Pro-tax Occupation Protests Held Across U.S. (O.W.S. Thread)

[AEON]

Originally Posted by digitize

Regarding real estate, I do think that your situation is either somewhat of an anomaly, or perhaps the worst example exemplifying a pattern. I do share your fear that real estate prices are getting questionably high given economic fundamentals at the moment.

This came out today...

ALBERT EDWARDS: The Fed Is Inflating A Housing Bubble To Hide A Destabilizing Economic Problem

Some interesting bits...

Hence, while governments preside over economic policies that make the very rich even richer, national consumption needs to be boosted in some way to avoid under- consumption ending in outright deflation. In addition, the middle classes also need to be thrown a sop to disguise the fact they are not benefiting at all from economic growth. This is where central banks have played their pernicious part.

Investors should make no mistake. The anger of the 99% will ultimately not be bought off by yet another central bank inspired housing bubble, engineered to pacify them and divert their attention as their real incomes fall and inequality continues to grow.

The current bubble will burst, despite the Fed postponing the event by climbing to ever higher diving boards. All the time rising inequality is draining the swimming pool dry and the crunch when it comes will be ugly...

[anitram]

Originally Posted by digitize

Regarding real estate, I do think that your situation is either somewhat of an anomaly, or perhaps the worst example exemplifying a pattern.

It's definitely not an anomaly - there are a number of urban areas in North America where what INDY describes holds true. People who live in the heartland of the US or in other cheaper areas have no concept of what real estate costs in some of the cities we inhabit.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by anitram

It's definitely not an anomaly - there are a number of urban areas in North America where what INDY describes holds true. People who live in the heartland of the US or in other cheaper areas have no concept of what real estate costs in some of the cities we inhabit.

I know it's bad. I spent an astronomical sum to live in New York this summer. What I do think is an anomaly is the circumstance where people in the top 2-3% of income for an area are unable to own a home.

[anitram]

Just realized that I said INDY when I meant AEON - sorry about that.

I also don't think that really holds true. People in the top 2-3% can buy homes everywhere. AEON chooses not to. But he can afford it, he just doesn't want to have the debt load.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

But he can afford it, he just doesn't want to have the debt load.

Especially a debt load for something I think is overpriced by at least 30% - maybe more.

Financially, if you crunch the numbers, buying a home is a less than optimal investment even in more stable times. That measly tax credit does little to off set the costs of 30 years of interest payments, maintenance, taxes, upgrades...etc.

Now, if you buy at a "peak" - things are even worse, because you may be underwater on your mortgage for 10 years or more (unable to sell without a loss, no home equity to borrow against in case of emergency).

However, you do have to pay to live somewhere - and I will eventually buy a modest home when prices return to sane levels, but put as much down as I can and pay it off as early as possible.

Debt is slavery - and the more I can avoid it, the better.

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Sometimes success can really be about luck and knowing the right people, especially today when networking is more vital than ever. This could be why older generations can't grasp the idea of not anyone can succeed, because they had it easier

The older generations "had it easier"? On what basis do you make that statement?

There has always been an element of luck and an element of "who you know".

The question society avoids (in order not to offend) is "are you really trying?"

[Diemen]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be quite justifiably offended at the implication that they're just not trying hard enough.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

The older generations "had it easier"? On what basis do you make that statement?

There has always been an element of luck and an element of "who you know".

The question society avoids (in order not to offend) is "are you really trying?"

what society really avoids with phrases like the one you've outlined above is feeling any responsibility at all for our family, friends, and neighbors. it's like we go out of our way to avoid acknowledging our common humanity. i'm reminded of the shouts to "let 'em die" during the 2012 GOP debates when given the hypothetical of a healthy 30-year old without insurance suddenly becomes catastrophically ill and needs 6 months of intensive care. pretending that private charity could somehow cover such bills, as Dr. Paul tried to do, would be laughable if not so tragic.

i wonder what it is that makes so many Americans dislike his/her fellow citizens? perhaps it's our suburban, car-oriented, economically stratified existence in the suburbs and exurbs where we are successfully able to avoid contact with those different from us -- it's how i grew up, certainly, so i understand the impulse when one is comfortable and clean and healthy and wasn't abused as a child or crippled with a disability to view those less fortunate than us as deserving of their status.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

The older generations "had it easier"? On what basis do you make that statement?

There has always been an element of luck and an element of "who you know".

The question society avoids (in order not to offend) is "are you really trying?"

I think that there are plenty of examples in the USA where the answer to your question is a clear "yes, many in the USA are really trying".
The question society avoids is "do you care that others (and not just direct family, friends neighbours, etc. but society in general) have the right to a decent wage with a regular day's work?"

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by anitram

People in the top 2-3% can buy homes everywhere. AEON chooses not to. But he can afford it, he just doesn't want to have the debt load.

Reading this I'm reminded of the Jurassic Park line: "you were so focused on whether you could that you didn't stop to think if you should."

I think this impulse drove an awful lot of the home speculation over the last decade, as people began flipping houses for profit, treating the American dream of home ownership as something to make a quick buck off of.

Living in Los Angeles, my wife and I and our three young children would love to buy a home. Based on our income, we can afford a fair amount of house -- the killer is the down payment. When you need 20% down on a home that is priced at $500-$600k, it's almost impossible. And when you factor in costs of repair, upkeep, maintenance, etc., all of which require permits, the value of owning a home drops very quickly.

[Irvine511]

you can do an FHA loan if you have good income and can deal with years of PMI. it's a government program designed to assist people just like you. it may not be for you, Memphis and i chose not to do it, but we know many people who have had great luck with it.

agreed that, unless you're a professional flipper who adds real value to a home, in most markets, homes are for living and a good long term investment, not so much as a money-making scheme.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Living in Los Angeles, my wife and I and our three young children would love to buy a home. Based on our income, we can afford a fair amount of house -- the killer is the down payment. When you need 20% down on a home that is priced at $500-$600k, it's almost impossible. And when you factor in costs of repair, upkeep, maintenance, etc., all of which require permits, the value of owning a home drops very quickly.

Now consider markets where a young couple just starting out is buying in the $1M range, and note I said houses, not mansions. That was our reality.

Yes, our parents' generation did have it easier. They were born during a time of prosperity, when they could afford to have kids and a nice house on one income, when their summer jobs paid for their university tuition and then they got stable jobs with fat pensions.

But we are apparently "not working hard enough." nbc must be really disconnected from the younger generation.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

The older generations "had it easier"? On what basis do you make that statement?

There has always been an element of luck and an element of "who you know".

The question society avoids (in order not to offend) is "are you really trying?"

Not as much as now. I mentioned here that when I got my Bachelors' in 2004, all I, and my friends, had to do to get our first real world jobs was by simply sending in our resumes to HR. These days, that is no longer the case. Granted, technology and social media has played a role in this.

I also find it totally unfair and harshly judgmental of you to suggest that anyone 30 years old and younger is not trying hard enough to get work. I can't help but notice a strong condescending attitude from you, and its not pleasant at all. Like antiram suggests, you really must be disconnected from younger generations to think like this.

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be quite justifiably offended at the implication that they're just not trying hard enough.

Exactly as I noted - but should we shy away from some difficult truth under the threat that such truth might be deemed offensive? Or, worse, digress into suggestions that you don't care, are disconnected or want people to die.

I think we mistakenly equate inequity of results with inequity of opportunity. There is far more that goes into the equation than simply opportunity.

The individual choices we make play an enormous role in the results we obtain, yet I get the feeling that some don't want many of those choices to have a negative impact on results.

Community plays a roll in this as well. How we make choices is partially directed by the advice of others and how we evaluate and implement that advice - which in turn helps us to advice others.

In many cases, results are mutually exclusive - such as professional advancement vs time with family. A person may avoid working nights and weekends in order to really can't complain that I don't make as much as the person who works nights and weekends if I spend that time with the family. And that result may be the optimal result for that individual. But can they complain that they don't make as much as the person who invests more time into their profession?

So, I guess my question may be better stated as "are you truly aligning your efforts with the results you wish to obtain?"

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

you can do an FHA loan if you have good income and can deal with years of PMI. it's a government program designed to assist people just like you. it may not be for you, Memphis and i chose not to do it, but we know many people who have had great luck with it.

FHA loans don't really work in markets where starter homes start at $500K. (We could live in Compton, but I don't think so.) An FHA loan with 3.5% down still puts you into a jumbo loan, with punitive rates of interest and PMI that puts a monthly payment out of reach for all but the already-rich. It's not for me or anyone else who doesn't have a significant down-payment.

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Not as much as now. I mentioned here that when I got my Bachelors' in 2004, all I, and my friends, had to do to get our first real world jobs was by simply sending in our resumes to HR. These days, that is no longer the case. Granted, technology and social media has played a role in this.

I also find it totally unfair and harshly judgmental of you to suggest that anyone 30 years old and younger is not trying hard enough to get work. I can't help but notice a strong condescending attitude from you, and its not pleasant at all. Like antiram suggests, you really must be disconnected from younger generations to think like this.

Perhaps you got lucking back in 2004. I've made job changes in the 90's and 00's and it was never as simple as sending a resume to HR.

It may also be considered unfair and judgmental to suggest as part of an "older generation" I've had it easier. My experience has been quite the opposite in finding employment which forces me to work harder at maintaining employment.

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by anitram

Now consider markets where a young couple just starting out is buying in the $1M range, and note I said houses, not mansions. That was our reality.

Yes, our parents' generation did have it easier. They were born during a time of prosperity, when they could afford to have kids and a nice house on one income, when their summer jobs paid for their university tuition and then they got stable jobs with fat pensions.

But we are apparently "not working hard enough." nbc must be really disconnected from the younger generation.

Is it reasonable for a young couple just starting out to buy a house in their preferred location - especially in the $1 Million range. That was never a possibility for me as a member of the "older generation". Buying a house meant living quite a distance from employment - a choice to make. As I mentioned before, we were only able to buy a home after saving for 13 years.

And who had these stable jobs with fat pensions?

By the way, if all these homes are worth $1 Million or more, are we not living in a time of prosperity?

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

Perhaps you got lucking back in 2004. I've made job changes in the 90's and 00's and it was never as simple as sending a resume to HR.

It may also be considered unfair and judgmental to suggest as part of an "older generation" I've had it easier. My experience has been quite the opposite in finding employment which forces me to work harder at maintaining employment.

That was your experience. Mine was different in 2004, as it was for many I graduated college with.

But times are a lot different now, as it has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread. For you to simply label younger people as not being willing to work hard or make sacrifices is condescending. I get the impression that you don't want to bother to understand how tough it is for millions. You have no idea the headaches and heartaches I've had since 2008, and your judgments are the last thing I, and plenty of others, need.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

FHA loans don't really work in markets where starter homes start at $500K. (We could live in Compton, but I don't think so.) An FHA loan with 3.5% down still puts you into a jumbo loan, with punitive rates of interest and PMI that puts a monthly payment out of reach for all but the already-rich. It's not for me or anyone else who doesn't have a significant down-payment.

I live in just such a market. There are no homes left in NW DC under $500k, and very little on the market. The PMI on the loan is high, but it does go away once you hit 20% equity, and is have to check the numbers we had run, but I don't think the interest rates were that much different from a conventional loan (under 4%).

Just something to keep in mind is all. I spent last year learning about real estate and the FHA seemed like a decent thing. But 3.5% of $600k or more is nothing to sneeze at.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

And who had these stable jobs with fat pensions?

My mother's father was an electrician at Radio City Music Hall for 50 years. My grandmother was a school teacher in Brooklyn. Neither had college degrees. They put my mother through college and lived comfortably off their pensions until they died.

So there's two people.