[poorgradstudent]

If this can get middle America to buy local more when it comes to food, I’m all in favor of it (because I’m a liberal tree-hugger who believes in the “green” movement and also thinks local food is often fresher and tastier).

[poorgradstudent]

If this can get middle America to buy local more when it comes to food, I’m all in favor of it (because I’m a liberal tree-hugger who believes in the “green” movement and also thinks local food is often fresher and tastier).

[poorgradstudent]

If this can get middle America to buy local more when it comes to food, I’m all in favor of it (because I’m a liberal tree-hugger who believes in the “green” movement and also thinks local food is often fresher and tastier).

[poorgradstudent]

We must be near a bottom in the housing market. The contrarian indicators just keep piling on. Basically, when the main story in the media is “home prices will keep falling forever”, it’s a good hint that a recovery is nigh (similar to how many magazine covers were perma-bullish before the housing and stock market falls).

This is, of course, a dangerous time for anyone thinking of retiring in the next 3-odd years. But I was bothered by the article’s lack of a timeframe focus. There’s a glut of inventory right now, and this will take a while to work out of the system. But a boomer who bought their house in the 70s is still likely to be doing pretty well, unless they withdrew and spent all their equity.

Lumping SF, Phoenix and Vegas together is a little sloppy too. SF home prices will largely rebound when the recession ends, assuming you mean SF proper and not the outer suburbs. It’s the exurbs that may languish for a while; Phoenix and Vegas saw huge increases in sprawl during the boom, and convincing someone to live 40-45 minutes from downtown can be tough when there are much closer affordable options available.

The implication that Texas will keep growing forever also seems somewhat flawed. Texas is doing very well right now, but that doesn’t guarantee it will be 5-10 years from now.

I have sympathy for those who lost equity in their homes, but this is frankly a very exciting time to be a 30-year old non-homeowner. Affordability is getting better, and with medium-term housing market prices looking flat, there’s still time to save a proper down payment.

[poorgradstudent]

We must be near a bottom in the housing market. The contrarian indicators just keep piling on. Basically, when the main story in the media is “home prices will keep falling forever”, it’s a good hint that a recovery is nigh (similar to how many magazine covers were perma-bullish before the housing and stock market falls).

This is, of course, a dangerous time for anyone thinking of retiring in the next 3-odd years. But I was bothered by the article’s lack of a timeframe focus. There’s a glut of inventory right now, and this will take a while to work out of the system. But a boomer who bought their house in the 70s is still likely to be doing pretty well, unless they withdrew and spent all their equity.

Lumping SF, Phoenix and Vegas together is a little sloppy too. SF home prices will largely rebound when the recession ends, assuming you mean SF proper and not the outer suburbs. It’s the exurbs that may languish for a while; Phoenix and Vegas saw huge increases in sprawl during the boom, and convincing someone to live 40-45 minutes from downtown can be tough when there are much closer affordable options available.

The implication that Texas will keep growing forever also seems somewhat flawed. Texas is doing very well right now, but that doesn’t guarantee it will be 5-10 years from now.

I have sympathy for those who lost equity in their homes, but this is frankly a very exciting time to be a 30-year old non-homeowner. Affordability is getting better, and with medium-term housing market prices looking flat, there’s still time to save a proper down payment.

[poorgradstudent]

We must be near a bottom in the housing market. The contrarian indicators just keep piling on. Basically, when the main story in the media is “home prices will keep falling forever”, it’s a good hint that a recovery is nigh (similar to how many magazine covers were perma-bullish before the housing and stock market falls).

This is, of course, a dangerous time for anyone thinking of retiring in the next 3-odd years. But I was bothered by the article’s lack of a timeframe focus. There’s a glut of inventory right now, and this will take a while to work out of the system. But a boomer who bought their house in the 70s is still likely to be doing pretty well, unless they withdrew and spent all their equity.

Lumping SF, Phoenix and Vegas together is a little sloppy too. SF home prices will largely rebound when the recession ends, assuming you mean SF proper and not the outer suburbs. It’s the exurbs that may languish for a while; Phoenix and Vegas saw huge increases in sprawl during the boom, and convincing someone to live 40-45 minutes from downtown can be tough when there are much closer affordable options available.

The implication that Texas will keep growing forever also seems somewhat flawed. Texas is doing very well right now, but that doesn’t guarantee it will be 5-10 years from now.

I have sympathy for those who lost equity in their homes, but this is frankly a very exciting time to be a 30-year old non-homeowner. Affordability is getting better, and with medium-term housing market prices looking flat, there’s still time to save a proper down payment.

[poorgradstudent]

We must be near a bottom in the housing market. The contrarian indicators just keep piling on. Basically, when the main story in the media is “home prices will keep falling forever”, it’s a good hint that a recovery is nigh (similar to how many magazine covers were perma-bullish before the housing and stock market falls).

This is, of course, a dangerous time for anyone thinking of retiring in the next 3-odd years. But I was bothered by the article’s lack of a timeframe focus. There’s a glut of inventory right now, and this will take a while to work out of the system. But a boomer who bought their house in the 70s is still likely to be doing pretty well, unless they withdrew and spent all their equity.

Lumping SF, Phoenix and Vegas together is a little sloppy too. SF home prices will largely rebound when the recession ends, assuming you mean SF proper and not the outer suburbs. It’s the exurbs that may languish for a while; Phoenix and Vegas saw huge increases in sprawl during the boom, and convincing someone to live 40-45 minutes from downtown can be tough when there are much closer affordable options available.

The implication that Texas will keep growing forever also seems somewhat flawed. Texas is doing very well right now, but that doesn’t guarantee it will be 5-10 years from now.

I have sympathy for those who lost equity in their homes, but this is frankly a very exciting time to be a 30-year old non-homeowner. Affordability is getting better, and with medium-term housing market prices looking flat, there’s still time to save a proper down payment.

[poorgradstudent]

We must be near a bottom in the housing market. The contrarian indicators just keep piling on. Basically, when the main story in the media is “home prices will keep falling forever”, it’s a good hint that a recovery is nigh (similar to how many magazine covers were perma-bullish before the housing and stock market falls).

This is, of course, a dangerous time for anyone thinking of retiring in the next 3-odd years. But I was bothered by the article’s lack of a timeframe focus. There’s a glut of inventory right now, and this will take a while to work out of the system. But a boomer who bought their house in the 70s is still likely to be doing pretty well, unless they withdrew and spent all their equity.

Lumping SF, Phoenix and Vegas together is a little sloppy too. SF home prices will largely rebound when the recession ends, assuming you mean SF proper and not the outer suburbs. It’s the exurbs that may languish for a while; Phoenix and Vegas saw huge increases in sprawl during the boom, and convincing someone to live 40-45 minutes from downtown can be tough when there are much closer affordable options available.

The implication that Texas will keep growing forever also seems somewhat flawed. Texas is doing very well right now, but that doesn’t guarantee it will be 5-10 years from now.

I have sympathy for those who lost equity in their homes, but this is frankly a very exciting time to be a 30-year old non-homeowner. Affordability is getting better, and with medium-term housing market prices looking flat, there’s still time to save a proper down payment.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=meadandale]
1999-2000: $85 billion
2007-2008: $138 billion

That’s an increase of 62%. Not quite double but not nearly as low as your numbers indicate. Over that period, property tax revenue doubled and to hear the counties talk, the state takes the majority of the property tax revenue for themselves.

Did the population of CA increase by 62% in 7 years? 30%?[/quote]
Based on the CPI, $85b in 2000 dollars is $106b in 2008 dollars.

Of course, increases in revenue would also need to be inflation adjusted.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=meadandale]
1999-2000: $85 billion
2007-2008: $138 billion

That’s an increase of 62%. Not quite double but not nearly as low as your numbers indicate. Over that period, property tax revenue doubled and to hear the counties talk, the state takes the majority of the property tax revenue for themselves.

Did the population of CA increase by 62% in 7 years? 30%?[/quote]
Based on the CPI, $85b in 2000 dollars is $106b in 2008 dollars.

Of course, increases in revenue would also need to be inflation adjusted.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=meadandale]
1999-2000: $85 billion
2007-2008: $138 billion

That’s an increase of 62%. Not quite double but not nearly as low as your numbers indicate. Over that period, property tax revenue doubled and to hear the counties talk, the state takes the majority of the property tax revenue for themselves.

Did the population of CA increase by 62% in 7 years? 30%?[/quote]
Based on the CPI, $85b in 2000 dollars is $106b in 2008 dollars.

Of course, increases in revenue would also need to be inflation adjusted.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=meadandale]
1999-2000: $85 billion
2007-2008: $138 billion

That’s an increase of 62%. Not quite double but not nearly as low as your numbers indicate. Over that period, property tax revenue doubled and to hear the counties talk, the state takes the majority of the property tax revenue for themselves.

Did the population of CA increase by 62% in 7 years? 30%?[/quote]
Based on the CPI, $85b in 2000 dollars is $106b in 2008 dollars.

Of course, increases in revenue would also need to be inflation adjusted.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=meadandale]
1999-2000: $85 billion
2007-2008: $138 billion

That’s an increase of 62%. Not quite double but not nearly as low as your numbers indicate. Over that period, property tax revenue doubled and to hear the counties talk, the state takes the majority of the property tax revenue for themselves.

Did the population of CA increase by 62% in 7 years? 30%?[/quote]
Based on the CPI, $85b in 2000 dollars is $106b in 2008 dollars.

Of course, increases in revenue would also need to be inflation adjusted.

[poorgradstudent]

More data good, especially the raw variety.

[poorgradstudent]

More data good, especially the raw variety.

[Author]

Posts