[stansd]

That’s hilarious…best explanation I’ve heard of the current situation yet…very smart.

Stan

[stansd]

That’s hilarious…best explanation I’ve heard of the current situation yet…very smart.

Stan

[stansd]

Two thoughts:

1. The question of whether all the vacant homes is an isssue depends on how many of these there normally are. There are definitely a lot of vacation homes out there-a high absolute vacant number here doesn’t necessarily mean squat. I’ve also seen other sites disputing the 13M number.

2. On imputed rents, I’m not sure I understand the question, but if home rents go up, yes this will filter through to the CPI. Of course, that’s until they change the index they are following to exclude the volatile energy, food, and imputed rent categories.

Stan

[stansd]

Two thoughts:

1. The question of whether all the vacant homes is an isssue depends on how many of these there normally are. There are definitely a lot of vacation homes out there-a high absolute vacant number here doesn’t necessarily mean squat. I’ve also seen other sites disputing the 13M number.

2. On imputed rents, I’m not sure I understand the question, but if home rents go up, yes this will filter through to the CPI. Of course, that’s until they change the index they are following to exclude the volatile energy, food, and imputed rent categories.

Stan

[stansd]

Two thoughts:

1. The question of whether all the vacant homes is an isssue depends on how many of these there normally are. There are definitely a lot of vacation homes out there-a high absolute vacant number here doesn’t necessarily mean squat. I’ve also seen other sites disputing the 13M number.

2. On imputed rents, I’m not sure I understand the question, but if home rents go up, yes this will filter through to the CPI. Of course, that’s until they change the index they are following to exclude the volatile energy, food, and imputed rent categories.

Stan

[stansd]

Obviously, age is an important component to this as well. If you are 65 and a millionaire, so what, that means you have about 40K in your first year of retirement to spend plus your social security check. Looking at some quick statistics, it looked like around 25% of SD’s population is over 50. Exclude them from the dataset, and you probably don’t have a ton of people with a boatload of money to spend today.

If you are 25 and have a million bucks in the bank, good on ya!

Stan

[stansd]

Obviously, age is an important component to this as well. If you are 65 and a millionaire, so what, that means you have about 40K in your first year of retirement to spend plus your social security check. Looking at some quick statistics, it looked like around 25% of SD’s population is over 50. Exclude them from the dataset, and you probably don’t have a ton of people with a boatload of money to spend today.

If you are 25 and have a million bucks in the bank, good on ya!

Stan

[stansd]

Obviously, age is an important component to this as well. If you are 65 and a millionaire, so what, that means you have about 40K in your first year of retirement to spend plus your social security check. Looking at some quick statistics, it looked like around 25% of SD’s population is over 50. Exclude them from the dataset, and you probably don’t have a ton of people with a boatload of money to spend today.

If you are 25 and have a million bucks in the bank, good on ya!

Stan

[stansd]

Very grumpy about the conduct of Helicopter Ben, who has now earned his nickname.

Agree with sdrealtor.

Stan

[stansd]

Very grumpy about the conduct of Helicopter Ben, who has now earned his nickname.

Agree with sdrealtor.

Stan

[stansd]

Very grumpy about the conduct of Helicopter Ben, who has now earned his nickname.

Agree with sdrealtor.

Stan

[stansd]

Has anyone considered the idea that other countries have similar entitlement obligation issues to what we have in the US. In fact, there are also demographic problems in other countries (Italy/China) for example, that are far worse than what we have here.

I am almost entirely in foreign stocks and TIPS. I always like to break it down to the basics (foregoing economic jargon).

People need stuff. Young people produce more stuff than they consume (US. savings rate notwithstanding). Old people produce less stuff than they consume, but have savings to finance their consumption. As there are more old people and fewer young people, we have two issues: 1. the government has promised more to old people than the young will be able to produce. 2. There won’t be enough young people to produce all that young and old people plan to consume.

This can’t persist, so:

Wages for the young will increase. Returns on the assets of the old will decrease. This will persist until things balance again.

Old U.S. folks will be comfortable to the extent they have assets to support their consumption. Others who haven’t saved are screwed because the government can’t pay what it’s committed. The Chinese will be a bit better off due to their higher savings rates (personal and governmental), but worse off from demographics (net negative in my view).

I haven’t put this whole puzzle together yet, but those are some of my thoughts on how this plays out (unless the Chinese euthanize, which is a real possibility at some point in my mind).

One conclusion I have reached, though: There is a better demographic story in the U.S. than in many other countries. This will have a more positive impact than many assume.

Stan

[stansd]

Has anyone considered the idea that other countries have similar entitlement obligation issues to what we have in the US. In fact, there are also demographic problems in other countries (Italy/China) for example, that are far worse than what we have here.

I am almost entirely in foreign stocks and TIPS. I always like to break it down to the basics (foregoing economic jargon).

People need stuff. Young people produce more stuff than they consume (US. savings rate notwithstanding). Old people produce less stuff than they consume, but have savings to finance their consumption. As there are more old people and fewer young people, we have two issues: 1. the government has promised more to old people than the young will be able to produce. 2. There won’t be enough young people to produce all that young and old people plan to consume.

This can’t persist, so:

Wages for the young will increase. Returns on the assets of the old will decrease. This will persist until things balance again.

Old U.S. folks will be comfortable to the extent they have assets to support their consumption. Others who haven’t saved are screwed because the government can’t pay what it’s committed. The Chinese will be a bit better off due to their higher savings rates (personal and governmental), but worse off from demographics (net negative in my view).

I haven’t put this whole puzzle together yet, but those are some of my thoughts on how this plays out (unless the Chinese euthanize, which is a real possibility at some point in my mind).

One conclusion I have reached, though: There is a better demographic story in the U.S. than in many other countries. This will have a more positive impact than many assume.

Stan

[stansd]

Has anyone considered the idea that other countries have similar entitlement obligation issues to what we have in the US. In fact, there are also demographic problems in other countries (Italy/China) for example, that are far worse than what we have here.

I am almost entirely in foreign stocks and TIPS. I always like to break it down to the basics (foregoing economic jargon).

People need stuff. Young people produce more stuff than they consume (US. savings rate notwithstanding). Old people produce less stuff than they consume, but have savings to finance their consumption. As there are more old people and fewer young people, we have two issues: 1. the government has promised more to old people than the young will be able to produce. 2. There won’t be enough young people to produce all that young and old people plan to consume.

This can’t persist, so:

Wages for the young will increase. Returns on the assets of the old will decrease. This will persist until things balance again.

Old U.S. folks will be comfortable to the extent they have assets to support their consumption. Others who haven’t saved are screwed because the government can’t pay what it’s committed. The Chinese will be a bit better off due to their higher savings rates (personal and governmental), but worse off from demographics (net negative in my view).

I haven’t put this whole puzzle together yet, but those are some of my thoughts on how this plays out (unless the Chinese euthanize, which is a real possibility at some point in my mind).

One conclusion I have reached, though: There is a better demographic story in the U.S. than in many other countries. This will have a more positive impact than many assume.

Stan

[stansd]

Question for all:

I live smack dab in the middle of RB. While the number of homes burned isn’t very significant in the county overall, it is very significant where I am and where I would like to buy someday.

My assumption: Many won’t wait to rebuild-they will purchase another house now, rebuild, and then sell the rebuilt house. Or, they will pay off the mortgage and sell the lot. I think an empty lot in the middle of RB where you can custom build your house is more appealing than some think.

So, my assumption is that this provides support for prices in the near term, with a possibly depressing impact as the rebuilt houses come back online. My rental contract is up in March, and I am likely screwed on that front as well since competition just increased 5-fold.

Fire Away at the above.

Stan

[Author]

Posts