[Jazzman]

You might want to sit it out a bit longer. Last year, prices shot up very quickly, and over half the cities in the Case Shiller index went negative in November. SD was not one of them, but soCal saw some of the bubbliest activity. It will interesting to see if current pricing is sustainable into this year.

[Jazzman]

[quote=joec]If you need a place to live for your family, buying is such a time saver and a load off your mind to be more settled and not worry really what housing costs, what interest rates does, etc…I even come here less since it doesn’t affect me much at all now and this is true for a lot of the other posters who also bought.
[/quote]
Well, that is a personal view not shared by everyone it seems: There are huge weights lifted off your shoulders by renting according to this person. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/c240cd3a-8805-11e3-8afa-00144feab7de.html#axzz2sJdoZaRZ

[Jazzman]

Couldn’t find the link to the video so here’s one on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVNUFikwZDk

She fights a worthy cause. I wonder if Yellen will make a difference. She also apparently is not married to Wall St.

[Jazzman]

Gordon Brown was one of the longest serving Chancellors of the Exchequer, so he probably is someone to listen to. If memory serves me, he introduced QE very early on, presumably seeing what was going on in the US. The result (imo) is over-inflated asset prices, with London being the most outrageously expensive place to live. But then being the home of the derivatives market, there’s plenty who can afford eye-popping real estate prices.

There’s going to be another economic crisis because there always is. Everyone is looking around to see where it hasn’t happened yet, and the general focus is directed eastwards. There’s plenty of evidence of a serious real estate bubble in China but accounting standards don’t allow for transparency, so it’s not known how bad things are. Whatever, it may be a good thing if we have another crash (or two), and sooner rather than later. Mr Brown will be hoping so too. His increased consultation fee will help pay off that large mortgage he likely has.

[Jazzman]

This debate is unique to the US. Seeing innovation as purely a product of financial motive is wrong-headed. It’s a bit like saying the betterment of society is profit driven. Being nice, therefore, always has an ulterior motive. There is evidence that the profit motive is detrimental to health, even within those institutions that purport to promote it. Apparently, invasive treatments using expensive equipment, that no doubt required much research, is justified because “it is there” and not for the preventive good it may do. In fact, it can often do more harm than good. Profit is profit. Health is health. The only good profit to come from health is the benefit it bestows and the satisfaction thus derived.

[Jazzman]

Start ordering the Taliban Times with from page stories of dismemberment for stealing.

[Jazzman]

“The Great Recession caused many middle-aged workers to lose high-paying mid-career jobs and suffer plunging home prices that eroded their wealth, Bankrate noted. Not only does that contribute to inequality, but it also makes it less likely that these workers have enough saved to survive their retirement.”

I’d think many lost their savings and investments, but plunging home prices was not the problem in my view. Home prices didn’t even correct in many places and how does it make you richer anyway. You’d need to sell your home during a peak and then uproot to somewhere much cheaper.

[Jazzman]

[quote=joec] the OP should chime in and let us know how it went…
[/quote]
Agreed.

[Jazzman]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Jazzman]Kev, if you are all renters in the complex, get together with other tenants and devise a plan of action. There must be others who feel the same way, in which case you have some leverage and can approach the landlord with a request to lower or cap the rent. They’d respond out of fear you’d all given notice which would hurt their bottom line. They sound ruthless so fight fire with fire.[/quote]

Excellent idea, Jazzman. It can’t hurt, and there’s power in numbers. Doesn’t matter if there are other renters who would move in. It will still take more resources for the landlord to advertise, screen the new tenants, fix up the apartments, etc. They would lose thousands. Definitely time to turn the tables on these parasitic landlords.[/quote]
Revolution! 🙂

[Jazzman]

[quote=joec]I agree that banding together with other tenants is a losing idea. Most of these large complexes have full time staff working while each individual renter is just that, an individual where the cost/hassle of moving far outweigh paying a little more per month.

For most cases, yes. But we’re not talking a little more rent.

At the end of the day, most of these places know the market rents since they deal with it all the time as it’s their job/business and they evaluate the market rent whenever someone moves out.

Unscrupulous, greedy landlords do exist. Raising rents is sometimes tactical.

Maybe for the old landlord with 1 or 2 properties who want good tenants and less hassle, trying to do something like this seems like you’d end up just swallowing your pride and arguing, but retreating with your tail between your legs.

Sorry, I don’t follow.

At the end of the day, people have to realize your “primary” residence is a home first and pretty much that’s it actually. It doesn’t matter as much as long as you can pay since you have to live somewhere. For people with school aged children, this is even more true since they are less likely to want to move their kids to a different area.

Not quite following the logic of this, but the crux of it seems to be “as long as you can pay.” Isn’t the point that some landlords take advantage of the necessity of having, and hassle of finding a roof over your head?

A house close by me just rented their place in like a week for much more than my mortgage. This looks like it’s 10-20% higher than 2-3 years ago as well so it seems people are willing to pay since they have no choice. One reason to just own so you don’t have to feel threatened and pissed off since you have no control as a renter.

That’s interesting. I don’t know anyone who willingly pays because they have no choice. Being forced to make a decision to buy because you can’t afford to rent is ludicrous!

Tough to buy with high prices/credit issues as well probably driving rents higher.

It would seem that way, but when you place it in its historical context, “tough” isn’t the word that springs to mind.[/quote]

[Jazzman]

[quote=flu][quote=Jazzman]^^^ 15% in one year?! Sounds more like gouging than market research.[/quote]

The question is whether the OP was way below market or not….

If the asking rent is way out of wack with market price reality, then all he has to do is move… Rent prices can’t be *that* out of wack from market prices…..I don’t think rent gouging really works if there’s no demand for it at that price…. The question is whether a comparable rental is less… Is it?

And the other question.
Was he the only one that got the notice. Maybe his rent was way below market versus everyone else.[/quote]
It’s very difficult to comment further without the OP’s input, but I find it hard to believe landlords in soCal rent way below market rent. People will pay more than they can afford just to keep a roof over their heads, and Landlords who play on this are unscrupulous. If they over-paid or RE prices are highly-inflated, they can’t expect tenants to bail them out. But as I said, we’re short on numbers and facts here.

[Jazzman]

^^^ 15% in one year?! Sounds more like gouging than market research.

[Jazzman]

Kev, if you are all renters in the complex, get together with other tenants and devise a plan of action. There must be others who feel the same way, in which case you have some leverage and can approach the landlord with a request to lower or cap the rent. They’d respond out of fear you’d all given notice which would hurt their bottom line. They sound ruthless so fight fire with fire.

[Jazzman]

[quote=dumbrenter][quote=Jazzman]Here we go again. The documentary is NOT about socialized vs private. That is not the debate. The core issues are about how care is administered and how it encourages out of control spending, often to the detriment of patient health, and sometimes with fatal consequences. There is a direct relationship between increasing costs and decreasing quality care. Doctors and hospitals obviously understand this better than we do. Whether you have an aunt in the Netherlands, or an ailing mum in the UK, if you haven’t watched the documentary you may be missing the point here.[/quote]

To copy from Mark Twain, those posters who are expressing opinions here are not going to confine themselves to the narrow constraint of the link you posted.[/quote]
LOL! That’s patently absurd, and you clearly haven’t seen the documentary like many of the other posters you refer to. If you don’t mind me saying so, it is a little parochial of you. However, I’m going to take some of the blame here as my post was provocative. It was intended to goad people into watching the documentary. I had hoped that non-political, non-biased factual information coming from doctors and hospitals might diffuse the “war” and make an intelligent contribution to the debate. Too bad so many are so intent on denying themselves the opportunity of finding out the facts and truths. I’m left wondering if that is the problem here and whether it’s worth the effort.

[Jazzman]

Here we go again. The documentary is NOT about socialized vs private. That is not the debate. The core issues are about how care is administered and how it encourages out of control spending, often to the detriment of patient health, and sometimes with fatal consequences. There is a direct relationship between increasing costs and decreasing quality care. Doctors and hospitals obviously understand this better than we do. Whether you have an aunt in the Netherlands, or an ailing mum in the UK, if you haven’t watched the documentary you may be missing the point here.

[Author]

Posts