[utcsox]

Nah, the rent is not really increasing that much in the past two years. I mean you can rent the same unit at the same price five years ago. Blah Blah Blah

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jun/07/apartments-north-county-rental-bedrooms/

“… In Carlsbad, the average rent for a one-bedroom jumped 11.1 percent in the past year, from $1,544 to $1,716; the price of the average studio edged higher by 4.8 percent to $1,342; and the rents for a two-bedroom climbed 8.6 percent to $1,711…

…

Indeed, North County rents rose on average 7.7 percent in the last year, to $1,515. That a 10.3 percent increase from two years ago.

…

Vista saw an average 11.5 percent jump in rental rates over the past two years, with studios rising to $1,083 from $971 in the past year alone — the most of any North County city in this category, according to the RealFacts data.

In the past year, the average price of a one-bedrooms rose to $1.268 from $1,163 in Vista — a 9 percent jump. That’s slightly lower than the 11.1 percent jump seen in Carlsbad and 10 percent rise in Oceanside, where one-bedrooms went from $1,156 to $1,271.

….

Vacancy rates in Escondido narrowed from 94.9 percent in March 2013 to its current 98.5 percent, while rents rose 10.5 percent to an average $1299 per rental unit from $1,175.

Vacancy rates in San Marcos tightened from 11.8 percent in early 2013 to its current 2.5 percent, while rents rose 7.3 percent to an average $1,646 per rental unit from $1,533.

[utcsox]

“… ith rents rising at annual rates of between 3 percent and 6 percent — roughly double the 2 percent pace of average wage growth.

Still, the outlook isn’t necessarily dire for the average family. Rent consumes less than half of a typical household’s income, and San Diego’s overall inflation rate was low at 1.3 percent in the second half of last year. So rents would have to keep rising faster than wages for years to cut into disposable income.”

If the rent is increasing at the rate twice as fast as the average wage growth and rent is a significant part of household’s budget, how in the world this has not already cut into disposable income of average household?How in the world the situation is not dire?

[utcsox]

[quote=AN][quote=utcsox]How does the charts you bought up show that exactly? Medicaid, government healthcare, and housing subsidies are also available to people who work and making less than certain income. There is no doubt that there is still slack in our labor market as the unemployment rate is still higher than what you expect at full employment; however, it is not causing most of the decline in overall labor participation rate.[/quote]
Again, you’re the one who said those benefits is the cause of most of the decline of overall labor participation rate. I never said that. So, stop it with the straw man. I just told why I posted those charts. At unemployment <6%, everything should be rosy. But it's not, which is why I posted those chart to show that everything is not rosy. It’s quite simple really, but you seem to like to resort to name calling (again hilarious because you’re calling a non-republican a Right winger :-D) and straw man.[/quote]

1. Nobody said everything is rosy.
2. These charts did not show everything is rosy or not rosy. I just explain in previous post that the declining labor participation rate is mainly due to shifting demographics. The housing subsidy chart shows ???.
3. On the post you just quoted, I said, “the slack in our labor market is not the main cause of the decline in overall labor participation rate”. How is this name calling and straw man?
4. Nah, I won’t call you a Republican. I mean Republicans can reason much better and comprehend economics issues much better than you. :-D)

[utcsox]

[quote=AN][quote=utcsox]Well, we do know that a large cohort of Americans (baby boomers) are aging. Americans are living longer which is a good thing. The overall labor participation rate will continue decline in the near future due to demographic changes. In 2006, BLS published a paper that project overall participation rate will continue to decrease until 2050 when it reached 60.4%. Of course, the Right wing type in this board will not mention this and use this obscure metric to insinuate that the decline is due to over generous benefits and subsidies. Here is the link of the paper:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/11/art3full.pdf%5B/quote%5DAccording to the BLS, labor participation between 2005-2020 for :
65+ goes up from 15.1% to 21.5%
55-64 goes up from 62.9% to 67%
25-54 stays about flat at 82.8% to 83.7%
16-24 will be going down from 60.8% to 56.5%.

Here’s the BLS Civilian noninstitutional population between 2005-2020:
Total working population: 226k -> 257k
65+ – 35k -> 52k (~15% -> 20% of total)
55-64 – 30k -> 42k (13% -> 16% of total)
25-54 – 124 -> 126k (55% -> 49% of total)
16-24 – 36k -> 36k (16% -> 14% of total)

Base on these numbers, I don’t see how you can draw conclusion of baby boomer retiring as the cause for 5-6% drop in labor participation over the last 10 years or so.

Baby boomers are born between 1946 and 1964. Which mean they’re between 51-69. 66 being full retirement age today, most boomers are still working. Please enlighten me as to how boomer retiring is the cause of ~4% labor participation over the last 10 years? Or more specifically, over the last 6 years? The first boomer retired 3 years ago in 2012. Back then, we already started to see labor participation rate declining from about 66 to 64 and it continue to drop till 2014, where it plateau till now at about 62.5%. If boomer is the cause of the drop, then why are we seeing a plateau over the last year and a half? Shouldn’t we see more decline since even more boomer are retiring? Although according to BLS, the labor force participation for 65+ actually is going up not down. Which mean they’re not dropping of the work force like you’re insinuating.

BTW, who here insinuate that decline is due to over generous benefits and subsidies? I brought up benefits and subsidies to show that there are people who are not working who I would hope would like to work, but cannot find a job. Which cause them to need government assistant. You’re associating correlation with causation. I never said it was a generous benefits and subsidies was the cause of lower labor participation. I was just pointing out some correlating data. Stop trying to create straw man arguments. FYI, I’m not even a registered Republican, so it’s hilarious that I’m now being labeled as Right wing.[/quote]

“Base on these numbers, I don’t see how you can draw conclusion of baby boomer retiring as the cause for 5-6% drop in labor participation over the last 10 years or so.”
In the last 10 year, the highest labor participation rate is at 66.2% and the lowest is at 62.7%. This is 3.5% not 5-6%. You can see the dataset yourself below:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

” Although according to BLS, the labor force participation for 65+ actually is going up not down. Which mean they’re not dropping of the work force like you’re insinuating.”

The average participation rate is at 62.8% and 65+ is at 21%. And the labor participation rate of 65+ is actually going up not going down . Really?

And, you shall also aware that 50 to 54 will have a higher labor participation rate than 55 to 59 and so on and so fourth. People drop off the labor force gradually, not all at once at full retirement age: 66. The aging boomer will increase ratio of elder population vs. the overall population. We all know that elder population has lower labor participation rate than the younger participation rate. So, why is it so difficult to see that changing demographics is responsible for the dropping of overall labor participation rate?

In addition, you also see a huge decline in overall participation rate of 16 to 19 years old (50+% to 20+%). This is also a factor in our overall participation rate decline. This is probably due to more kids stay in high school.

I brought up benefits and subsidies to show that there are people who are not working who I would hope would like to work, but cannot find a job. Which cause them to need government assistant.

How does the charts you bought up show that exactly? Medicaid, government healthcare, and housing subsidies are also available to people who work and making less than certain income. There is no doubt that there is still slack in our labor market as the unemployment rate is still higher than what you expect at full employment; however, it is not causing most of the decline in overall labor participation rate.

[utcsox]

[quote=flyer]Of course, none of us will “know” until after the fact, but it’s interesting to note that the BLS is making this prediction based upon their stats.[/quote]

Well, we do know that a large cohort of Americans (baby boomers) are aging. Americans are living longer which is a good thing. The overall labor participation rate will continue decline in the near future due to demographic changes. In 2006, BLS published a paper that project overall participation rate will continue to decrease until 2050 when it reached 60.4%. Of course, the Right wing type in this board will not mention this and use this obscure metric to insinuate that the decline is due to over generous benefits and subsidies. Here is the link of the paper:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/11/art3full.pdf

[utcsox]

[quote=flu]Contracting in the bay area isn’t that lucrative, especially for java.

Too many people that can do it.[/quote]

What is lucrative nowadays?

[utcsox]

Does those houses in Cupertino or Mountain View have walls and free of lizards? I don’t think that’s a fair comparison to CV…..

[utcsox]

[quote=livinincali]Rental market in San Diego is starting to slow down for sure. I can tell you based on a bunch of data that the rental vacancy rates have been rising for the past 6-9 months and in most markets the rate of increasing prices has started to level off although it is still going up a bit. I’d expect us to plateau around these levels for a bit, and then who knows what happens after that. If we get a recession we probably see prices move down if we get real wage inflation then perhaps prices move up.[/quote]

Mind if you share with us some data point?

[utcsox]

I think the rental property is on fire. My colleague found a place through craigslist in one of the large apartment complex in UTC. He is paying over $1,000 a month to share a 2-bedroom units with a couple.

[utcsox]

Large apartment complex used to offer huge incentives to lure you to sign a one-year rental agreement with them. You can move from one unit to another in the same complex to take advantage of the low offering. Not anymore. Nowadays, you are going to get huge discounts compared to market price if you renew your lease.

A colleague of mine lives across the street from the Costa Verde called Towers at Costa Verd which is owned by the same ownership. This complex targeted more towards UCSD graduate students and younger professionals. Three years ago, you can scored a 2-bedroom units there for just under $2000. He is paying like ~$2300 a month now. Here is their latest craigslist ad, $2700 a month:

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/apa/4997038358.html

This is by far the lowest price unit I have seen for the past month. Most of the 2-bedroom units in this complex are closed to $3k.

[utcsox]

Zillow published monthly rental market overview here: http://files.zillowstatic.com/research/public/rental/ZRI.San%20Diego.395056.pdf

In San Diego region, annual change in rent is 5.1%. Areas that are desirable and closed to the job center are increased faster than the city as a whole.

I was helping one of my coworkers to look for a place. Costa Verde, located in UTC, which is sort of an extension of UCSD dorm was charging ~$1500 for a 2-bedroom unit back in 2005. Here is their latest ad on the craigslist for a 2-bedroom unit:

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/apa/4995738301.html

This is close to ~40% rent increases for the past decade. I highly doubt that the rents for apartment units in Mira Mesa only increase for ~10% for the past decade. If you believe Zillow’s number, the rents in Mira Mesa increase over 6% for the last 12-month!

[utcsox]

[utcsox]

[quote=rockingtime]
I feel that a decently earning ( ~$100K/year ) middle class family can’t really live here …[/quote]

You shall read this link and see how you can make $60k a year and save enough money for a down payment.

http://piggington.com/budget_fictional_couple_each_making_15hr

[utcsox]

Nah, there is a Job Creation bubble in U.S. according to Godman Sachs. It’s better we stay out of it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-24/goldman-says-u-s-job-growth-has-been-running-too-hot

[utcsox]

[quote=rockingtime]
From what I experience/observed, rent never increased drastically as some people mentioned in this forum.

A 2 BR/BA condo in Mira Mesa was almost 1600/month 8 years back and I see the similar rate today as well.[/quote]

This is absolutely false.

[Author]

Posts