patrick.net

toothfairy says

it’s a bit local. I was shopping for a rental house in Oakland this time last year and there was plenty to choose from in the 100k range.
Now it’s slim pickings and anything halfway decent is in the 150-180k price range.
I’m thinking the best time to buy was back when prices were falling with “no bottom in sight”

Most of these were probably bought by cash only investors. What happens when no one buys the flip or when they can't be rented? Exactly. I hear jobs in that target demographic are soaring (not).

Dead cat bounce IMO.

pkowen says

This time last year may have been the best time to buy in Oakland.

At least until next year. I wonder how much of the Oakland surge pushing $100k homes to $150k was caused by fraudulant use of the $8k tax incentive. When that expires, will we see a fall?

Or is it a new high demand for lower priced rental property, fueled by all those step down former homeowners?

tarkin says

I have always heard that during its inception Social Security was suppose to a temporary solution and was never meant or originally designed to be a long-term or permanent solution.

yeah, well you've always heard wrong. From 1937:

"Example: A factory superintendent 40 years old makes $3,000 per year; his annual tax to begin with will be $30 (1% of $3,000); the factory management must match his $30 with another $30 and the $60 will be turned into the Treasury to build up the Old-Age Pension Fund; at 65 the factory superintendent may retire to draw a maximum of $62.50 each month from the Government. Though the Federal Social Security Board in Washington has been working quietly for months with plans to inaugurate this vast pension scheme in 1937, few wage earners were aware until last week of the practical details of the plan as it affected their pocketbooks. "

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,756827,00.html#ixzz0b0TSgNKy

to see the Republican scare-mongering that was ever-present even back then.

"I have never verified this, but given how Social Security is working it clearly was never designed to be enduring."

SS is working fine now. Taking more than $150B/yr than it is paying out, and has been for decades since the Greenspan Commission raised FICA contributions in the mid-80s. As a retirement program, it is sitting on $2T on the safest savings imaginable -- US bonds. As an enforced savings program, it is a howling success, though it is something of an welfare program as lower-income pensioners will take out more than they contribute.

To fix Social Security permanently, we'll have to increase its income transfer by jacking up taxes on either high earners, more fairly by increasing taxes on everyone, or enacting means-testing on benefits, or capping payouts to keep the fund in balance once it begins drawing down the money the General Fund owes it.

But I agree that the $8000 credit just might become permanent. It is difficult to find a "temporary" measure taken by the gummint that doesn't stick around somehow.

Troy says

But I agree that the $8000 credit just might become permanent. It is difficult to find a “temporary” measure taken by the gummint that doesn’t stick around somehow.

I somewhat agree on this too. What I am expecting is another extention of that $8000 credit after Apr. 2010. I'd rather prefer seeing those BS fees like loan origination fee and 6% realtor commision is being cut into half, rather than making $8000 credit permanent though.

Troy says

keep the fund in balance once it begins drawing down the money the General Fund owes it.

Ah the magic words and the crux of the problem. If the general budget has been billions in the red every year for the last 30 years, how will the general budget not only balance the books all of a sudden, but find enough money to pay back 30 years of stealing from social security? The 2T in bonds held by social security is simply an IOU from one branch of government to another. THERE IS NO MONEY. YOUR MONEY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY HAS BEEN STOLEN. The majority of it is now invested in tanks, planes, submarines, military bases all over the world, and the deserts of Afghanistan and Iraq.

You would have to eliminate the entire federal government except for interest on the debt to actually make this work. Or convince foreign investors to kick in another 2T to help America live beyond her means. Or default on all Tbills except those owed to SS. Or devalue the currency by something like 95%. It's going to be a rocky road.

bob2356 says

THERE IS NO MONEY. YOUR MONEY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY HAS BEEN STOLEN

Nah, the Greenspan plan was to cut taxes on the upper class so they could invest it in better wealth-accruing enterprises than government.

There is plenty of money -- the super-wealthy have it. Table L.10 Assets and Liabilities of the Personal Sector of the Federal Flow of Funds report lays it out -- the private sector has $40T in assets against $20T in liabilities.

Right now 10% of the country controls 60-70% of the wealth. Cutting this back to 40-50% isn't going to be that big a deal, other than the great caterwauling we'll get from the super-wealthy's media and thinktank mouthpieces.

thomas.wong89 says

or manybe pissed away by Congress on social programs before 911 ?

Nope. Maybe not.

“THERE IS NO MONEY…”

One could argue that:

There never has been, and never will be.
or
There always has been, and always will be.

Social security funding is just a numbers game.

The reality is that people working now must produce the real goods and services consumed by people on Social Security now.

People working in the future must produce the real goods and services to be consumed by people on Social Security in the future.

Which pot of fiat currency is used to purchase those goods and services is a secondary factor, and an accounting construct.

If the nominal fund balance is insufficient, then we can just print more currency to buy the real goods and services needed. The real goods and services will be a real drain on workers no matter how we "fund" our Social Security system.

CrazyMan says

toothfairy says

it’s a bit local. I was shopping for a rental house in Oakland this time last year and there was plenty to choose from in the 100k range.

Now it’s slim pickings and anything halfway decent is in the 150-180k price range.

I’m thinking the best time to buy was back when prices were falling with “no bottom in sight”

Most of these were probably bought by cash only investors. What happens when no one buys the flip or when they can’t be rented? Exactly. I hear jobs in that target demographic are soaring (not).
Dead cat bounce IMO.

dead cat bounce huh? Let's hope so. The thing about paying all cash is that there's no pressure to rent it out. But the fact that these were halfway decent properties in Oakland the chances of it not being rented are pretty slim.
I could be wrong but somehow I dont think we'll be seeing those rock bottom prices again anytime soon.

thomas.wong89 says

bob2356 says

The majority of it is now invested in tanks, planes, submarines, military bases all over the world, and the deserts of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Are you saying SS was in the black before the year 2000 ? or manybe pissed away by Congress on social programs before 911 ?

SS and medicare are still in the black and still paying part of the deficit. Congress just writes an IOU to SS/medicare every year and spends the money. Over 60% of the budget (without adding in SS/Medicare as they are funded separately) is military (if everything was accounted for properly), so over 60% of the pissing away is military. Pop quiz, what percentage of the federal budget,, is "social programs". Hint, interest on the debt is half of what's left over after defense.

Back to the original point, the latest Case-Shiller Numbers (released today, from October, 2009) idicate that :

All in all, this report should be described as flat.” says David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the Index Committee at Standard & Poor’s.

Case Shiller Index

Press Release