Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Home Values Slashed in Half? The Housing Bubble Is About to Burst

By Dean Baker, TruthOut.org. Posted June 30, 2007.


A somber tour of the housing market.
housenewporch
house

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Dean Baker

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The latest data on housing sales showed that the inventory of unsold homes climbed to 4.4 million in May, yet another record. The current inventory would be more than a full year of housing sales in the mid-nineties, before the housing bubble began to take off. There is also a record inventory of new homes for sale. Economists usually expect that excess supply leads to a drop in prices, and in this case, there is a considerable excess supply of houses.

In fact, house prices by many measures are already falling. The National Association of Realtors reports that the median price of an existing home is down by 2.1 percent from its year-ago level. Prices have fallen by much more in some local markets. For example, an index constructed by Yale economist Robert Shiller shows that house prices are down by 4.9 percent in the Boston area and by 6 percent in San Diego. Adjusting for inflation, Shiller's measure implies that the real price of an average house in San Diego is down by almost 10 percent from its year-ago level. That's real money in a city where middle-income families might have purchased a $700,000 house in 2006.

Even these numbers understate the true decline in house prices. At the peak of the boom, houses were sold without conditions. No successful buyer got a home inspection, and then forced sellers to make repairs before closing. It has also become a standard practice in at least some markets for sellers to make kickbacks to buyers at closing - effectively allowing the buyer to pull out cash by inflating the sale price. These kickbacks, which can be 2 to 3 percent of the sale price, are not picked up in any of housing price indices which rely on the contracted price.

Unfortunately for homeowners, several factors indicate that the situation is likely to get worse in the near future. The vacancy rate for ownership units is 50 percent higher than it had ever been prior to the last two years. A seller holding a vacant unit - one which collects no rent - is likely to be a very motivated seller.

Similarly, foreclosure rates are soaring. Foreclosure rates had been very low in 2004 and 2005. In a period of rapidly rising house prices, very few borrowers had no equity in their homes. If they found they could not meet their monthly mortgage payments, they could borrow against their newly accumulated equity or simply sell their home and cash out excess equity. Homeowners in a market with declining prices have no equity cushion.

While the run-up in foreclosures was originally concentrated in depressed markets like Ohio and Michigan, it has now spread to some of the formerly hot markets like San Diego and Miami. Prices have dropped enough in these areas that many recent buyers are now letting the banks take possession of their homes. Of course, few things will bring down house prices more quickly than a spate of foreclosure auctions.

In addition, interest rates have risen sharply in the last two months and are likely to rise further in the months ahead. The rate on 10-year Treasury Bonds has risen from 4.6 percent earlier in the year to more than 5.1 percent in recent weeks. Many economists have recently come to remember that this is still an unusually low interest rate, and that the 10-year Treasury rate could quite possibly rise to more than 6 percent in the near future. This would lead to a corresponding rise in mortgage interest rates, pushing a standard 30-year mortgage well above 7.0 percent.

Add in the fact that job growth is considerably slower than its pace in 2005 and early 2006, and that real wages are again declining, and there seems little reason for optimism about the housing market.

House prices will not collapse to nothing like the most ridiculous of the Internet stocks, but homes in the most-inflated markets could lose 30 to 50 percent (in real terms) from their bubble peaks. Some people bought homes in these markets expecting to make great returns on their investments. Perhaps these people deserve their fate.

However, many homeowners followed the advice given to them by Realtors, politicians and financial advisors, and were simply pursuing the American Dream of homeownership. When the wreckage from the real estate bubble becomes clearer, these "experts" will have much to answer for.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: debt, housing bubble

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. TomPaine contributor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Discarded advice...
Posted by: Blade on Jun 30, 2007 2:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the "old days" a realtor would tell you that a home is not a financial investment, except in the very long term sense. One once asked me if I ever got a return on the investment I had in toilet there in the bathroom. Nope. But, would I do without it? Nope.
But somewhere in the early 80's, this changed.

I saw a "bubble" happen in the housing market in the North Shore area of Chicago in the mid to late 1980's. Mostly younger couples buying older nice homes in the Winnetka, Wilmette, Skokie, Evanston, Highland Park, etc., areas. Many of these buyers had renovated lesser places in Chicago, and were buying up.

Many borrowed on the instant equity they had, and did massive additions and renovations. Toward the end of the bubble many got caught with their pants down, and no way out.

I've been predicting for years the same would happen nationally, and now it's here.

Too bad the greedy got caught again. I'm glad, because all the money being made off these huge real estate deals, and the greedy bastards couldn't share any of it with us dirty workers.

Burn, you greedy Mutha f--ks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There should be no, zero sympathy for anyone who treats a home as a short-term
Posted by: Bobsays on Jun 30, 2007 4:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Investment. I hate real estate flippers and buy-to-let merchants. Why> Because this odious scum use this as a way out of getting engaged in political issues and asking harder questions about dwindling pensions and other macro-economic problems. Instead, they see real estate as their little ticket out, their sneaky way to keep away from the issues that vex the plebs.

I have seen a few crashes now, and this one reaks of a crash. But I feel no sympathy. How can I, when many of the jobs created in renovating these homes went to illegal migrants. It was a boom that didn't help me or make me any wealthier.

As the other poster says: burn mother burn!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exit strategy is planned Posted by: ateo
The "value" of your house went up???
Posted by: henderson on Jun 30, 2007 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think so.....I think the "value" of the dollar went DOWN. Seems to me it's all inflation - aptly called a "bubble", and definitely going to burst in time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

blaming individuals?
Posted by: off-the-radar 2 on Jun 30, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do some commenters blame the individual?

Its an odd phenonemom but areas with housing bubbles also have very low rental vacancy rates and what there is to rent is very expensive. Ironically, there are many vacant condos---2nd, 3rd or 4th homes for wealthy non-citizens.

So many citizens, worried about rental availabiilty and prices, save every penny to get in to the market and then apply sweat equity. Or they end up commuting hours and hours.

Anybody read Barbara E's article also posted today?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Looks true for the SF Bay Area
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jun 30, 2007 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looks true for the SF Bay Area...

I got my house in 1999 for 345k which was the cheapest house in the best condition we could find.

I know that sounds like a fortune to folks from elsewhere in the country but for here, it was the least amount we could spend for a house and not a condo.

In 2005, we could have sold for 850k in one day.

Now, today, if I got lucky, I could sell for 725k and it would take 6 months and tons of repairs.

Houses are sitting unsold in my neighborhood now for months where before the sell time was under 30 days.

I was just back east (Maine, Vermont) where I saw houses for 300k that were gorgeous but they were in places with few jobs and the only high paying jobs were doctors, lawyers, etc... Most folks worked in the service industry making 9.00 per hour.

It struck me that a 700k house in San Francisco is a better deal than a 300k house in rural Maine because of access to employment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did matter and anti-matter just collide? When did falling home prices become...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jun 30, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...a "sky is falling" scenario?

My wife and I are working hard while we rent and skimping to have enough to put down a 20% down payment (avoiding the PMI near-scam) and keeping 10% in cash reserves for the first year for all the stuff that goes wrong with a target price of $150,000. We'll exceed that goal in about two more years, after we both finish our graduate degrees, while keeping up our retirment planning. While buying a starter home for our starter family may be one of our "dreams", we do our level best not to approach the issue from an emotional standpoint.

On the other hand, I think I understand the folks who are in a panic right now. I imagine it's the same kind of panic one encounters when one swims too far from shore.

If you purchased a home to live in, on average falling home prices aren't going to hurt. The primary value of a home is it's rental value, even if you're "renting" to yourself. It's a roof, it's toilet, it's running water...it is never necessarily a good investment. If you fancied yourself a junior Warren Buffet and you bought the place you live in as a speculative investment, then you were aware that speculative investments NEVER guarantee returns. I'm sure the junior Buffets real-estate tycoons planned accordingly by balancing out their oil field, railroad holdings, and steel companies.

This real estate market is not fundamentally different from any other. Cautious, thoughtful buyers will--on average--score deals, often at the expense of folks looking to "pull some free money, dude!" out of their kitchen counter. To that end, the farther down home prices fall, the better for people who are looking to buy homes.

There's the argument about buying while homes are at "historically low" interest rates. That argument flew out the window about six years ago, when it was obvious that price loading on the front-end would wipe out any benefit to a few points (or, possibly, by the time it's all said and done) a handful or two. Then, there's the counter argument--that raising the interest rate to counter inflation can keep people out of the housing market--thus raising demand, thus lowering prices...thus favoring the people that think about money, structures, and property with their brains, and not their "guts".

If you want to know why you should chuckle 99% of the time when alarmists mention the word "housing bubble" in conjunction with "pop" or "burst", and a very good analysis of the housing market overall, but especially with regard in hot markets, point your browser to Christopher Thornberg's (of UCLA's Business Mgmt school) video on google vid's.

Thornberg's video.

He offers an overall outlook on the U.S. market, my favorite quote being "When you lower taxes and increase government spending, that's not a tax cut [You economically ignorant Bush disciples]. That's a tax deferment [fools]." Second favorite: YOU DON'T DAY TRADE YOUR HOME! [IDIOT]

He focuses some attention on the CA housing market, which has gone from an importing, tech, and energy economy (if I remember correctly) to a construction, finance, and retail economy, meaning that CA went from a diverse economy to an economy based on building, financing, and furnishing new homes.

It's a very approachable presentation even if you're just casually interested in economics and market forces, and if you take the time to watch it, you'll know what the technical definition of the poorly-named bubble is, why bubbles don't necessarily have to "pop", and why most non-alarmists are guessing this one won't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Francis
Posted by: Francis on Jun 30, 2007 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The price of anything is nothing more nor less than what two people, a buyer and a seller, agree upon. A glass of water in the desert is worth more than one in your kitchen. When it comes to real estate, a third party in the form of an army of real estate salespeople enter the equation. Their job is to influence the "consensus", some would say, "create" the consensus as to what a property is worth. After all, what is the standard measuring device for determining the pricing of a property but area "comps", meaning comparatively priced properties of comparitive value in the area. And who is it that influenced the prices of the comps? Why the very same people who are now trying to influence the pricing of the home you are trying to buy or sell. The net effect is the natural inflation of home prices (the larger the base price, the larger the salesman's commission), limited only by what the market will bear. Fair enough, except that Greenspan and company made money so cheap, and his banker bosses greedily opened their arms to un-credit worthy buyers with such ferocity, that a crash was all but inevitable. The banker bosses were inspired to make bad loans because it didn't cost them anything. This, thanks to the creation of REITs or Real Estate Investment Trusts. Securities companies create and market these "derivative" securities whose value is "derived" from the underlying value of the useless promissory notes (securities)sold them by bankers who lent money to the makers of the notes knowing they would not be able to pay them off. But the REIT slimeballs, in bed with the banker slimeballs, packaged the flimsy paper in the form of these derivatives and sold shares of the new derivative securities to unwitting suckers . So the holders of REIT paper get screwed because it's value is based upon the underlying promissory notes of un-credit worthy home buyers, the buyer of the house gets screwed because he defaults upon his loan as the banker knew he would, and thus loses his house, the banks get rich, risk-free, Alan Greenspan is venerated as an economic genius, the banker"s hero, Wall Street gets rich selling junk derivatives. God is smiling (or is he laughing?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You city people are just WEIRD.
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jun 30, 2007 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all you buy a bit of land.
Then you build a small home.
Then you plant a garden.
Then you get some chickens and a goat.
You add on to your little house a little at a time- only as needed.

You don't buy new cars, fancy clothes, or eat out.

You refuse to work at a 'job' more than 8 hours a day- five days a week-and less would be even better.
You work on developing real skills..gardening, carpentry, cooking, alternative energy, reading and writing.
You don't just focus on one thing-your 'career'---you focus on becoming a better person-to help create a better world.

You don't try to make a profit on your home. It is your HOME.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You city people are just WEIRD. Posted by: SekhmetsatRa
Everything Evens Out
Posted by: dockboy on Jun 30, 2007 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure, you may not sell your home for as much as you did a few years back, but you will buy another home at a discounted price. People love to worry and believe the sky is falling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Downsize Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Downsize Posted by: Sushi
The down spiral of credit and home owning, Part #1
Posted by: Falang on Jun 30, 2007 11:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will share with you the story of me and a guy I work with.

We have the same income doing the same job, the only difference is that I have 6 weeks of paid vacation and he has only 4 weeks paid vacation because he is working for the company shorter then me.
This guy had fall on the sale pitch of the realtor and other good people around him and his wife that renting a apartment like he was doing was like throwing money out to a open door and by buying a house he will stop throwing money out and build a capital for him and is wife for the future.
So they went to buy a house in the big city where his wife is working and where there is a real estate bubble. Take note here that he is not working in this city but in a smaller one 1 hour and a half travel time.
They found a home to buy that was not to expensive in that real-estate bubble, a nice duplex with a car port and a small pool. They went to the bank to borrow money to buy the house but without a big cash ($5000) the first two banks refuse to give them credit but the third one open their arms to them. This bank give them the loan for the house + money for repair and improvement and to buy new furniture.
So the deal was done and when they move to the house they sell all their old furniture and buy new none for the new house including new appliances without paying a cent of cash for them because all the money they have maid by selling the old furniture went to pay the taxes, all the fees for the transfer and to pay for the moving.

Now the guy and his wife are proud owner of their first house but is that so?

Now 5 years later the situation is that a bankruptcy is looming on the horizon. They need two cars to went by, one for him to travel here to work and one for her to go to work and since they live in the pretty little suburb you need a car just to go buy a pint of milk. Since they still not had cash they lease two car without any down payment.
For him the travel time was a nightmare because it’s a 1 hour and a half travel time but in the traffic jam in the morning and evening it’s more like 2 hours and a half to 3 hours travel time and with the price of gas going up he decided to rent a room here to cut the travel time and cost of gas.
In the last 5 years financially speaking they already borrow on the little financially they had to pay the credit card, they still have 4 credit card max out and the real nightmare is starting right now.
They can’t do nothing only working and stay in their house because they don’t have money, they stay home for all their vacation and this year without a pool because they can afford the cost of it and they to stay out of restaurant, cinema and everything you can think of.
Here at work the company is paying for courses so we can stay up to date on our highly technical job but most of the courses are in USA so we go there paying all our expense and the company reimburse all the expense when you come back. To do that you need a credit card or cash but the don’t have any because his credit card are max out so for the first two courses the guy manage to borrow some money from his family, money that he was not able to give back so for the next courses that are coming I don’t know how he will do.
Now the credit card company and utility company started to call him at work to be paid and he have to juggle between paying the credit card or paying the utility. With the housing bubble the value of his went up but so with the taxes he don’t have money to pay and he have to renegotiate his home loan because he is coming at the end of the five years contract and he is facing a 2.5% increase that he can’t absorb.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That is correct...comma... Posted by: ABetterFuture
The Republican way to buy a house
Posted by: mizipi on Jun 30, 2007 1:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my adult lifetime, I have lived under four Republican presidents, Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush (Gerald Ford doesn't count, he fell into the office by default). Compare the federal budget and deficits of those under the Democratic presidents Carter and Clinton. The Republicans just run-up more debt and keep on chuggin'. So, if it is good for the country, it must be better for the individual. So, if you can't pay your mortgage, just go to the bank, borrow more money (be sure to stash some cash), borrow more money, repeat until..........maybe we're too worried about which 'home' it is that is losing its value........

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why People are Leaving California/High Cost Areas
Posted by: sofla100 on Jun 30, 2007 8:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
California now has started an advertising campaign to get people to return to the state. Today, it is only illegal immigration that keeps the state from going down in population. All over the country, people are moving into areas they have not lived in much before. The Carolinas, the Middle South, Idaho, Montana, and much of the Midwest. This movement is driven by trying to escape the high costs especially in the densely populated coastal regions. Of course, one of the biggest factors is the price of housing. We all know the "bubble burst," but still prices remain way too high in the coastal regions. I think another 1-2 years of a downfall will help even some of this out. And, that ultimately will stem migration out from the coasts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Real Danger of this Whole Trend for the US Economy is that Homes are also Collateral for Loans.
Posted by: yellow on Jul 1, 2007 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These home equity loans keep the US economy going in the absence of real economic growth and domestic income generation. According to some sources, US private consumer debt is nearing $12 trillion. This is dangerous. A collapse of the housing market could make it difficult or impossible for these loans to be repaid having drastic repercussions for the financial system. The average consumer debt service ratio is at an unprecedented 13% and rising according to the Federal Reserve. It is very clear that US consumer debt is driving the US economy. It is very unstable. A collapse of the US housing bubble can end it all. This is why reforms are needed now in order to stabilize the US economy and restore the middle class and former levels of social equality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Warning sign...warning sign....
Posted by: mdovell on Jul 1, 2007 6:11 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
old talking heads song...anyway

Some of this is coming home as a house near me lowered from $480K to 460K 4.16% of a loss....

The trouble I see is frankly and this is going to be a big punch in the gut...the housing market has been artifically inflated by the way how property taxes are made out. In other words the government(s) have set the prices of housing....

Impossible you say? Not really

In the state of Mass we have a law called proposition 2 1/2. Basically to prevent property taxes from going up this law was put into place to put a cap on how much it can be raised....BUT if they override it via a public vote it can be raised. Well here's the kicker...in order to prevent cuts to services what happens is localities simply raise the assessments of homes to raise more money. This would be the same if the federal government taxes you more by considering more of what you have as income.

Overrides fail about 90-95% of the time...each time the housing gets jacked up. So a house that was 240K in 1994 is then 275 in 1997, is 330 in 1999, is 370 in 2001 is 395 in 2003, is 430 in 2005 and is 480K in 2007. These are all realistic numbers that are in line with the homes near me.

Then you add in some of the other events that can make things break. In Mass and Maine universal health coverage laws are getting activated. In Mass everyone must be covered however there's exemptions for employers of less than 11 workers. Smaller businesses ultimatly will go under or cut staff in order to make ends meet. It's already been reported in one local paper of additional costs of $50K for next year for a resturant chain. This is going to trickle down to either a loss of profit or raising of prices. As we all know larger businesses can afford larger losses so this hurts smaller businesses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: that made no sense Posted by: EasterBunny
» RE: that made no sense Posted by: mdovell
We used to call it stagflation...
Posted by: justaguy on Jul 1, 2007 11:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....when I went to economics lectures. That is, when credit growth exceeds growth in production for 2 successive quarters. Credit growth has exceeded GDP growth now for 30 odd quarters in most western economies by a margin of 3 or more to 1.

The media pundits don't seem to use the word now. I wonder why.

I've always played the real estate game in a few countries and still do. I just always seem to be doing the opposite of everyone else. When people were buying, I'd be selling and vice versa.

Never been broke, always made money in the long haul and never ever had to struggle to pay the debt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The housing market "bubble" will not burst spectacularly, due to... (Pt I)
Posted by: Trazom on Jul 2, 2007 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
several influencing concurrent phenomena, first of which is the rise in the cost of living including basic necessities such as food, oil, and gas.

Thanks in part to the ethanol era that we have just ushered unto ourselves, we can look forward to all kinds of food products getting more expensive as the cost of raising dairy and beef cattle escaclate, not to mention the cost of corn itself which is used in just about everything (corn syrup). The cost of oil will fluctuate with civil unrest in Nigeria, Venezuela, and the Middle East, but for the most part it will be on the up-and-up. These two huge economic forces will pinch the pocketbooks of current homeowners making it increasingly difficult to pay their mortgages, and the ones with ARMs are at the greatest disadvantage, especially as interest rates rise which also seems to be a foreseeable trend. Those in the suburbs end exurban areas will suffer first, as it becomes unbearable to make that hour commute to work and back home again, or simply to drive 5 miles to the grocery mart to get a gallon of milk. However, this rise in the cost of living will be a gradual one, taking several years to achive melt-down status.

The second influencing factor is jobs. I did not read any mention of this in all the posts responding to this article, but the availability of good-paying jobs is a huge driving force. As was mentioned previously, depreciation in a home really only affects the people who got in to the real estate market late in the game, as they soon will face a negative equity situation, making any kind of refinancing to pull out additional equity impossible. Those who already own homes are protected because even if they have to sell and buy again they are still operating on a level-playing field (the cost of their new home will be lower, barring any geographic peculiarities). And of course those who are looking to commit long term to their present homes are safe, so long as they have 30 year fixed mortgages and steady income. But is this necessarily true? The one thing that could change all this is the job situtation. For example, Mr. Jones has a 30 year fixed mortgage on a home, with 7 years equity built up, so he did not buy during the bubble. He can safely pay his bills though he has to stretch a bit because his raises have not been that gracious lately. But what happens when his job is suddenly outsourced? Chances are he has $0 savings, and maybe some minimal credit card debt, but his prognosis is dire and if there are no other jobs in his area, he must move. Now he may not lose the equity he built up since he bought 7 years ago, but his situation adds another house to the already burgeoning over supply of stock in the real estate market, helping to further drive down overall prices. Outsourcing is just one of the reasons for job loss, but it too is a trend on the rise. Right now official unemployment is still quite low, but this statistic is somewhat misleading in that it doesn't count the number of people gainfully employed in positions that they are way over-qualified for (someone with IT degree flipping burgers). I suspect there may be a lot of this going on (historically speaking) but I don't think any one knows for sure. Short of government regulation look for outsourcing to continue to drain the US economy of viable jobs in the near future, at anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 jobs per year (it won't happen all at once or else The People might notice and demand action!)

(continued in Pt II)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tracking housing inventory
Posted by: hardtack on Jul 2, 2007 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My coworkers and I wanted a way to track the increasing supply of SFH's, condos, etc, so we built a web application that does it for us. Check out Hardtack to see the application. Yes, this is a shameless plug, but no, we are not making any money from this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

take care of yourself and build for yourself
Posted by: mont on Jul 3, 2007 6:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Years ago I moved from the city to the country and was scared sh***less about how I would survive. 40 years later I have an owner built home of adobe bricks and managed quit well to find ways to make a living without killing myself and lots and lots of time to tend gardens and chickens and keep blood pressure very low and now in old age pity those who can only think of reality in terms of money and whose house is nothing more than a piggy bank. He who lives by credit shall surely die form credit. I have no debt and have no illness and I have lived a natural life and what is that worth?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just live in it, don't bank on it
Posted by: lonpine on Jul 5, 2007 9:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just think of your house as a longterm investment that you can live in. Tho' your house may lose in value on paper, its value to you as your home is still as high as ever. And, you get the tax credit.

Put it this way: if you have the money to buy a house, you might think of other uses for that money. Say you have $20K save up. Say you wanted to buy a share of Warren Buffet's Berkshire "A" stock- going for about $110K. If you get a loan to buy that stock, is the interest on that loan tax deductible? If that share price tumbles, is it still valuable to you? If you borrow against it, is the interest rate on the loan tax deductible? For stock, the answer is the same: no. For real estate, it's yes.

The problem is that we have developed a culture where it's okay to think of your equity as income (uh, sorta like mining fossil fuels instead of using renewable energy). So people buy these homes, take out home equity loans to keep up with the Joneses, and no wonder they're going bankrupt. And no wonder people are afraid of the bubble. Just lock in a decent 30 yr fixed interest loan and forget about it. The payment stays the same, your income hopefully will increase, and in time, the market will continue to stay ahead of inflation at the least.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Post on SHTFDaily
Posted by: el33tpenguin on Jul 7, 2007 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article was posted on SHTFDaily.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem here is the rate of inflation
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jul 7, 2007 3:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It ain't 2 percent. It's more like 6 percent. (See SHADOW GOVERNMENT STATISTICS) The numbers produced by the BLS is just a bunch of BLS.

So what does this mean? Morgage, bond, loan, etc. interest rates are actually below the rate of inflation. This makes monetary policy way, way too loose, and as history has demonstrated time and time again, loose money policies always lead to a bust.

If you just bought an expensive house, get used to the idea of the future: you will be living in your car eating dog food.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Value vs. worth
Posted by: Sushi on Jul 12, 2007 3:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If price and worth mean the same thing, why are priceless and worthless opposites?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]