The un-recession

The real estate bubble pop has been forecast for a while

You mean all those smart people on TV who said "The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out, The bottom's going to fall out,"

"HEY LOOK, WE WERE RIGHT!"

Yep. They were right. Greenspan tried to say something about it a few years ago and got shouted down.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/27/business/house.php

Can't derail the gravy train with biscuit wheels, now can we?

Here's the thing: it's worst in certain markets where things have just spiraled out of control, like California and Florida. My younger brother has done a lot of contracting work down in Florida and just recently he got a contract to put in some pools. The developer is so hungry to get rid of some real estate that he offered to trade a house for my brother building, IIRC, 8 pools at some other unsold houses in the subdivision. Me, I'm not so sure about that deal. If my brother builds the pools for $, how can he be guaranteed to receive payment if th houses don't sell? He'd have to mortgage the house involved to come up with the $ to build the pools also. If the other houses don't sell, the whole subdivision could become a massive problem with bank foreclosures on building loans etc.

Right now, not 3 miles from my house, a 13,000 home (no that's not a fatfinger) development has been put on hold. That's been the biggest effect seen down here. There are two smaller developments that have been abandoned, though.

ignorant wrote: Please look in the census data link under head of household 15 and up. In 2007 Dollars 1999 was about $68,114. In 2006 it was $68,459 in 2007 it was $67,601 all numbers mean Thats pretty telling. i gree it is not a recession.. thats why the thread is tittled unrecession.

Again you are looking at data from head of household 15 and up now. What happened to the 35-44 group that was first graphed? How many "head of households" at 15 pull down any real income? None. How many retired/ semi-retired baby boomers are sitting on their retirement holdings, with income less than the poverty level?

clownkiller wrote:

ignorant wrote: Please look in the census data link under head of household 15 and up. In 2007 Dollars 1999 was about $68,114. In 2006 it was $68,459 in 2007 it was $67,601 all numbers mean Thats pretty telling. i gree it is not a recession.. thats why the thread is tittled unrecession.

Again you are looking at data from head of household 15 and up now. What happened to the 35-44 group that was first graphed? How many "head of households" at 15 pull down any real income? None. How many retired/ semi-retired baby boomers are sitting on their retirement holdings, with income less than the poverty level?

I do not understand what you are driving at? Are you saying head of household data is irrelevant? It seems like you are very off base.

age 15 and up data encompasses all age groups..

are you saying that this dosen't cover the whole income of a household? If you are I don't believe that arugument is relevant as I've framed it around heads of households..

no, he's saying its not the whole picture.

it shows 62.5% which is the majority..

You quote mean income, then show a head of household 35-44 graph, then try to back that up with 15+ data head of household. Your data is all over the place, as you framed it. I think whole household income is more relivant. You need to look at the whole picture. There are more higher educated secondary income earners in households than ever before. <---data....nice edit

clownkiller wrote: You need to look at the whole picture. There are more higher educated secondary income earners in households than ever before. <---data....nice edit

note that all data comes from the census page and dataset. my data is not all over the place. All age groups show the same stagnation. The trend is alittle more drastic in some more than others.. but the above 15 age group encompasses all. data all over the place.. please...

i have presented data in a calm and reasoned manner. That explains the majority of wages in the 15 and up age category have stagnated. Instead of conjecture, show me data that shows otherwise(In 2007 dollars or any other inflation adjusted method)

edited for grammar

now to be nice I looked at BLS wage data over the years, to be sure wages overall are increasing, however I could not find inflation adjusted or pegged data which would allow comparisons.

The only reason the BLS wages would increase would be because minimum wage increased.

Most people only make more money now because of overtime or extra jobs.

It is nice to look at the graph and say a family of 4 is making 56K/yr but when you find out that they are doing it between 2 full time and 2 part time jobs and their kids are being watched by strangers all day long then you start to realize that our national economic structure is crap and that we really need to fix the way we are working.

I think it is bullE36 M3 that anyone should have to work 70 hour weeks for $36,000/yr. yes it works out to 9.89/ hour but the guy is getting paid $7.50 per because the employer can and will pull the no overtime card whenever he wants.

John Brown wrote: We are not in a recession. Mrs McCain wore a $360,000 outfit to the RNC and that should prove that our economy is just fine.

Just to revisit this subject...

The Republican Economic Stimulus package is bringing in loads of cash for retailers...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/alltherage/2008/10/palins-economic.html

I have to agree with this topic. I know we're in a downturn. Sure, the banks and traders are all in a tizzy. But I have to say I haven't seen much effect down in the trenches...yet.

I'm not saying it won't happen but I see opportunities out there. Hell, my bro is an airline pilot. A notoriously ailing industry. Even before gas went through the roof and everyone stopped spending money. He was laid off a couple of mo's ago. Then, he got a new job. The airline he's flying for put in an order for 15 planes. Slowdown?

Are we really that bad off?

Btw - this isn't meant to be insensitive to guys who've been laid off or lost their jobs. I did in August. I'm back at work now. Anyone who's out there looking....any hiring going on? just curious...

Where I've seen the most impact, cause it hasn't been in housing prices around here, has been in the put off purchases. Nearly everyone I know that says with all they've read they've put off doing this or doing that. Without the media hype most of what you see wouldn't be an issue at all.

If it's true that the average income on this board is $60- $70K, then this is certainly not representative of "the trenches".

Where I live the average income is $26,000. Half the people I know have lost their jobs, the other half are scared sh*tless.

We have 14 months or housing inventory sitting still, foreclosures and bankruptcies at an all time high, homelessness skyrocketing, lines that go on forever at the unemployment office, and 1 full tank of gas (in a place where the average family vehicle is a pickup truck) can cost HALF a man's weekly check.

There is very definitely a major impact from this downturn. But the impact on rural areas is significantly bigger.

You may not see this if you don't live in rural America, or have a job or an income that represents rural lifestyle.

SVreX wrote: 1 full tank of gas (in a place where the average family vehicle is a pickup truck) can cost HALF a man's weekly check. There is very definitely a major impact from this downturn. But the impact on rural areas is significantly bigger.

yup.. Sad is those at the plant I work at who are from way out (Walterboro and beyond to charleston) have started to quit jobs here because of the price of gas. While the jobs here pay better with better benefits, they were taking home less than a closer to home lower paying job, because of the driving. Fairly common

SVreX wrote: You may not see this if you don't live in rural America, or have a job or an income that represents rural lifestyle.

That's the info I was looking for. I live in Richmond, Va so the rural pov is not one I see often.

From the "Oh my berkeleying got I wish i could make this E36 M3 up" file:

Amy Strozzi, who works on the reality show "So You Think You Can Dance" and has been Palin's traveling stylist, was paid $22,800, according to campaign finance reports for the first two weeks in October. In contrast, McCain's foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, was paid $12,500, the report showed.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iU_P23eyGmxqE8EEa7ba6r86BpIwD9410JV80

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/election2008/shopwithpalin/index.html

funny funny... now you too can shop with sarah.

I had a way to long post , but i deleted it, bottom line, i dont care what the economists say, nor the politicians, were all screwed as long as we allow the finance(credit), insurance and mortgage companies to continue to rape us... indiscriminate buying and selling of mortgages (with little or no legal obligations to the homeowners) , super inflated credit card rates (even on people who pay their bills on time!) , high insurance rates (on people with no prior claims) etc, ect.. enact limited regulation on those three entities, and the economy will be back on track in no time flat, instead we give them "bailout" money, so they can continue to screw people, and do what they've been doing... remember the definition of insantiy? to do the same thing, over and over and expect different results??? were berkeleyed...and i know darn well ive been in a recession for going on four years now, I cant imagine I'm alone in this, not by a long shot...

924guy all you're showing us is how little touch with reality you really have. You need to spend quite a while on a "How Things Work" site.

A "PERSON" doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result IS insanity, A large group of people doing it is called a "GOVERNMENT".

carguy123 wrote: 924guy all you're showing us is how little touch with reality you really have. You need to spend quite a while on a "How Things Work" site.

ahh, i see , thanks for that, great to know we have objective readers who value others opinions even if they dont agree... I dont know about anyone else, but the thought has occurred to me that "how things work" is the root cause of our severely berkeleyed up economy at this point in history.... i'll just leave it at that, arguing on a forum isnt something i think is a good idea...

carguy123 wrote: 924guy all you're showing us is how little touch with reality you really have. You need to spend quite a while on a "How Things Work" site.

Can you explain this comment a little, other than just taking a pot shot at 924guy?