02.01.2007 - Thursday Open Thread
This is your open thread for Thursday, February 1, 2007. Please post random links and off-topic discussions here.
Off-topic comment? Interesting link?
Head over to the forums, or click here for open threads.
Head over to the forums, or click here for open threads.
8 comments:
From the 'Times: Fewer can afford to buy a house in King County, report says
Median incomes
2003: $59,200
2004: $60,400
2005: $60,700
Median K.County Home prices
2003: $265,000
2004: $289,950
2005: $332,000
Yeah... so much for 'strong job growth' saving the bubble...
Where's the difference made up? Well purchasing power seems to still be strong, retails still humming along around the Puget Sound.
The difference? Exotic financing, pure and simple, dicey loans, cash-out refi's, HELOC'd to the hilt.
I still haven't a clue why the 'jobs' arguement still has legs, some one please clue me in?
This might not be what you are looking for, but here is why we keep hearing about 'jobs.'
The Lamestream Media know that it is the only argument that sounds good, and the sheeple won't bother to ask any hard questions.
How anyone can not notice how the cash-out refi money is floating the economy, and how real estate IS the economy, is beyond me.
My guess it has to do with what someone wants to see, rather than what they see.
Just another unsustainable, bubblistic way of life that will end in tears, recriminations and a big lesson that doesn't get learned.
btw, I wonder just what it will take for the US to quit referring to itself as the smartest nation on earth?
Could you think of a scenerio where a strong job market would be bad for the housing market?
I'm not looking at the touchy-feely Fox News-esque talking points reasons here, I'm looking at the quantitative affect and rational.
Consumer A is purchasing Product B. This is the basic UNIT of transaction. If Product B changes value then inorder to insure the basic UNIT is maintained, Consumer A must change with it. Ergo, if Product B spikes in price, Consumer A must change to accomodate that change. If the basic UNIT is maintained year over year (continued strong sales), than Consumer A is modifying themselves to insure the transaction... enter creative/exotic/suicidal financing.
And this, kaleentan, is unsustainable. Something's got to give.
Front page of section B in todays PI:
Housing takes a bigger bite out of people's budgets
Cohen with back to back days! I'm a fan!
Could you think of a scenerio where a strong job market would be bad for the housing market?
How about a paper factory moving into a vacation resort area?
If you had the opportunity to buy something brand new today at an 22-27% discount from very recent comparables (depending on which comps you pick). Would that be good enough?
Assuming you could make the payments with no problem, and it would be built to your specs.
disgruntled,
Your example assumes that no other negative economic fallout occurs with a 30% reduction.
I would submit that if RE moved backwards by any significant amount, the economic fallout would accelerate and deepen the pain. Depending on your priorities, buying at 30% could be catching a falling knife.
"Could you think of a scenerio where a strong job market would be bad for the housing market?"
Logic never dies: it only gets tortured.
Proving that a strong job market implies a strong housing market (which you can't do with an appeal to ignorance, BTW) does not prove that this housing market is caused by a strong job market. AKA: "Affirming the Consequent". Logical fallacies 101.
Post a Comment