[EconProf]

Police and firefighters do not have particularly dangerous jobs. The unions have bamboozled the public with their dishonest advertisements.
Google “occupational death rates” to find many sources documenting dangerous jobs. Of the ten most dangerous occupations, not one is firefighters or police. Instead, ALL are private sector jobs: roofers, taxi drivers, fishermen, ranchers, farmers, etc. In other words, they are the taxpayers paying for the police and fire personnel. And generally they work way past age 50 or 55 to keep paying taxes toward those generous government pensions.

[EconProf]

Interesting and thorough article about housing “affordability” around the world, which they generally defined as the ratio of income to housing prices in each area.
My observation is that the least affordable cities always seem to have two attributes:
1. People want to live there (for the jobs, weather, amenities, vibe, etc.), and
2. Geographical limits on land usage: they are hemmed in by water, mountains, borders, government building restrictions, or whatever, that physically limit development. In America, the most affordable housing cities tend to be inland, flat, able to expand in every direction. Think Phoenix, Las Vegas, Detroit, Atlanta, most Texas cities.
Where is it expensive? Geographically constrained San Francisco, NYC, Seattle, Chicago, etc.

[EconProf]

Good point HLS: The big banks that made the foolish loans off-loaded the pain onto the taxpayers with the help of policies such as bailouts. That’s why moral hazard seldom exists when both parties are private sector actors. Each has an incentive to discover trickery or sleazy behavior of the other party. It is when governments, reacting to populist and emotional appeals, get involved to “help the little guy” that we all get to pay for the moral hazard. Often the pain is spread in hidden ways and spread over so many that we aren’t aware of it.

[EconProf]

Brian, you completely miss the point, which is about moral hazard. That is when a government, or in this case a company, has a policy that encourages wrong, inefficient, or immoral behavior by another party in a transaction. In this case the squatter profits by delaying departure, perhaps trashing the place, hurting the (foolish) bank that made the loan. Government policies that enable/encourage squatting cost the general public plenty: neighborhood deterioration, houses kept off the market that could lower prices for honest buyers, and the general injustice of deadbeats living free for years.
Brian, you seem to dislike the big bad banks, but the cost will be spread out to all of us. The banks’ losses will be made up over time via higher interest rates or more stringent lending standards, freezing out young families wanting their first house who should be capable of buying now. You think this is OK? Try thinking beyond superficials and look at the deeper implications of what kind of behavioral results occur from the entitlement society you seem to like.

[EconProf]

I love the sense of entitlement from the 22-year old searching for something “clean and new” and costing around $1500.
Surely this can’t be a typical expectation of 22-year olds. At that age, they need to learn to be frugal, live with roomates, discover cheaper neighborhoods, and tough it out.

[EconProf]

[quote=barnaby33]Too many people, not enough resources. Fairly simple in my mind. All we are left to argue is apportionment.
Josh[/quote]
Actually Barnaby, California does not use efficiently what it already has. We have huge deposits of natural gas and oil, but environmental wackos prevent us from developing it. We cut off water to Central Valley farmers, idling thousands of acres and farmerworkers in order to save the Delta Smelt. Our electric rates are 50% higher than the national average due to Prop 32, which is scheduled to really bite in the next few years. Other examples abound, but we have done it to ourselves.

[EconProf]

Klotkin is a highly respected demographer, his data are peer-review tested, and his dismal picture of CA’s future is worth considering. That he is an old-fashioned democrat critical of the triumph of looney-leftist CA politics makes him especially interesting.
He harkens back to the good old days in CA–supposedly the fifties and sixties–which upsets many who mock that period as so unhip compared to now. But the fact is that it is only in those decades that CA was the magnet for ambitious and adventuresome people and businesses from all the other states. In those decades our education system sparkled, our water and highway systems expanded, and sfr houses were priced at the national average. Klotkin documents well how all these trends have reversed. He could have added that there existed real policy debates then between the two parties, and solutions were hammered out. Now the left owns the state: governorship, Assembly, Senate, newspapers, universities, etc.
Thank goodness people can vote with their feet. They have alternatives and are exercising their choices. Klotkin explains why, and the article deserves a full read.

[EconProf]

Ice blockage? Are you close to the Arctic Circle?
Are you talking about the AC? Refrigerator? More information, please.

[EconProf]

Correct, and the price of Prius battery replacement has fallen by more than 50% in recent years, a trend that will likely continue due to economies of scale.
This further tilts the Prius Buy/Not Buy decision toward Buy. Another is the recent rise of gasoline prices. The feasibility of buying fuel-efficient cars depends heavily upon future gasoline prices.

[EconProf]

You also can’t use the english language.
Do us all a favor. Read out loud, to yourself, word for word, what you just wrote. See if it makes any sense. And next time, please proofread what you just write.

[EconProf]

Ignor anyone who discusses energy unless they incorporate the new elephant in the room: abundant, cheap, American-produced natural gas.
While the government, under both Bush and Obama, were busy picking winners and losers, the private sector and old-fashioned capitalism was pioneering in technology that will revolutionize our energy future. Natural gas is one fifth its recent high price, all because we’ve discovered new and better ways to extract it, and are doing so safely. As a result, coal-fired plants are being refitted to burn cleaner natural gas, trucks will soon follow, and consumers in America’s cold belt can count on lower heating costs indefinitely.
What’s really delicious is that cheap natural gas will render even more uneconomical the wind and solar “investments” our government has saddled us with. Subsidies for the bureaucrats’ favorite green industries will will be increasingly exposed for the waste they really are. The market system once again embarrasses the government as a means for allocating resources.

[EconProf]

Condo developments can fall into a vicious cycle when a high % are rented out and lenders refuse to make loans on the units. This erodes prices and makes for a situation where only investors and absentee landlords buy, further worsening the environment as few owner-occupiers remain to keep up the place, serve on the HOA board, enforce rules, etc. The downward spiral cannot be arrested because none of the participants have the power to interrupt the process. I’d stay far away from this purchase if I were you. Urbanrealtor and sdr may have input to add, as this is their arena.

[EconProf]

Back to the subject:
Svelte is right–it depends entirely on the nature of the litigation. Such potential liabilities can drastically lower the price of the condos, giving you a windfall bargain if the market is unduly fearful. The fact that you can pay cash further helps your negotiating position. BTW would you be paying cash because this is one of those developments lenders won’t lend on because of a high percentage of renters? That can further knock down the market value.
Tell us the nature of the pending litigation–how big, probability of success, etc.

[EconProf]

Sounds like you have made a shrewd move to escape the wasteful and inefficient US medical care system and achieved almost as good a result with far lower costs.
Our medical care is generally great quality, but is larded up with excessive costs because the participants have no incentive to economize. Our third-party payer system means no doctor, hospital, or drug provider has any incentive to restrain their pricing. The patient, especially the poor and elderly who have no (or very little) co-pay or deductible under medicare and medicaid have every incentive to demand the best and most treatment. Our drug companies spend billions to bring a new wonder drug to fruition, and thus subsidize the rest of the world that copies the drug, but does not need to incorporate this cost into the price they can charge their citizens. Tort lawyers scare doctors into over-testing and over-treating. Consumers are denied the benefits of competition by being unable to shop for insurance across state lines. The list goes on.
Mexico has none of these cost drivers, so can charge a more reality-based price in line with the rest of the world. Our costly, larded-up medical system is entirely our own making, and comes from not taking incentives into account by the lawyer-lawmakers who created it.
Your approach may spread because it makes so much sense–at least for Americans who live near the border.

[EconProf]

I read that article before you posted it and found it interesting in view of all the complaints about age discrimination older job-seekers claim. Perhaps those claims are overblown. Or perhaps older workers are taking any jobs they can get in view of their worsened net worth situation given the housing meltdown as well as the puny return they get nowadays from their accumulated savings.

[Author]

Posts