[no_such_reality]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
From 2010 to 2015, nominal per capita income increased by over 21%. (Per capita is different from median household, but in terms of growth rates they are extremely similar).

To argue that nominal incomes from 2010-2015 increased less than 2% (no_such_reality) or that they decreased (AN) is way off base.[/quote]

Rich, you’re confusing Average (Mean) and Median.

Per Capita is average income per person. i.e. Total aggregate income divided by number of people.

Median is income is 547001st household making.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=AN][quote=Rich Toscano]No, I don’t think the census got it wrong, but you are confusing inflation-adjusted figures for nominal ones.[/quote]Nominal median income in 2010 was $63069, inflation adjusted based on BLS would be $68,553.15 in 2015 $. Median income in 2015 was $64309. Which mean adjusted for inflation, the median income decreased by 6.19%. All the while, the population making >$150k has increased.[/quote]

AN is correct, the income data sets clearly say that 2015 is in 2015 dollars and 2010 is in 2010 dollars. A 2010 dollar is worth 1.087 in 2015.

https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/10_5YR/DP03/0500000US06073

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
I was talking about this part:

[quote]During that period median income was essentially flat moving from $63K to $64K.[/quote]

No, I don’t think the census got it wrong, but you are confusing inflation-adjusted figures for nominal ones.[/quote]

That’s actually getting worse. FRED has data showing that. Other research shows that. Even research showing the millenials in spite of being better educated actually make 20% less than their baby boomer counterparts at the same point in the lives. And contrary to some opinions, it’s not because they’re lazy slackers, that’s us Gen-Xers.

And I’m not confusing inflation adjusted and not. Over 5 years, especially, recent 5 years, it’s pretty minimal, 8.7% over the period according to CPI.

You can chain it all the way back to 2000, 4.6% making over $150K, that’s $206K in 2015 dollars. Can we call it 4.6% making over $200K in 2015 dollar in 2000? It’s 2.8% of households growth in that segment.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=millennial][quote=no_such_reality]That’s the bifurcation of income we’re seeing and often talk about on the blog. If you break it down into the ‘more desirable’ living areas, I suspect it’s more pronounce.

Essentially, we have the top 20% growing their income (and as you go up the gains get greater) and 80% holding or losing ground.[/quote]
It’s called data mining and selection bias to try and prove a point. To which I am not sure of. So bifurcation is creating home values to go up? Why did you choose San Diego county as a whole? Why did you choose 2010? Is it cause it served some purpose comparing a time soon after the collapse? Why did you choose households greater than $200k?[/quote]

Because the 5 year spread is relevant and compact for comparison. Long enough to matter, short enough to be convenient because the census publishes that way.

but knock yourself out. Here is 2005 to 2015. The numbers are even more to my point. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/05_EST/S1901/0500000US06073

2005, 4.6% of households making over $200K. Granted 2005 $200K was more like $240K today.

[no_such_reality]

That’s the bifurcation of income we’re seeing and often talk about on the blog. If you break it down into the ‘more desirable’ living areas, I suspect it’s more pronounce.

Essentially, we have the top 20% growing their income (and as you go up the gains get greater) and 80% holding or losing ground.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=no_such_reality]
From 2010 – 2015, detached housing in San Diego county grew by just over 8800 units.

In that same period, households in San Deigo county making more than $200K/yr grew by 15,400 households. Household making $150K-$199k grew by 8900 households.

During that period median income was essentially flat moving from $63K to $64K.
[/quote]

There’s no way those income numbers are right.[/quote]

So you think the census screwed it up? https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/15_5YR/S1901/0500000US06073

2015, 7.4% of households are over $200K in San Diego County. Up from 6.2% in 2010.

If you prefer raw numbers https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/15_5YR/DP03/0500000US06073

[no_such_reality]

You forgot the tickle down expectations issue. AKA, settling for less.

From 2010 – 2015, detached housing in San Diego county grew by just over 8800 units.

In that same period, households in San Deigo county making more than $200K/yr grew by 15,400 households. Household making $150K-$199k grew by 8900 households.

During that period median income was essentially flat moving from $63K to $64K.

And with 606K SFRs in the county, not really a dent. However in the same time period of 2010 to 2015, total housing in San Diego grew by 26K units of all types while the population grew by 128,000 or roughly a housing need of 48K units of all types at historical owner/renter mix rates.

Finally, in 2010, homeowner vacancy rate was 2.6%, in 2015, it has fallen to 1.5%. Rental vacancy has also fallen from 4.9% to 4.1%.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=ocrenter]

That’s well established. I have met several folks who directly benefited from the ACA yet continue to wish for its repeal.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. Especially if the person that led to horse to water was black.[/quote]

[quote]But if he had a job that provided health insurance, he reasoned, he wouldn’t need Medicaid anyway, so he voted for Trump, along with 74 percent of McDowell County.[/quote]

That’s the nutshell, they’d rather have a job and buy their own than get the government handout.

They still got sold by Trump, just like any politician.

[no_such_reality]

Are we or are we really dealing with a dearth of product consumers want to buy but have to buy?

[no_such_reality]

[quote=harvey][quote=FlyerInHi]The war on drugs is also a huge fraud.[/quote]

I didn’t think of that one. And it’s a biggie.[/quote]

The real biggie out of it is the militarization of the police funded by civil asset forfeiture that presumes guilt. They take your assets and you have to prove them innocent.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=no_such_reality][quote=Rich Toscano][quote=no_such_reality]True, but only because the Government intervened and allowed all the weak hands to hold properties. Especially the banks.[/quote]

What’s that got to do with it?[/quote]

In order for prices to fall, homes have to be allowed to sell. That banks were allowed to constrict supply, not liquidate their repos, not foreclose and float their balance sheets to prevent steeper falls on home prices. You add HAMP, HARP and HARP 2.0 and homes that would have ended up on the market were all kept off the market.[/quote]

I meant, what does that have to do with the current conversation? I don’t see the relevance.[/quote]

I was responding to the comment that prices didn’t fall 50% post bubble, which they didn’t, but only because the market was massively tampered with.

For going forward it’s not, other than we didn’t have the shake out we should have and many are still priced in constricting supply. They can get the price they need to get out, but really can’t get a new place short of leaving the State.

That actually points to continued rising prices. It’s kind of like Irvine. Why are prices so high in Irvine? The answer is simple, IMO, from 2010 to 2015 Irvine has built several thousand homes, they’ve only built 4000 detached SFRs. Since 2010, Irvine’s population has grown, from 2011 to 2015 the number of Irvine household’s making over $200K/yr has grown by 4000+ households.

JIMHO, but for suburbanite living like in Irvine, the detach SFR is the style of housing the vast majority desire.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=no_such_reality]True, but only because the Government intervened and allowed all the weak hands to hold properties. Especially the banks.[/quote]

What’s that got to do with it?[/quote]

In order for prices to fall, homes have to be allowed to sell. That banks were allowed to constrict supply, not liquidate their repos, not foreclose and float their balance sheets to prevent steeper falls on home prices. You add HAMP, HARP and HARP 2.0 and homes that would have ended up on the market were all kept off the market.

[no_such_reality]

True, but only because the Government intervened and allowed all the weak hands to hold properties. Especially the banks.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=flyer]Understand your thoughts, but whether people are educated or uneducated, dwell in the rustbelt or Silicon Valley, in the final analysis, imo, the survival of individuals and families boils down to net worth–regardless of political affiliation.

To that point, when you see stats that indicate only 9 percent of ALL US households have a net worth greater than $1M, and that the median net worth for ALL families in the US went from $102,500 in 1998 to $81,200 in 2014–and I won’t even get into the retirement savings stats–it’s crystal clear than far more than one particular demographic have some major life and financial challenges ahead.[/quote]

It gets even worse, Millenials are better educated, carry far more debt (in the form of student loans), work more hours and make 20% less than their baby boomer counterparts at the same point in their lives.

The last hundred years have been an anomaly of subdued might makes right. The robber barrons of the gilded age wielded their dollars like clubs, in the case of the Carnegie, Frick & Pinkerton, likely actual clubs and guns in the Homestead strike breaking.

[no_such_reality]

I foresee a lot of small employers dropping their plans.

Think about it, if your employer doesn’t pay the bulk of the insurance and you’re a 40 something family of 4 you’d get $10,000 of tax credit if your employer doesn’t offer a plan, that’s $850/month towards a health plan on the individual market.

If they do offer something, you get nothing. Even if that something is a sub-60% plan.

As a couple you only can claim the benefit by filing jointly. So in the case of a prior employer that offered $400/month towards individual or family group plan. I wouldn’t be able to get the tax credit for either myself, my spouse or kid.

Going to be a lot of mad worker bees when they figure that out.

I really doubt most employers will give the people pay raises of the few hundred per month that they contribute today towards health plans and say ‘here’s a compensating pay raise’ now go buy your own and take the Fed tax credit…

[Author]

Posts