Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant[quote=EconProf]Not sure this indicator means much about a city’s growth or decline. After all, Las Vegas was the #2 destination, but it was recently reported that Clark County (Las Vegas) had its first population decline in decades last year. It’s ranking as #2 is just a lot of churning as many people are coming and going, but mostly going.
The better indicator is the occassionally published ratio of the cost of U-haul trucks into a city compared to the cost of a U-haul out. Since the U-haul company varies the price depending on demand, we get a valuable peek into the apparent desirability of a city. By this measure cities in Texas, Idaho, Utah and other economically healthy areas were gaining at the expense of CA, according to data I saw some time ago.
Anybody have the latest figures?[/quote]Yes, I agree those numbers would definitely be more telling. But, I have not found a source, other than some anecdotal articles that are typically several years old.
Participant[quote=desmond]
Ok, 30,000 or so cities in the USA, 1 million moves, this amounts to nothing. Just a U-Haul advertisement. I am not a math expert but you could be #1 with 100 moves?[/quote]
I agree with you on the following points.
1. It’s probably just an advertisement
and
2. You are no math expert.Even #49 on the list had at least 5,000 moves.
In a separate article where they list top “growth” cities, they limit their list to cities that have at least 5000 moves. (see link below)
Victorville, at #49 of the top 50 destinations was listed as last on the growth list (#24, with 0.33% “growth). Since Victorvilee at #49 had at least 5000 moves. It is safe to say that the cities near the top of the list had a signifcantly larger number of moves.
Participant[quote=desmond]
Ok, 30,000 or so cities in the USA, 1 million moves, this amounts to nothing. Just a U-Haul advertisement. I am not a math expert but you could be #1 with 100 moves?[/quote]
I agree with you on the following points.
1. It’s probably just an advertisement
and
2. You are no math expert.Even #49 on the list had at least 5,000 moves.
In a separate article where they list top “growth” cities, they limit their list to cities that have at least 5000 moves. (see link below)
Victorville, at #49 of the top 50 destinations was listed as last on the growth list (#24, with 0.33% “growth). Since Victorvilee at #49 had at least 5000 moves. It is safe to say that the cities near the top of the list had a signifcantly larger number of moves.
Participant[quote=desmond]
Ok, 30,000 or so cities in the USA, 1 million moves, this amounts to nothing. Just a U-Haul advertisement. I am not a math expert but you could be #1 with 100 moves?[/quote]
I agree with you on the following points.
1. It’s probably just an advertisement
and
2. You are no math expert.Even #49 on the list had at least 5,000 moves.
In a separate article where they list top “growth” cities, they limit their list to cities that have at least 5000 moves. (see link below)
Victorville, at #49 of the top 50 destinations was listed as last on the growth list (#24, with 0.33% “growth). Since Victorvilee at #49 had at least 5000 moves. It is safe to say that the cities near the top of the list had a signifcantly larger number of moves.
Participant[quote=desmond]
Ok, 30,000 or so cities in the USA, 1 million moves, this amounts to nothing. Just a U-Haul advertisement. I am not a math expert but you could be #1 with 100 moves?[/quote]
I agree with you on the following points.
1. It’s probably just an advertisement
and
2. You are no math expert.Even #49 on the list had at least 5,000 moves.
In a separate article where they list top “growth” cities, they limit their list to cities that have at least 5000 moves. (see link below)
Victorville, at #49 of the top 50 destinations was listed as last on the growth list (#24, with 0.33% “growth). Since Victorvilee at #49 had at least 5000 moves. It is safe to say that the cities near the top of the list had a signifcantly larger number of moves.
Participant[quote=desmond]
Ok, 30,000 or so cities in the USA, 1 million moves, this amounts to nothing. Just a U-Haul advertisement. I am not a math expert but you could be #1 with 100 moves?[/quote]
I agree with you on the following points.
1. It’s probably just an advertisement
and
2. You are no math expert.Even #49 on the list had at least 5,000 moves.
In a separate article where they list top “growth” cities, they limit their list to cities that have at least 5000 moves. (see link below)
Victorville, at #49 of the top 50 destinations was listed as last on the growth list (#24, with 0.33% “growth). Since Victorvilee at #49 had at least 5000 moves. It is safe to say that the cities near the top of the list had a signifcantly larger number of moves.
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]For myself, the videos are often quite hilarious and I enjoy them… it’s just that when I’m trying to keep on top of a lot of reading material, I can quickly skim some written commentary and get the gist, whereas I can’t do that with videos. That’s why I often don’t watch them myself but I know they are a very popular “feature” of his site. (Don’t worry, no pigg videos forthcoming).
rich[/quote]
I thought I was the only one that felt this way. Personally, I read bubbleinfo at least 2-3 times a week, but I’ve only actually watched about half a dozen videos. I think videos are too inefficient for conveying information 99% of the time. But, maybe I’m just old-fashioned.
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]For myself, the videos are often quite hilarious and I enjoy them… it’s just that when I’m trying to keep on top of a lot of reading material, I can quickly skim some written commentary and get the gist, whereas I can’t do that with videos. That’s why I often don’t watch them myself but I know they are a very popular “feature” of his site. (Don’t worry, no pigg videos forthcoming).
rich[/quote]
I thought I was the only one that felt this way. Personally, I read bubbleinfo at least 2-3 times a week, but I’ve only actually watched about half a dozen videos. I think videos are too inefficient for conveying information 99% of the time. But, maybe I’m just old-fashioned.
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]For myself, the videos are often quite hilarious and I enjoy them… it’s just that when I’m trying to keep on top of a lot of reading material, I can quickly skim some written commentary and get the gist, whereas I can’t do that with videos. That’s why I often don’t watch them myself but I know they are a very popular “feature” of his site. (Don’t worry, no pigg videos forthcoming).
rich[/quote]
I thought I was the only one that felt this way. Personally, I read bubbleinfo at least 2-3 times a week, but I’ve only actually watched about half a dozen videos. I think videos are too inefficient for conveying information 99% of the time. But, maybe I’m just old-fashioned.
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]For myself, the videos are often quite hilarious and I enjoy them… it’s just that when I’m trying to keep on top of a lot of reading material, I can quickly skim some written commentary and get the gist, whereas I can’t do that with videos. That’s why I often don’t watch them myself but I know they are a very popular “feature” of his site. (Don’t worry, no pigg videos forthcoming).
rich[/quote]
I thought I was the only one that felt this way. Personally, I read bubbleinfo at least 2-3 times a week, but I’ve only actually watched about half a dozen videos. I think videos are too inefficient for conveying information 99% of the time. But, maybe I’m just old-fashioned.
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]For myself, the videos are often quite hilarious and I enjoy them… it’s just that when I’m trying to keep on top of a lot of reading material, I can quickly skim some written commentary and get the gist, whereas I can’t do that with videos. That’s why I often don’t watch them myself but I know they are a very popular “feature” of his site. (Don’t worry, no pigg videos forthcoming).
rich[/quote]
I thought I was the only one that felt this way. Personally, I read bubbleinfo at least 2-3 times a week, but I’ve only actually watched about half a dozen videos. I think videos are too inefficient for conveying information 99% of the time. But, maybe I’m just old-fashioned.
April 1, 2010 at 5:30 PM in reply to: Should the houses be worth twice what they were in 1996? #534262Participant[quote=pemeliza]
Also, At 3% inflation it takes about 23.5 years for a price to double. Prices in 1996 were an overshoot to the downside. Given the scope of this bubble I would not be surprised to prices overshoot to the downside at about 2001 nominal pricing for the best areas. I’m already seeing this type of pricing in good areas.[/quote]
What areas are you seeing 2001 prices ?
April 1, 2010 at 5:30 PM in reply to: Should the houses be worth twice what they were in 1996? #534850Participant[quote=pemeliza]
Also, At 3% inflation it takes about 23.5 years for a price to double. Prices in 1996 were an overshoot to the downside. Given the scope of this bubble I would not be surprised to prices overshoot to the downside at about 2001 nominal pricing for the best areas. I’m already seeing this type of pricing in good areas.[/quote]
What areas are you seeing 2001 prices ?
April 1, 2010 at 5:30 PM in reply to: Should the houses be worth twice what they were in 1996? #534948Participant[quote=pemeliza]
Also, At 3% inflation it takes about 23.5 years for a price to double. Prices in 1996 were an overshoot to the downside. Given the scope of this bubble I would not be surprised to prices overshoot to the downside at about 2001 nominal pricing for the best areas. I’m already seeing this type of pricing in good areas.[/quote]
What areas are you seeing 2001 prices ?
-
AuthorPosts
