This guy has been tempering his remarks the last couple of years, but he cuts loose today with one of the more irresponsible comments heard in quite a while – from the latimes.com:
“The stimulus has worked,” said Rick Hoffman, president of Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage in San Diego and Temecula Valley. “Buyers are confident that we have seen the bottom of the real estate market and that we are on the way back up.”
He can’t speak for buyers – and he should have more respect for his agents who are trying to properly advise their clients.
Proceed with caution, and buy only if you find the right house, at the right price.
Realtors shilling their own book and calling abosolute bottoms is the real estate equivilent of the Sports Illustrated jinx.
A simple trip to the bookstore to see magazine covers of time, newsweek, etc when they put housing as a buy back on the cover, watch out.
Mark today as the inflection point for a downward/softening trend.
Jim what you say is always true, or at least I don’t recall a time when it was not true.
The real question is what time horizon do you use to determine the right price, clearly what the past period has shown is that the rent/own price ratio is an indicator of the right price, if it gets out of wack prices are likley out of wack also. One needs to be alert that there have been bubbles in real estate before 1887-1888 as an example before the current one, and go in with eyes wide open.
In this same vein, I heard an ad on the radio today I haven’t heard in 2+ years. It was an ad from a mortgage company (Lennox Financial) telling people to use 5yr ARM’s to buy their next home. The ad did say, repeatedly, don’t use this loan unless you plan to sell in less than 5 years; otherwise, get a 30yr fixed. Even with that caveat, that ad tells me the flipping psychology is coming back.
This guy is a…..
I have written him over the years calling him out on his lame UTribe “articles” (i.e. the paid advertisement RE section)
He is the poster child for bad agents. And I think Jim acutlaly does a service to the inductry when he calls these guys out.
Real Estate shills should be required to provide some kind of “prospectus” type document outlining how they intend to invest in the products they’re selling.
I would settle for some proof.
Give us the evidence upon which you base your opinion that buyers are confident.
I haven’t seen any that feel that way. I don’t think anybody feels confident, even Mr. Hoffman.
Who knows what is going to happen?
The government may tolerate another 5% to 10% dip, but after that they’ll be back with the money/programs.
Have we reached a bottom? I have no idea. Is real estate going up from here? Ditto.
But, every single economist I’ve heard, to date, has emphatically said “the stimulus has not worked”
If you want to believe that we are having a jobless recovery, that’s up to you, but unless you find THE HOUSE and want to be there for the next 10 years, I would tread lightly at this point.
We may look back at May 1 as the opportunity of a lifetime, but I think it’s more likely we look back at May 1 as a statistical and highly manipulated blip.
Many of my buyers tell me that they are buying there last house. They want it to last forever.
I’m encourage that thinking – I’m OK with one and done. It’s the ultimate success.
Everybody was bearish in January 2009 when I closed on my shack. Now, Zillow says I’m up 31.2%. Still, shoulda bought stocks! Damn.
SD_Coastal,
I’m an Economist 😉 (Serious I am)
The problem with Economics is that you can’t really account for things like TARP when you’re trying to forecast the future. You can show how things will be if everything is relatively constant. But, with all the recent government wingnuttery and taxpayer sponsored bailout mentalities would you be willing to place a bet on things remaining constant?
JTR- “The government may tolerate another 5% to 10% dip, but after that they’ll be back with the money/programs.”
JP2- Give us the evidence upon which you base your opinion that the money programs will return. (lol)
JTR- “Many of my buyers tell me that they are buying there last house. They want it to last forever.
I’m encourage that thinking – I’m OK with one and done. It’s the ultimate success.”
JP2- I am not an actuary, but I will say that it has been my unscientific observation that those who buy “dream homes” stay in them for seeming less time on average than those who buy a home to get by for a few years. Yes, yes, there will be some who buy and live in a given home for 30+ years, and it my guess that a few of the owners thought they’d only stay for a few years…
JP2, why would an actuary have any sort of inkling as to how long people live in their dream homes? Is that what actuarial tables tell them?
I tend to agree with JTR; the recent $8k credit is just one of many longstanding gov’t cheez programs passed on to homeowners. Who is to say it will be the last? Home ownership is important to our society and politicians like to be re-elected.
“Is that what actuarial tables tell them?”
There are all kinds of different actuarial tables. Some are about the likelihood of car accidents, some are related to death, and others measure the chances that your home will suffer a fire, and on and on and on…
Actuaries are paid professionals to measure and evaluate risk. I guess we could ask Lehman Brothers’ financial analysts?
We’re buying because we want the sense of permanancy in the community that owning a house brings.
We are not planning on flipping it.
We are definitely not confident that we’ve seen the bottom of the market.
We will not buy until we find a house that works for us at an attractive price – gotta have both.
And the government cheese had no effect on our decisions. It would have been just a nice extra if we could have gotten it.
“We’re buying because we want the sense of permanancy in the community that owning a house brings.”
Are you suggesting that it’s not possible to sell?
“And the government cheese had no effect on our decisions. It would have been just a nice extra if we could have gotten it.”
Ditto.
I couldn’t resist the “cheese”. ; ) I just signed a contract on a Granite Hills Home in El Cajon. I’ll be honest, I feel confident about my decision. I was able to pick up a 2,164 sq/ft ranch style with one acre for $410,000. It has a lot of 70’s features to update, but I’m overall happy. I don’t plan on living there forever, maybe the next 4-5 years.
correction .5 acre
Did anyone else watch the episode of Nova this week, “Mind Over Money”? About the psychology of asset bubbles, and different camps of economists debating whether bubbles exist and rational vs irrational market behavior. Some interesting ideas, but the show ended with a very unsatisfying (to me anyway) lack of conclusion. “Research continues.”
“I tend to agree with JTR; the recent $8k credit is just one of many longstanding gov’t cheez programs passed on to homeowners. Who is to say it will be the last? Home ownership is important to our society and politicians like to be re-elected.”
I agree with this 100%. There’s no way any government would let the housing market get any worse. If it did, there would be way more trouble than there already is.
Look at Australia where I was originally from. We’ve had home buyer grants for like 10 years now and the housing market is super hot with no signs of crashing. During the “great recession” we just had, the government upped the grant to 14k for old homes and 21k for new builds for first time home buyers and the sellers just upped their home 14k more.
Buying a “last home” is certainly a valid reason to buy now. One of the largest risks in housing these days is simply rate normalization — if mortgage rates go back to 8+% then prices can easily drop 30-40% — but that’s not a factor if you plan on staying put and paying off your mortgage.
“if mortgage rates go back to 8+% then prices can easily drop 30-40% — but that’s not a factor if you plan on staying put and paying off your mortgage.”
If the prices drop 30-40% fast enough, such as has definitely happened in Vegas (more like 70% over ~5 years), then you might want to wait.
My car is going down in value. That’s not a major problem, as I can easily afford it. That said, if I knew the price would be 30-40% lower fast enough, I would have waited to buy.
I honestly cannot see how the average American will be able to buy a home from this point forward. The lack of government funny money, higher taxes, higher interest rates and high unemployment are all going to be a major factor.
I see another corrective period in housing prices coming soon. Flippers caught in this next downturn are going to get crushed.
I’m a little embarrassed to say…I have an accepted offer in a short sale that looks like its going to go through. I’m not convinced that house prices have hit botttom, but we plan on staying put for a while. We’re buying a house that we can rent out to cover our costs (if we have to). That makes me feel a little better about buying at this crazy time.
I tend to agree with Funny Money. There is a point at which the buyers who can afford to get into the market right now and who’ve been waiting on the sidelines are exhausted. There is still no movement on wages and job growth is still not doing much. Without exotic loan products to make housing “affordable,” when the pool of buyers with 20% down runs out, there will be tears.
I’m looking at mostly the mid-range housing that is the target of move-up buyers. Just about all equity gains from the past 10 years have been wiped out. Even someone like me who bought in 2002 and still has some equity doesn’t have enough equity from a potential sale to cover 20% down on a mid-range home. The price differential is still too steep between starter neighborhoods and the next step up.
Jinx- “We’re buying a house that we can rent out to cover our costs (if we have to). That makes me feel a little better about buying at this crazy time.”
I know a guy that owns a few Vegas homes that said the same thing, but that was back in 2005. He told stories of being able to ask a decent buck in rent, and he was able to be quite picky.
Today? Well, let’s just say it’s a different story. The rent is not good, the homes have lost 70% (+/-) of market value, and he tries to pick the least bad of the prospective tenants.
In 2005 he estimated he had about $2,000k in property. Today it’s quickly approaching $500k.
And he wants to think that prices will rebound, yet in Vegas prices continue to go down, even with the government ‘cheese.’
“The price differential is still too steep between starter neighborhoods and the next step up.”
My sentiments exactly. Many people got rich in the economic downturn, and I think it simply created a separation of wealth. I feel like I’m in the buyers’ purgatory between starter home and a house I feel I should be able to afford.
“I feel like I’m in the buyers’ purgatory between starter home and a house I feel I should be able to afford.”
Why not accept the fact that you’ll never be able to afford a home in an area you want and buy in a cheaper area. Not everyone will be able to afford a home in their desired neighborhood.
I wish my wife and I could afford to buy in La Jolla or Del Mar but we had to settle for Carmel Valley but with settling with Carmel Valley, we have enough to look for an IP in Carlsbad.
“Why not accept the fact that you’ll never be able to afford a home in an area you want and buy in a cheaper area.”
I can afford to live in Carmel Valley and other places – I just can’t justify paying that much. Unlike the majority of SoCal, I’m not interested in buying the most expensive house I can afford.
More and more I get the feeling CV is filling up with chumps who bought there just because they could, and they’ll be worse off financially down the road. Maybe not your case, CV Asian, but your comment speaks directly to that.
“Why not accept the fact that you’ll never be able to afford a home in an area you want and buy in a cheaper area. Not everyone will be able to afford a home in their desired neighborhood.”
I’m talking about normal people here. They can’t even afford to “settle” for CV. A typical starter home is under $250k. That’s the hardest hurdle to leap – that first purchase. A first time buyer putting 20% down on a $250k house needs to come up with 50k plus to cover down payment and other assorted expenses. In order to move up to a larger house the next level up on the scale, our normal people are looking at $400k – $500k, which is close an $80k – $100k down payment. If you’ve lost damn near all your equity from the past 10 years, there is no way you can make that leap.
Normal people can’t afford nice neighborhoods and right now they can’t even afford the less nice mid-range because it hasn’t dropped as much as the low end has dropped. For a lot of people, renting in a mid-range neighborhood is the best way to get a larger house without having to come up with $100k down. All those first time buyers who’ve entered the market over the past couple of years are going to be stuck in their starter homes like I am for a very long time. That is going to impact the mid range move-up neighborhoods in the long term.
I honestly cannot see how the average American will be able to buy a home from this point forward.
That’s just it — there is no housing market as long as the average American can’t buy an average home. The situation *will* rectify itself, one way or another.
“The situation *will* rectify itself, one way or another.”
Yes, it’s called inflation.
If you’ve lost damn near all your equity from the past 10 years, there is no way you can make that leap.
Those $250K houses now, were selling for less than $150K 10 years ago. If you paid your mortgage and didn’t use your house as an ATM, you have a ton of equity to be a move up buyer.
The other point is that you don’t need $80K to purchase a $400K house in today’s market. There’s 10% down loans available to people. The final point is that $500K is not a mid-range home in San Diego County. From looking at the CS index, only a third of houses in San Diego sell for more then $450K currently. I don’t think you can define the top third of all houses sold as the “mid-range”.
” A typical starter home is under $250k.”
Good post Art. I remember back in 1998 starter detached houses in Encinitas were around 250k. Interest rates were around 7%. Lol I remember getting into a bidding war back then for a house that was listed for 299k and it ended up selling to someone else for 305k. I could still see myself living in that place today if I would have gotten it. The lower property taxes would be sweet. I wonder how many people actually bought a house during 1996-1998 and didn’t sell or blow the equity and end up losing their house. Clearly the temptation was strong to load up on hummers and vacations but I’m sure some people resisted. Those would be your move-up buyers of today.
Art Eclectic,
Kick the Deadbeats out that are living in their houses for free and suddenly first time buyers can join the market. When comps are lowered because of foreclosure the home equity money train comes to a screching halt. Forcing retirees to make a decision either sell at the market price or get a job.
Foreclosure is the cure the bureacracy is the disease.
Yes, it’s called inflation.
Wrong answer. Care to try again?
Even someone like me who bought in 2002 and still has some equity doesn’t have enough equity from a potential sale to cover 20% down on a mid-range home. The price differential is still too steep between starter neighborhoods and the next step up.
Art Eclectic | May 1st, 2010 at 8:36 am
—————
Precisely. This is exactly why some of us are expecting a “squishdown” on the higher end.
This is one of the best deals I have seen in Encinitas in a while. A big single level on 1/3 acre for 610k.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100009303-268_Via_Tierra_Encinitas_CA_92024
The deals are out there. This is 54% higher than the January 1997 price. Sold for almost 24% off list price and only around 100k higher than the starter homes on Cottage Way.
CA Renter- “Precisely. This is exactly why some of us are expecting a “squishdown” on the higher end.”
The problem with your expectation is that you have not addressed the distribution of wealth. If the distribution of prices of homes approximates the distribution of wealth, then I would not expected any “squishdown.”
If the higher end homes are owned by those who should have never purchased in the first place, then the chance for failure is quite high. If a high rate of failure takes place, then I’d expect a large price reduction.
The Lorenz Curve and Gini Coefficient are a couple of tools that can be used to measure the distribution of wealth. While I have never seen these used for the distribution of the cost of housing, it might be interesting to apply these two tools to such, and then compare the difference.
JP2 – that’s kind of where I was going earlier. Once you remove the weak hands that couldn’t afford those houses in the first place and the “free rent” program as Shadash mentioned, what you have left is true market. We don’t know what that market looks like right now, but I expect we will in the next 5 years. Fraud and exotic loan products allowed a whole lot of people access into a housing level that was beyond their means. Once those people are cleansed from the market and true buyers are safely ensconced in homes they can afford, then we should see the real shape of the market.
The longer the government “helps” people buy and stay in houses they can’t actually afford, the longer the market remains distorted.
“the longer the market remains distorted.”
IMHO, there is another factor that is distorting the market that you did not mention in your analysis. There are likely buyers that have the means to buy and would like to buy but are afraid of further price deflation. Deflation much like inflation becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Yes, their are factors you mentioned that increase demand artificially such as government intervention, low interest rates, etc. But in my view the government really isn’t offsetting the deflation that arises from not only unemployment and underwater loans but also psychology. That partly explains why prices continue to drop even though affordability is the best its been in a decade. As JTR alluded to in frequent posts the short sale shams and other fraud add to the deflation fear cycle as well.
“‘Yes, it’s called inflation.’
‘Wrong answer. Care to try again?'”
Okay then TJ, I’ll bite. What’s the answer?
pemeliza, how long do you put off a purchase because you think the price will be lower next month?
This is the same flawed “house as investment” thinking that has royally screwed up the housing market.
If you like the house and can afford the house, why would you put off your purchase just because prices might drop another 10%? With such limited quality inventory, how willing are you to risk losing a great home because you are spooked that prices might drop some more? Eventually, they are going to rise again, although not for a while certainly. Which is why the smart money has been telling people not to buy right now if you expect to sell within 5 years. Buying right now is a long-term strategy.
Art Eclectic- It could be that the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. If this is the shift that’s happening, then higher priced homes might increase in value, while lower priced homes decrease in value. There would be some point where the prices remain fairly stable, not significantly increasing or decreasing.
There is the whole issue of inflation that’s also being discussed here. If a significant level of inflation takes hold, then housing would have an upward pressure on prices.
That said, I have found no example of drastically decreasing home prices and inflation. I am not suggesting any causation, but rather, make the observation that as long as home prices are going down, inflation is not a major issue.
One last question, that many people don’t address, is who were the past winners? Whenever there is some government program, such as the $8k tax credit, someone ended up with extra cash. It might be divided between multiple people, but I suspect that majority goes to a single party. This is similar to both parties trying to save the sales commissions on a FSBO deal. It’s just not possible for both to save the cash, as there is only one commission being saved.
I actually suspect that the majority of the $8k is going to the sellers in the form of higher prices. We’ve discussed this above. While I don’t subscribe to the multiplier effect quite as much as is discussed above, if prices continue to go down, then I will hold that the sellers were the ones who ultimately ended up with the tax credit benefit. On the other hand, if prices go up in the future, then buyers bought at an even lower price.
And to think, all mom wants is a nice home to live in…
Art Eclectic- In regards to delaying purchasing, as discussed in #44-
Let me remind you of the many who have lost hundreds of thousands in the Vegas market using that same logic.
“If you like the house and can afford the house, why would you put off your purchase just because prices might drop another 10%?”
I know a guy who was willing to take a 10% hit. He purchased near the peak in Vegas. He did not believe that prices could go down more than 10%, also citing government intervention ideas like JTR suggested above. He also suggested that his employment situation was very secure.
He’s lost years of savings, and is not in good shape financially. Had he delayed, month-by-month, he’d be much better off today.
If you have plenty of cash, then spend your money however you want. Beyond that, one might need to consider that with leverage small changes in market value can have a big impact.
“This is the same flawed “house as investment” thinking that has royally screwed up the housing market.”
Not really. I started looking in Jan. 2008 and ended up buying in late 2009. By holding out I was able to get a house on the coast instead of inland which is where I started looking. I got to wondering how many people are thinking well why settle for Carlsbad when I could probably wait just a little longer and get CV for example. It is not so much an investment thing as much as a quality of life and people want the best quality of life their money will buy. Who knows, if I had held out I might have been able to buy a similar property in La Jolla. However, I am happy with what I have and always keep in mind that I could have timed things much much worse.
I’ve been waiting and renting/living cheaply for the last couple of years. Now I’m completely debt free sitting on a sizeable amount of cash and 401k savings. By waiting my purchase options have gone from small houses in questionable neighborhoods to small houses in nice neighborhoods. Also by renting and living cheaply I can take what makes a downpayment in SD and use it in another state to nearly pay for a house in cash if I ever need to move.
Eventually something has to give in the SD housing market. When it does myself and people like me will be there to pick up the peices.
I am going to argue that “Deadbeats” have actually contributed to the DROP in real estate prices–not the deadbeats that are living in their homes for free while not being foreclosed upon, rather, another group of deadbeats–those that have walked away for no reason other than their equity had diminished–if those deadbeats had lived up to their obligations and remained in their houses and current on their mortgage, supply would be (would have been) even lower.
“if those deadbeats had lived up to their obligations and remained in their houses and current on their mortgage, supply would be (would have been) even lower.”
The loan was a legal contract with legal remedies. One option the “owner” has is to walk away. It’s a risk that the lender must consider. Lenders should also consider the risk of declines in the value of the collateral.
JP2 – Right you are–Let’s not refer to either group as “deadbeats” and assume that neither group has acted illegally, nor immorally. There are many people that believe those not being foreclosed upon (formerly referred to as “deadbeats”)that are living for free are, in effect, causing values to stay higher since their homes are not being added into inventory. If someone follows this logic, they must also consider those who have “walked-away”. This group has, in effect, caused values to “decrease” since their homes have been added into inventory. If you consider one, you must consider the other–Just making the point to those who blame the “deadbeats” for high prices!
The Blur,
The answer is prices will come down — period.
As has been mentioned repeatedly, the only inflation that positively impacts housing is wage inflation, and J6P is faced with wage *deflation* for the foreseeable future. Absent higher wages, inflation actually erodes purchasing power.
The problem with your expectation is that you have not addressed the distribution of wealth. If the distribution of prices of homes approximates the distribution of wealth, then I would not expected any “squishdown.”
If the higher end homes are owned by those who should have never purchased in the first place, then the chance for failure is quite high. If a high rate of failure takes place, then I’d expect a large price reduction.
The Lorenz Curve and Gini Coefficient are a couple of tools that can be used to measure the distribution of wealth. While I have never seen these used for the distribution of the cost of housing, it might be interesting to apply these two tools to such, and then compare the difference.
JP2 | May 2nd, 2010 at 7:22 am
—————
You are absolutely right, JP2, and I am taking that into consideration as well.
The problem with this is that the few at the top who’ve made a lot more money is much smaller than the group at the bottom who’ve lost purchasing power. Right now, prices are reflecting the belief that the “wealthy” are a much larger segment of the population than they really are, IMHO. Also, it’s much harder to replace a $500K job than it is to replace a $24K job. It’s also frighteningly easy to lose/spend a few million. I do not think the rich are nearly as insulated as others seem to think.
—————–
There are many factors to consider when buying a house and committing to a half-million dollar+ purchase and/or debt. Personally, I am also hoping for much higher interest rates. Unfortunately, this is one market that can be very easily manuipulated by the PTB.
CA Renter- Let’s just agree that the banksters didn’t take much of a pay cut.
“Also, it’s much harder to replace a $500K job than it is to replace a $24K job. It’s also frighteningly easy to lose/spend a few million. I do not think the rich are nearly as insulated as others seem to think.”
This is a funny thing. It’s probably easier to replace a $500k job than a $24k job today. That said, it’s probably easier to replace a $24k job than a $100k job. The population of people who earn $500k is significantly smaller than those who earn $100k, and many of those who earn $100k were/are overpaid, given the state of the economy.
On the other hand, the person making $500k could start at $100k and get back up to $500k rather quickly. I don’t see that happening so much in the $75k-$100k category. Many of those positions are gone.
Ultimately I ask the basic question:
With a home ownership rate of about 2/3, are $500k homes affordable?
“With a home ownership rate of about 2/3, are $500k homes affordable?”
Certainly not for every buyer and probably not for a starter home. If you are on your 3rd or 4th home and you make some serious $$$, then yes $500k is doable. Another basic question would be what percentage of homes in the US cost $500k? What percentage in SD county? Then compare these percentages to incomes in the US and then SD country. Finally take into consideration that real estate happens at the margin and that many homeowners got into the super desirable areas when prices were cheap so their incomes are not that important especially with prop. 13.
Here are the YTD stats 4 months into 2010 for detached homes sold in SD County:
Up to $500,000:
4,210 closed, avg. $208/sf, SP:LP=100%, 58 avg DOM
Over $500,001:
1,871 closed, avg $326/sf, SP:LP=97%, 69 avg DOM
I don’t know if you’d call them affordable, but we’ve had a long run of buyers willing to pay $200/sf for a house – you just find most of them under $500,000.
Little late to the thread, but…
“I don’t plan on living there forever, maybe the next 4-5 years.
Dave F. | April 30th, 2010 at 4:48 pm”
You probably made the wrong move. If you only plan on living in one place for five years or less, buying is almost certainly the wrong choice from a financial standpoint. Prices probably won’t go up much (if at all-they might go down) in the next five years, and there are significant costs associated with buying a house, and then selling it again in five years.
The only exception I can think of is a location where total monthly expenses of owning (including taxes, insurance, HOA fees, monthly payments, and repairs) are less than typical rents for a similar place. I don’t know if El Cajon qualifies. Most places don’t.
“With a home ownership rate of about 2/3, are $500k homes affordable?
JP2 | May 2nd, 2010 at 5:56 pm”
You are assuming that the entire nation looks like coastal San Deigo County, which is incorrect. There are plenty of places in the United States where $150k buys a nice house. Probably the vast majority of the country qualifies.
A school teacher or auto mechanic or dentist’s assistant or factory worker probably can afford a house in Iowa or South Carolina or Oklahoma or Maine. Or places like Vista or Riverside in California.
“You are assuming that the entire nation looks like coastal San Deigo County, which is incorrect.”
“A school teacher or auto mechanic or dentist’s assistant or factory worker probably can afford a house in Iowa or South Carolina or Oklahoma or Maine.”
Actually I make the assumption that school teachers, auto mechanics, dental assistants, and so on live in San Diego county, just like every other area of the country. That said, Mish did a nice piece on how transit workers with only a basic education earn $85,000 in the Bay area.
“The above images show two station agents making approximately $85,000 a year.
Inquiring minds just might be asking ‘Why So Little?'”
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/02/rapid-transit-salaries-look-at-beloved.html
So we have transit workers earning $85,000 where median homes are about $500,000, and similar transit workers earning closer to $30,000 where median homes are worth about $150,000. (Approximately speaking–I am not citing source data here, and I didn’t rigorously establish these numbers.)
It makes me wonder why California has a budget problem with so much wealth.
WRT to the $85k/yr station agents: Is this typical for all station agents, or only a select few? I only saw two agents listed on the noted page. I suspect, but admittedly don’t actually know, that these folks are probably very high on the seniority list, and that there’s a union that’s protecting that salary.
OTOH, $30k/yr in other places in the country is more likely a typical wage. So, is the comparison valid or not?
“The answer is prices will come down — period.”
You mean like when you told us the “bear market rally” in the stock market would end in Oct/Nov 2009? How did that one work out for you?
“As has been mentioned repeatedly, the only inflation that positively impacts housing is wage inflation, and J6P is faced with wage *deflation* for the foreseeable future.”
Uhh, just so you know, wage inflation started 2-3 months ago…
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/pinewsrelease.htm
Waiting to feel the magic-
You can look up the salaries of all 3,427 BART workers here:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/bart-salaries
Click on the headings to sort.
We don’t know how many hours the person worked, but we do know that “Master Police Officer” John W. Davenport III earned $140,728. (Page 8 after sorting by total pay)
“Uhh, just so you know, wage inflation started 2-3 months ago…”
I agree with this.
For the last 2 years we didn’t get any raises but this year we just got a 12% raise for those years that we didn’t get any and for this year as well.