91–100 of 346 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be snarky or obvious, but you should do what the people in the past did - find a better place to live that allows you to buy a home more easily. That's one of the reasons why there was a big migration to places like LA. Lots of jobs and cheap land to build on. To me, SF is like NYC. Unless you got in early or are one of the 1%, it's not a great place to try and build a life in (if you're looking to own a home)…
The problem is that at the same time, the good jobs are being concentrated in a small number of cities. Even if someone is willing to move to a cheaper place, they find that relative to the employment available, it isn't much better. In the end, they realize that no matter what they choose, they need to struggle incredibly hard just to get a similar quality of life to what a baby boomer was able to achieve with a hig…
You could take the arbitrage further by increasing upfront and post move earnings and decreasing future expenses: - Save up "no thanks" money at the high cost of living place. Not "f* y" money, but a significant sum. - Ideally, find a remote job at the hight cost of living place. - Relocate to a low cost of living place with decent socialised medicine. This can lower provisions for future expenses _a lot_.
At least in the EU, there are nice and safe places with very low real estate prices, quite decent socialised medicine, very low taxes and easy cheap transportation links around the continent.
There would be no inherent problem with having the Fed hold this much debt, if the tax system then soaked up distortions in how the resulting stimulus was distributed into the economy. That is, if the tax system is structured to pull back currency from unproductive sinks before it yields inflation, then there's no problem with the Fed holding that debt. A better structure, as others have pointed out, would be to have…
OR ...you could let nature run its curse and have those debts refinanced at real interest rates that reflected the actual production in the economy, or defaulted and have those assets and resources liberated, thus correcting the distortions which were product of the FED and the government in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be snarky or obvious, but you should do what the people in the past did - find a better place to live that allows you to buy a home more easily. That's one of the reasons why there was a big migration to places like LA. Lots of jobs and cheap land to build on. To me, SF is like NYC. Unless you got in early or are one of the 1%, it's not a great place to try and build a life in (if you're looking to own a home)…
This is a side effect of urbanization. Economic opportunity is increasingly concentrated in cities and the increased demand inevitably increases the cost of housing. If that cost becomes too high relative to the income increase gained by living in, say, SF, people will certainly move elsewhere. But they'll still largely move to cities, and the cycle will just repeat there.
The demand driven forcing is miniscule compared to artificial scarcity due to zoning permits or bad infrastructure. (Typically slow transportation.)
I would be curious to see analysis for what home prices would be with 0 Fed intervention. Also, I don't understand how millennials aren't supposed to see this figure and immediately feel a sense of rejection, that the housing market is some form of a pyramid scheme, where you had to get in early to have a chance.
I would be curious to see analysis for what home prices would be with 0 Fed intervention. It is an interesting thought experiment. From what I've gathered, any intervention by the government to make housing more accessible, just gets priced in pretty quickly, removing the benefit. For example, FHA offering 5% down payments instead of a standard 20%, just means every first time buyer can now pay 15% more (approximatel…
If a large number of mortgages forclosed without the fed this would put a hell of a lot of downward pressure on prices. Economic carnage style. That hot market. It's getting pretty cold. Does that make houses more affordable for those frozen out? Or are they now unemployed with the zero intevention and/or unable to get a loan in that cold market making the benefit from the carnage nothing?
Whether it's the right thing to do for the overall economy and all in it, keeping house prices up is clearly something the boomers want so they can keep their very large gains from having got in early. Younger generations may look at this and see more than simple coincidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you print money, but only give it to the top 10% who use it to prop up the stock market, does that cause inflation? I don't understand how America can pump a couple trillion dollars into the economy and it doesn't seem to have any impact. If the average person is getting any of that it should cause inflation, shouldn't it?
There's no impact because people are sitting on cash rather than spending it. What the Fed accomplishes by handing out the $1 trillion is this: they kept all the _other_ money circulating. If people wanted to hoard $1 trillion because they're scared about the future, well, now they've hoarded it. They feel safe and they spend the rest of their money, and the economy keeps humming along. If instead they'd tried to hoa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The worst case scenario is the rest of the world dumping US treasuries, and causing interest rates to skyrocket and USD to plummet.
The rest of the world buys US treasuries cause we buy their goods. China buys treasuries because we buy goods with dollars. China has to do something with the dollars. They can buy goods or they can buy assets. They aren’t that interested in our goods, so they buy bonds. If they wanted to unload the dollars they certainly could, but that would weaken the dollar and strengthen the yuan and make it unattractive for the…
I just refinanced my 30-year fixed mortgage for 2.5%. The rate is utterly ridiculous now. If we get even a modicum of inflation over the next few years, I will be paying negative real interest rates.
Come to Canada. You can get 1.49%.
I would be curious to see analysis for what home prices would be with 0 Fed intervention. Also, I don't understand how millennials aren't supposed to see this figure and immediately feel a sense of rejection, that the housing market is some form of a pyramid scheme, where you had to get in early to have a chance.
> Also, I don't understand how millennials aren't supposed to see this figure and immediately feel a sense of rejection Millenial here. 100% agreed with this. Feels like a big blind spot in the boomer crowd. They don't seem to see the seething, roiling, overpowering resentment their entire generation is receiving from many, many people that currently don't have much power in society . A politician wants to win office…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be snarky or obvious, but you should do what the people in the past did - find a better place to live that allows you to buy a home more easily. That's one of the reasons why there was a big migration to places like LA. Lots of jobs and cheap land to build on. To me, SF is like NYC. Unless you got in early or are one of the 1%, it's not a great place to try and build a life in (if you're looking to own a home)…
We are having precisely the same convo in my family, in the Czech republic. My wife is from Prague. A gem of a city, but unaffordable. Too much speculative capital from Russia, China etc. Being a slave of a mortgage until 70 is a ghastly prospect. I am from Ostrava, a post-industrial city where property prices are about a third of Prague level. Incomes are lower, but not that much lower. For an accountant (my wife is…
It might be a good bet, especially if speculation in housing is slowing down compared to the last 20-30 years.