Fun stuff in the housing market
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 20
From: Arlington Heights, IL
Originally Posted by MDXLuvr,Feb 5 2008, 05:56 PM
IIRC, Jonboy moved from Canada to Tx. I am sure you moving to Texas wouldn't be as much of a culture shock. 
Don't get me wrong, I really don't more of you yankees and californians moving to Texas but if the price and quality of life is ridiculous then why live there.
Don't get me wrong, I really don't more of you yankees and californians moving to Texas but if the price and quality of life is ridiculous then why live there.
As far as why we live here, it's because my wife grew up here and our jobs and her family are here.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,108
Likes: 39
From: Moselle MS
Originally Posted by Chris Stack,Feb 5 2008, 12:26 PM
Depends on where you live. $175k gets you a nice, relatively new, spacious house in Texas. It gets you a garden shed here.
My wife and I are at a little over $100k, and we are trying to buy something in the $250-275k range. Even with basic requirements (3BR, 1.1/1.5/2 Ba [two shitters], 2 car garage and a basement) it's difficult to get something that doesn't need a TON of work in that price range. We looked at a decent place 2 weeks ago, 30 years old, no basement, but in the best school district; it had the original furnace, A/C, and windows, so it needed about $12k worth of work before we touched the nasty carpets, paint, trim, etc. It was listed at $279k, agent thought we could get it for $270k. We walked.
But yeah, responsible buyers like us trying to buy a reasonable house are getting screwed by all these $50k millionaires.
My wife and I are at a little over $100k, and we are trying to buy something in the $250-275k range. Even with basic requirements (3BR, 1.1/1.5/2 Ba [two shitters], 2 car garage and a basement) it's difficult to get something that doesn't need a TON of work in that price range. We looked at a decent place 2 weeks ago, 30 years old, no basement, but in the best school district; it had the original furnace, A/C, and windows, so it needed about $12k worth of work before we touched the nasty carpets, paint, trim, etc. It was listed at $279k, agent thought we could get it for $270k. We walked.
But yeah, responsible buyers like us trying to buy a reasonable house are getting screwed by all these $50k millionaires.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,323
Likes: 28
From: Longmont, CO
Originally Posted by Chris Stack,Feb 5 2008, 05:05 PM
Find me two jobs in the finance/accounting field making $60k ea for my wife and I, and I'll head on down!
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,771
Likes: 2
I'm going to have to disagree with the economist's statement above in part. He's right in part, in a sort of Ann Rand way, but he's wrong too.
The Feds have helped our economy to stay on a more or less even keel with their "manipulations". They haven't attempted to control the market all they have attempted to do is moderate the market so that we don't have the extremes - and they've done a pretty good job of it.
I don't know if many of you remember the impact of the wild inflation of the Jimmy Carter. I well remember 16-18% interest rates on home loans. I also remember what it did to housing values and costs to live in general. Since that day the Feds have been attempting not to micromanage the markets, but to keep us from the extremes.
What they have been successful in doing is not eliminating the market fluctuations, but to make sure that we haven't had a repeat of that debacle. I disagree with the Feds on a daily basis on some of their specific actions where I have thought they should have done a little more or a little less (usually it's a selfish response because I'd like to see a little more improvement) , but I have seen the consequences of their actions and I realize what might have happened had they not been vigilant so I agree in principal with their concepts.
Keep in mind we aren't a market in a vacuum and the world economy has more impact upon us than it did in Jimmy's day.
The Feds have helped our economy to stay on a more or less even keel with their "manipulations". They haven't attempted to control the market all they have attempted to do is moderate the market so that we don't have the extremes - and they've done a pretty good job of it.
I don't know if many of you remember the impact of the wild inflation of the Jimmy Carter. I well remember 16-18% interest rates on home loans. I also remember what it did to housing values and costs to live in general. Since that day the Feds have been attempting not to micromanage the markets, but to keep us from the extremes.
What they have been successful in doing is not eliminating the market fluctuations, but to make sure that we haven't had a repeat of that debacle. I disagree with the Feds on a daily basis on some of their specific actions where I have thought they should have done a little more or a little less (usually it's a selfish response because I'd like to see a little more improvement) , but I have seen the consequences of their actions and I realize what might have happened had they not been vigilant so I agree in principal with their concepts.
Keep in mind we aren't a market in a vacuum and the world economy has more impact upon us than it did in Jimmy's day.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,106
Likes: 5
From: Connecticut
It's no coincidence that big problems arose in the 70s, coinciding with Nixon's removal of the last vestiges of the gold standard and repudiation of all international obligations to make payments in gold. This is exactly the point presented above. This allowed the government to intervene by way of monetary policy, and now, the dollar is worth 10 cents compared to that memorable day in 1971.
Your assessment is incorrect. The government caused the problems of the 70s and 80s. To think these same methods of control can somehow correct the very ills they produce is ludicrous in my opinion.
Ups and downs are natural, and are to be expected but not feared. Only when the government interferes do we see such problems turn face from issue to crisis. The massive inflation of the 70s and early 80s, and the current credit problem today are prime examples of this. They could have been avoided. Thank your officials for creating it, and not allowing the market to naturally correct itself.
But of course, you are free to disagree
Your assessment is incorrect. The government caused the problems of the 70s and 80s. To think these same methods of control can somehow correct the very ills they produce is ludicrous in my opinion.
A free market is a discovery process, based on trial and error. Usually the effects of errors made by some are compensated for by the gains of successful decisions taken by others, and the economy expands.
Sometimes, however, the effects of errors dominate, and the economy experiences what people call a crisis: income growth is (feared to be) lower than what people think it should, and could, be. In that sense a crisis is a correction of bad decisions. It is an indispensable part of the free market. It pushes those producers out of business who do not satisfy the needs of their clients, and it rewards those who serve their customers well.
A crisis must be feared, however, if it has been caused by government action, and if the obvious signs of the crisis provoke ever greater doses of government intervention. In this case, the market would be prevented from doing its job properly. Bad decisions would be perpetuated, and the ultimate crisis may become nasty.
Sometimes, however, the effects of errors dominate, and the economy experiences what people call a crisis: income growth is (feared to be) lower than what people think it should, and could, be. In that sense a crisis is a correction of bad decisions. It is an indispensable part of the free market. It pushes those producers out of business who do not satisfy the needs of their clients, and it rewards those who serve their customers well.
A crisis must be feared, however, if it has been caused by government action, and if the obvious signs of the crisis provoke ever greater doses of government intervention. In this case, the market would be prevented from doing its job properly. Bad decisions would be perpetuated, and the ultimate crisis may become nasty.
But of course, you are free to disagree
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,323
Likes: 28
From: Longmont, CO
And it continues.
Single mother in Altadena, CA (near Pasadena) with $75k income and a $2,500/mo interest only mortgage gets laid off and can't afford food.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03...mily/index.html
Single mother in Altadena, CA (near Pasadena) with $75k income and a $2,500/mo interest only mortgage gets laid off and can't afford food.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03...mily/index.html
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,950
Likes: 474
From: MAHT-O-MEDI
Whats wrong with a law that has a formula in it, and for PERSONAL PURCHASE (home, cars, credit cards but not business loans) lenders can only approve so much total credit based on a persons income. It can even be a little on the high side so that people who want to pose can pose but have a set in law limit. Claiming false levels of income subject to penalty. Lender who lend beyond the limit subject to high fines.
Sure you would have people who tap out their credit, and then take out loans based on their elderly mother and so on, but you would never get into this situation where half the county is so deep in debt in houses, cars, boob jobs, jewelry, consumer crap and need to be bailed out by others.
To many people like the example of the house with 8 HELOCS for $800k. I bet they have a garage full of depreciated used cars and a house full of used consumer goods with an ebay value of a few thousand dollars.
Sure you would have people who tap out their credit, and then take out loans based on their elderly mother and so on, but you would never get into this situation where half the county is so deep in debt in houses, cars, boob jobs, jewelry, consumer crap and need to be bailed out by others.
To many people like the example of the house with 8 HELOCS for $800k. I bet they have a garage full of depreciated used cars and a house full of used consumer goods with an ebay value of a few thousand dollars.
