patrick.net

bubblesitter says

But the population can desert the land and leave....

And wherever they leave to will be the next bubble... finite space.. and finite job centers. Even with advances in telecommuting... More people are going to need to work in big cities... And those big cities real estate markets are always going to be higher than rural areas.

Bellingham Bob says

What about oil? $15 gas is entirely possible.

Then All bets will be off, and it will be suck bark for the piss ants, and house prices wont matter any how. because milk will be $20 more like $25 a gallon. When will you schmucks learn energy is the single biggest economic barometer in any economy.

$15 a gallon gas need $30 minimum wage to support. I don't see that happening, before 2070.

Minimum Wage:
1982 $3.35 2010–2011 $7.25

You need to make at least two gallons of gas an hour.
in the last 30 years minimum wage has only doubled. So it would take another 30 years to get to $14 an hour then an other 30 years to get to $28 an hour minimum wage.
So not even in 60 years will we be able to afford $15 a gallon gas.

$15 a gallon gas makes 75% of this country live in poor squalid conditions like Brazil slums for the upper crust poor, and Calcutta slums for the less well off poor right here in America.
In our current dollars.

Oh silly me what with peak Oil and all.

Oh well there's always $20,000 600 watt solar energy.

Los Angeles Renter says

You can't build the land under the box...

Yeah, but you can use the land better by making a bigger and taller box. There are many many ways to increase land efficiently -- Tokyoization is just one of them. As an example, there is a lot of land in the Bay Area. It's just that some of it is preserved as "open space." We make incredibly poor use of the land here, and while I certainly do more than my share of hiking here, it's clear that much of this open space is not very well-used.

The Bay Area is simply no longer the grand attraction it was during the early days of computer tech and recent related BS hype. There are plenty of other places to work, do business and live (yes, as in buy a house for what a property is really worth and live in yourself.)

House prices 2020-2025 IMHO? Consider in my view the state of the economy here and aboard, and the US ability to handle things based on past experiences I say the average LA 3bed typical cheap mass build I see well-around $150K

IMHO the past lunacy is not an example of appreciation it was simply a carnaval-like magic trick. Value and tricks are two entirely different things and again a house is to be lived in not made money off of it is NOT an ATM (as far too many clearly did not understand previously.)

corntrollio says

In addition, there seem to be a large number of people who speak without knowing anything about Obamacare, as they do for many other topics, and these people largely focus quite transparently on talking points, rather than referring to specific aspects of the legislation. I seem to remember user saying "we don't know what's in ObamaCare" which was particularly unsophisticated because the law has been published for a quite a while now and this was a very old talking point.

Since it is based on romneycare I guess I can chime in.

If the only objective was to "claim" that more people have health care insurance then I guess it works. If the objective was to lower the number of people that use ER's as primary care then I guess it works.

If it is to make people healthier or improve productivity and quality of life then it fails.

If you don't make income then the penalty does not apply and therefore there is no incentive to buy it (at least from the governmental perspective)

We've been a tad brainwashed in thinking that medical insurance = health care or the quality of someones health. That's highly misleading at best.

You can have the best health plan in the world but if you smoke, eat all the time, live next to toxic emissions and drink alot then you really aren't healthy. Now if you have no insurance, hit the gym a few times a week, don't smoke, hardly drink and do yoga then you are probably in better shape than the other guy.

The problem isn't so much the mandate but rather the subsidized pool. If you can get something for free why bother paying money for it? Meanwhile how good can government care be given how good public housing is? If you don't pay money for something you have no ethical right to complain and the act of malpractice is not fully addressed.

That and it appears that next year a ballot initiative (we have them in mass too just like in CA) to remove the mandate. Romney is totally screwed if this passes. He'll look like John Kerry explaining his votes on iraq...

mdovell says

Now if you have no insurance, hit the gym a few times a week, don't smoke, hardly drink and do yoga then you are probably in better shape than the other guy.

I'm going to have to assume you are pretty young. Being healthy doesn't mean you won't need health care, it means you MIGHT not need as much health care as soon. Very healthy people still get things like cancer and heart attacks. If they are uninsured then everyone else picks up the tab.

mdovell says

The problem isn't so much the mandate but rather the subsidized pool. If you can get something for free why bother paying money for it?

I don't agree with Obamacare but I didn't see the free part. If you don't have health care then you will have to buy it. If you are poor you will be subsidized on a sliding scale. Where is the free part?

mdovell says

Meanwhile how good can government care be given how good public housing is?

Something like 40 countries have "government" care, most with as good or better results as the US. At half the cost on average. Please explain the advantages to the US system as it exists now.

Obamacare is a flop. The lobbiests wrote it. Anything worth while (meaning anything that saved any money at the expense of profits to the corporate players in the health care industry) got taken out.

bob2356 says

If you don't have health care then you will have to buy it.

It is my understanding you can reject it entirely if it is against your religious principles. SO factor that into the equation along with the welfare recipients and you add up one hell of a price tag to the public.

Too many variables.

How soon will government support go away? (can't be sustained)
Will the interest rates rise? (can't be kept low forever)
Economy is collapsing, how bad?

The only certainty there is is that taxes will go up.

I'll take a stab in the dark and say the US median home price will be $195k in 9 years, 2020.

There aren't enough working adults to soak up all the boomer's homes, especially since many of them will have depressed incomes for life.

Studies show that people who graduate in a recession, or those who remain unemployed or underemployed for long periods of time, make less money over their lifetimes than those who get careers out of college, or manage to avoid long periods of un/underemployment. The earlier the underemployment begins, the bigger the lifetime income gap.

(There are many guesses as to why: People who have been underemployed or unemployed begin to value security over compensation; employers are suspicious of underemployed people, thinking they are less competent and are less comfortable promoting them, etc.)

This means less $$$ to buy homes with, even if the economy improves.

Again, this is a guess, not something I think is written in stone. There could be inflation...

Los Angeles Renter says

What new policies, changes in tax system, green energy industrial revolution can jumpstart the economy... ?

Yeah like solyndra?

The only thing that could jump start the economy, is for the Government to throw large corporations out of the nest and let them fend for them selves. Reinstate most of the industry and financial regulations that have been excised from the way business is done.

Build a culture of due diligence, competence, and tenacious accountable inspectors in every regulatory sector.
Then get back to lending to small businesses that have passed a rigorous assessment process of their business model, and will be on the hook to pay back even if the business fails.

We need new business to get out of this, McDonalds makes burgers, that's it. Our government seems to be under the impression that they would make Auto manufacturers if McDonalds took the notion to do so. While thinking Joe Blow isn't capable of finding their way out of a wet paper bag.

We couldn't have a Thomas Edison today.

interesting chart here you can extrapolate to 2025

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/03/comparing-housing-prices-real-vs-nominal-1890-2011/

Bellingham Bob says

But what might also happen is the money supply expanding such that prices get another 0, along with everyone's incomes. That would solve some problems, and of course make buying a house now a screaming deal.

The Fed will only allow deflation to progress so far until they put the printing presses in full production mode. Personally, I think we are actually living in the maxed out tolerable deflation period. I suspect that this mild/moderate deflation phase, absent of any major catastrophe that further accelerates deflation, will last 3-5 more years. (Lock in any mortgage debt in the next 2-4 years at a super low 30 year fixed). After that, I fully expect a complete reversal of deflation. First mild, then like a speed car. Yes, a zero will be added to everything. Those caught on the sidelines with all cash holdings will be creamed.

I should further add that both sides of the aisle will jump to the conclusion that printing more money is the only way out of the debt spiral that both have created. Baby boomers will not tolerate any meaningful cuts in SS and Medicare, and the last major chunk of monetary outlay, the industrial military complex, beholden to many, especially on the right is also not going to be cut. So with these big three programs charging ahead in larger and larger outlays (the first two being semi pay as you go via payroll deductions, the third, not being paid for by anyone) you will have majority consensus that the only way to continue is to print more money and accept the fall out from rapid inflation. It will get the government off the hook for its debt but obviously will hurt many as well. Run away deflation on the other hand, will wipe out everyone, thus inflation will become the less evil choice.

NO GUESSING ! Housing prices WILL be 2.5 times that particular areas median income.
Setting aside unexpected change or new invention, like maybe "DIGITIZED GOVERNMENT" or hydrogen replacing fossil energy sources, etc.
This chart may help splain what happened to cause our Real Estate Bubble.
LUCY can you splain to me the GAP about '92 and the screaming ascent during the '82 recession ?

Buster says

Run away deflation on the other hand, will wipe out everyone,

I don't see that.

If you have cash, deflation is wonderful.

Yes, if you have cash, deflation is wonderful, I agree. However, most folks are not in all cash positions. E.g. retired, all savings in cash or cash equivalents, no real estate holdings, stocks, or dependence on income from investments of any kind. So yes, if you are quite wealthy with mattresses stuffed with cash, you have it made. Most others will not.

Of course there are additional downsides to inflation for sure. But given the choice, I believe the fed will, as they always have, favor the inflation side of the coin.

Comes down to jobs. Private sector jobs. They are going nowhere fast. Public gravy jobs will evaporate when private gigs can be off shored. Next I hear Von's workers (for example) will go on strike for health benefits. That is coming here soon. All the major markets will be on strike again. And guess who is waiting in the wings to come to the rescue starting January 2012? Walmart-(retail space already bought and ready to roll) to simultaneously open all across the state, and eliminate those nasty union jobs that pay 20 bucks an hour. Damn union jobs.

Two incomes used to be enough to purchase a home in the outskirts of L.A. Now you'll need 4 or 5 to compensate for the low wages. I would love to ask for a raise, but I am lucky to even have a job. Who needs cartoons anymore? They can be shipped to India or China. All animation is already. And my job 'used' to be very well paying. In addition--there are hundreds of kids a year being pumped out of colleges with high hopes of getting into animation. They pay a lot, and can't get a job either. I see a massive downward swing when radiologists' reports are being emailed in India to review MRIs that radiologists could do here. Same goes for lawyers, architects, proof readers and tech. Sorry. A few will continue to be rich. The rest of us, not so much. That equals a paucity hopeful homeowners, and lingering housing blues.

shazzy says

Damn union jobs.

Union Jobs - Third from the bottom - BLUE

TMAC54--
Glad you caught my sarcasm. Private sector union members ('cept nurses) don't rake in the massive dough. These check out clerks are just trying to keep their health insurance. Many are heloc'd just to pay for the last strike...which got them nothing. They do not make much and frankly, I am supporting them.
-The public sector unions are a very different story. I have a feeling they will be crying the blues in a few more years...going from 100K police retirements to something a lot less enticing. Me? about 2 grand a month for 35 years in the animation business. Not much, when social security age is raised to 70 years old, while the firefighters and cops retire at 52. Little Greece, anyone?

Los Angeles Renter says

FortWayne says

Comparison lies in underlying value. Everything comes back to what it's worth on the free market. Building a box with a door isn't exactly rocket science, just like growing a tulip.

You can't build the land under the box...

Have you ever been outside a major metropolitan area? There is plenty of land out there.

If you have cash, deflation is wonderful.

Cash and enough of it to support you for the rest of your life. Because finding or keeping a job will be difficult.

Ok, here is the canary in the mine shaft that I eluded to in my post just 24 hours ago about the fed wanting to spur inflation in the future. This by Paul Volcker no less; (I believe that the short sided temptations to spur inflation in the future will be irresistible. Dumb of course, but look at the 2012 DC lineup :) ).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/opinion/a-little-inflation-can-be-a-dangerous-thing.html?_r=1&hp

The siren song is both alluring and predictable. Economic circumstances and the limitations on orthodox policies are indeed frustrating. After all, if 1 or 2 percent inflation is O.K. and has not raised inflationary expectations — as the Fed and most central banks believe — why not 3 or 4 or even more? Let’s try to get business to jump the gun and invest now in the expectation of higher prices later, and raise housing prices (presumably commodities and gold, too) and maybe wages will follow. If the dollar is weakened, that’s a good thing; it might even help close the trade deficit. And of course, as soon as the economy expands sufficiently, we will promptly return to price stability.

FortWayne says

Have you ever been outside a major metropolitan area? There is plenty of land out there.

Land yes.. but jobs? The majority of high paying big city jobs aren't going to migrate to Montana, just because there's some land to build on out there.

Los Angeles Renter says

Land yes.. but jobs? The majority of high paying big city jobs aren't going to migrate to Montana, just because there's some land to build on out there.

You mean like Intel to Middle of Washington, Arizona and upstate New York, Ebay and Yahoo to Nebraska. Seagate to Minnesota. And plenty moved to Texas. These regions are frankly a gold mine of cheaper labor and lower cost facilities.
Plenty of State incentives and easy plug in to start...

They dont drink expensive California wines in these parts.. just cheap beer.

FortWayne says

Have you ever been outside a major metropolitan area? There is plenty of land out there.

That is how and why Silicon Valley got started.. cheap land. By 1994 we had 315 public companies, 400 by 2000,
and today down to 215... too expensive to hire around the bay area. Better luck elsewhere.

thomas.wong1986 says

FortWayne says

Have you ever been outside a major metropolitan area? There is plenty of land out there.

That is how and why Silicon Valley got started.. cheap land. By 1994 we had 315 public companies, 400 by 2000,

and today down to 215... too expensive to hire around the bay area. Better luck elsewhere.

Yep, there is no more land left in metro area but that is not helping CA balance the budget. :)

Nomograph says

Wrong. It was a combination of available space, a highly skilled labor force, proximity to top universities and research labs, and a desirable place to live with good weather, schools, and recreation.

Why CA...Lax patent enforcement... and still happening today, the only thing that hasnt changed...

"Historically, Silicon Valley had been pretty casual about patents and patent law. Bill Hewlett and David Packard preferred to compete rather than sue. And when a maverick group spun out of Shockley Transistor, taking the semiconductor "cookbook" with them, they weren't pursued. Even the founding event of modern Silicon Valley—the explosion of Fairchild Semiconductor and the subsequent creation of scores of competing chip companies—drew nary a cease and desist demand, much less a major lawsuit."

http://www.scu.edu/scm/summer2011/the-big-idea.cfm

Nomograph says

If it was just about cheap land, why isn't there a Silicon Valley in Kentucky?

Or maybe Boston ? --- Route 128.. bigger than SV, more employees, more pay, more employers, and universities research labs, But Route 128, very strick patent and non-compete enforcement laws, which CA didnt. Jumping ship to a competitor was very easy. OK in CA, not so in other states. So today, they ship their R&D far and wide, no longer can you interview across the street on your lunch break.
Ah, the good old days.

"Recreation ?"

Ha Ha Ha Ha ... surely you jest ... these people (geeks/nerds) didnt date or party.. Pathic losers who worked very long hours for weeks on end on things no one ever gave a fuck about. Or are you talking about the Cook and Hip after all has been done.

They actually made a movie about it.. funny!

I dont see $5B being spent in Santa Clara.. does anyone else see this ?

Intel to invest $5B in new Arizona semiconductor plant
Date: Friday, February 18, 2011, 1:32pm MST

Intel Corp. .. executives announced today that the semiconductor manufacturer plans to build a $5 billion factory in Arizona that could bring in at least 1,000 permanent jobs in addition to thousands of construction jobs.

Intel plans to build Fab 42 in Chandler as the highest-volume chip plant in the world. Construction is expected to begin near the middle of this year and be completed in 2013.

While Intel officials would not say how many people it would hire, Josh Walden, vice president of Intel's Technology and Manufacturing Group and general manager of fab manufacturing, said facilities of this size typically employ 1,000 or more.

"This (fab) harnesses our network for future growth," he said.

I said I wouldn't be back but a comment that is so full of ignorance requires attention.

thomas.wong1986 says

They dont drink expensive California wines in these parts.. just cheap beer.

That one IMHO doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. That comment reminds me of the losers in Florida who make 20K a year but drop $20. on a drink on Friday night to look cool and pretend they are something they aren't. Were you born in this country? Because clearly your knowledge of USA social behaviour is extremely limited.

For the poster's information unlike California that is drowning from Los Angeles to San Francisco with wannabe rich and social pretenders, there is plenty of Old Money in many of those areas you mention that just drink "cheap beer," especially Upstate New York where no many don't drink expensive California wines (they are not that stupid) because they have REAL money, they are secure, they don't have to prove they are something or anything by drinking overpriced slop to impress social climbers.

bubblesitter says

Yep, there is no more land left in metro area but that is not helping CA balance the budget. :)

Not true! There is plenty of land. You're just not allowed to build on it. Density in the Bay Area overall is a joke because of so much "open space", even though density in the populated areas is quite high. Even the prototype for open space, the Marin Headlands had a proposed 9600 persons/sqmi development at one time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marincello). Apparently this will not be fixed until Starfleet Academy is built there.

Nomograph says

Wrong. It was a combination of available space, a highly skilled labor force, proximity to top universities and research labs, and a desirable place to live with good weather, schools, and recreation.

If it was just about cheap land, why isn't there a Silicon Valley in Kentucky?

Yes, I'd agree with this. The first few things mentioned are incredibly important. That's why Research Triangle is a mini-Silicon Valley (with much lower costs of living, of course) - UNC, Duke, and NC State, and it's not as hot as Austin. That's why Boston does well despite the weather. That's why even Huntsville does better than Kentucky. Otherwise, you develop only pockets of the coalition of the willing to move -- e.g. Idaho, where Micron has been for years and years, but some companies have found a small niche.

The real question is whether Silicon Valley has the staying power of say finance in NY. Most of my friends in finance argue that finance is incredibly mobile these days, but the big financial centers have really stuck around (London, HK, Singapore), and it's hard to create new ones (Reykjavik? Dubai?). You might be able to move from NY to HK, but are you really going to move from NY to Almaty?

thomas.wong1986 says

By 1994 we had 315 public companies, 400 by 2000,
and today down to 215... too expensive to hire around the bay area. Better luck elsewhere.

I don't think that's necessarily the best metric all on its own. In the 1990s, several companies that are currently still private or just became public would have been public several years earlier than the current plan.

thomas.wong1986 says

Why CA...Lax patent enforcement... and still happening today, the only thing that hasnt changed...

First of all, patents are enforced in federal court, not state court. As even the link you gave us pointed out, there's a balance between strict enforcement of patents (which really only happens in the Eastern District of Texas -- again, federal court, not state), and allowing freedom to develop. In the past, the competitive environment (notwithstanding the law) was leaning more towards broad cross-licensing as opposed to massive patent infringement suits but it's not like the current patent struggles are anything new. Wannabe monopolists have always tried to stifle their competitors, and the patent landscape changes in cycles.

The non-compete thing -- is it really fair to take away an individual's livelihood? Again, you can strike a balance between protecting confidential information and taking away someone's ability to work. You're certainly seeing lobbying efforts around Massachusetts non-compete requirements (http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2011/01/articles/noncompete-debate/new-momentum-to-limit-noncompetes-in-massachusetts/), and any state that has too strict a non-compete precedent risks losing employees to somewhere like California anyway.

The types of things you're talking about are things that do limit competition. There is a balancing act involved in dealing with them, and pretending that these one things are the answer risks making an ideological statement.

commonsense says

I said I wouldn't be back but a comment that is so full of ignorance requires attention.

I once asked a Texan what kind of resturants they have in Austin like Sushi... They laughed and said..what "Fish Bait".

I had a great time with my Texan friends drinking cheap beer.

corntrollio says

I don't think that's necessarily the best metric all on its own

Any kind of metrix you use its all the same.. growth vs shrinking local economy.
It was one thing to be here 30 years ago and witness the growth..
today looks like crap.

corntrollio says

First of all, patents are enforced in federal court, not state court.

Yes, When its extreme and a Lawsuit is brought to the courts, but many get away or are settled out of court when caught.. AMD copies Intel 386, never pays a dime, Google pays Yahoo for infringing on Yahoo Patents.. and lots of other examples you never hear of.

corntrollio says

You're certainly seeing lobbying efforts around Massachusetts non-compete requirements (http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2011/01/articles/noncompete-debate/new-momentum-to-limit-noncompetes-in-massachusetts/), and any state that has too strict a non-compete precedent risks losing employees to somewhere like California anyway.

Silicon Valley’s eclipse of Route 128 helped by lack of non-compete clauses says new study

http://www.siliconbeat.com/2008/08/18/silicon-valleys-eclipse-of-route-128-helped-by-lack-of-non-compete-clauses-says-new-study/

thomas.wong1986 says

Yes, When its extreme and a Lawsuit is brought to the courts, but many get away or are settled out of court when caught.. AMD copies Intel 386, never pays a dime, Google pays Yahoo for infringing on Yahoo Patents.. and lots of other examples you never hear of.

Federal court is federal court. California vs. Massachusetts has little bearing on this except if a case gets to the jury and CA juries vs. MA juries would act materially differently (I doubt they would) in applying the law. The Markman hearing is still done by a judge on the federal bench, and that's a critical part of a patent suit. What does settling out of court have to do with CA vs. MA?

thomas.wong1986 says

I dont see $5B being spent in Santa Clara.. does anyone else see this ?

Silicon Valley is primarily R&D not manufacturing.

The manufacturing facilities generally go to the lowest cost location.
Those jobs are not exactly high skilled labor, it's mostly assembly line type work.
Arizona may beat California but general you dont want an economy based on cheapness because
at some point the entire operation will just be moved to India and you'll end up with another Detroit.

toothfairy says

Silicon Valley is primarily R&D not manufacturing.

The manufacturing facilities generally go to the lowest cost location.
Those jobs are not exactly high skilled labor, it's mostly assembly line type work.

Yes, some of these are factors dependent on the actual manufacturing.

Nonetheless, it's not like there isn't manufacturing in the area.

toothfairy says

Silicon Valley is primarily R&D not manufacturing.
The manufacturing facilities generally go to the lowest cost location.
Those jobs are not exactly high skilled labor, it's mostly assembly line type work.

Was primarily a Mfg and R&D... due to high cost, mfg was moved out.. R&D was spared back in the 90s for the time being. But that time if over now... you cant have high labor R&D costs, in a deflationary industry. Doesnt work around here. Never did! Besides whats the difference. R&D (cost center) work on long term projects and not involved in revenue generation nor operations.

On The Record / Carl Guardino

May 13, 2007

Q: So are those really challenges?

A: Unequivocally, yes. Not only to the CEOs in the boardroom, but to any family you talk to in their living room. What we hear time after time from CEOs as well as frontline employees is how incredibly difficult it is to come here and stay here. That truly does have an impact on a company's bottom line when the cost differential is so much higher here than it is in other regions around the state, nation and globe, or the ability to recruit top talent is also impacted.

You mentioned housing. It probably is the top concern we hear about in Silicon Valley from both CEOs and employees in terms of local issues. Does that have an impact? Let me put a finer point on it.

Hewlett-Packard and Dell are the top two computer-makers in the world. Corporate headquarters for HP are located in Palo Alto and Dell is in Round Rock, Texas. Obviously, they both have people and facilities around the globe.

In those two communities where their corporate headquarters are and where a lot of research and development takes place, the median resale price for a home in Palo Alto is about $1.6 million. In Round Rock, Texas, it's about $180,000, except the home and property are bigger.

We hear from HP all the time that a huge deterrent to the ability to recruit and retain people anywhere near Silicon Valley is the housing issue. We don't hear that from Dell, which is also a member company, about their operations in Round Rock. It does continue to plague us and we will continue to sound the alarm.

RESULT: HP exiting the PC business.. to expensive!