather kicks in all fall, winter and spring, and she gets bitter for handing you that capital improvement that she doesn’t need after all. Trust me, she will find a way to blame you.

[EconProf]

They offered $100 off on rent? Say yes, but do so with a 6 month lease (don’t know if you have a one year lease now), and month to month thereafter. Even though San Diego is currently in a warm spell, it is nearly October and no AC will be needed for at least six months. Savings=$600. THEN ask for AC or move.
I assume, of course, the heater works.

[EconProf]

CA Renter: I admire your grit for staying up till 1:37 a.m. fighting the good fight for unions against capitalists, fending off your critics with mountains of quotes (from biased sources), and defending the unionized status quo in America’s public schools. I give up–yours is bigger than mine–size of evidence that is, and you have more time than all of us put together to put it on Piggington. But hang in there, we need a class warfare, capitalist vs. union advocate to explain all that is wrong with the country.

[EconProf]

CA Renter: Your experience certainly differs from mine about the preference of teachers for private vs. public schools. But your anecdotes outnumber mine, so I’ll give you that. Other Piggs who are/were teachers are encouraged to weigh in.
Unions like to claim that private schools only look good because they “cherry pick” from the pool of students. Of course that would skew the results.
However, fair-minded research can correct for that by eliminating outliers. Some private schools, especially inner-city Catholic, take all comers and are much-preferred by poor, single-parent black families, who may be able to afford only a small portion of the tuition but give volunteer time to the school plus get private donor assistance. All this happens for about one-half to two-thirds the cost per student per year compared to the taxpayer-supported school. That kind of productivity is what so embarasses the public school system and encourages the private/voucher/choice movement. BTW, the increasing number of parents who send their kids to private schools should be applauded by parents who don’t, because they subtract government expenses while still paying taxes for public schools.

[EconProf]

[quote=Blogstar]Teachers should get paid more to teach in crappy areas.[/quote]
Right. And that’s the exact opposite of what happens now. With union seniority rules, the more experienced teachers get their pick of schools. With few exceptions, they gravitate toward the wealthier neighborhoods where teaching is easier and students and their parents more involved and supportive.
Beginning teachers are sent to the poorest neighborhoods where they are the least able to handle the disciplinary problems. No wonder they burn out quickly.
This also means that when a district must cut teachers due to declining enrollments (like now, with students opting for private or charter schools, or families fleeing the state), union rules force the last hired to be laid off. This disporportionately hits the inner city school faculty. The result, in San Diego, was for some poorer neighborhood schools to get all the layoff notices while richer neighborhoods kept theirs teachers.
Make no mistake, the teachers unions exist for the benefit adults, not children. And the union policies most hurt poor children more than rich children despite their lofty rhetoric.

[Author]

Posts