CA Declares War on Suburbia

[c1ue]

Re: I should be buying that home in CA coastal town, right?

Uh I linked you a definition as my answer.

Sorry, I don't see any link involving your or anyone else's definition of a bubble.

The only links you put up were Case Shiller overall state real estate indices.

No duh, that isn't in question. Quit trying to shift those goal posts some more and stay on topic.

Funny how anything that disagrees with your simplistic statements is a 'shifting of goal posts'.

I've asked what your definition of a bubble is, you point to a nonexistent link.

I then point out from 2 links you did put up, that the behavior of real estate in Texas is appreciably different than California.

If Texas prices are higher now than 5 years ago while California's is not, clearly there is at least the possibility that Texas did not have a bubble. Certainly the failure of Texas real estate prices to fall in any circumstance but the worst recession in 30 years in the United States indicates fundamental differences vs. California - which again points to your definition of a bubble (or lack thereof).

When the "countervening data" is a special ill defined definition of taxation rate? Hell yea I will, anyone would when your definition requires ignoring a tax that effects over half the population because somehow someway it may be "avoidable" irregardless of whether its actually being paid or not.

Your commentary is funny because you know full well that you don't pay the 'average' tax rate, nor do I.

As I've noted many times before, averages are not useful when variables involve voluntary choices. The average Utah resident may consume 1.3 gallons of alcohol per year, but I guarantee you that this doesn't mean all Utahns are alcohol drinkers.

Because of this fact, equally so the 13% by price(wine) or $0.36/gallon(beer) tax is not in any way equitably distributed throughout Utah taxpayers.

So, by your "majority" logic - where the majority of Utahns do not drink alcohol, where then does this significant Alcohol tax revenue come from? ($101 million in 2010)

Good data can only be trumped by better data, you haven't even tried to offer up an effective tax rate, per capita tax revenue, or anything else at all that compares states to other states based on "avoidencess" for instance. And all those numbers would have to come from you, not from a disinterested 3rd party much less multiple 3rd parties like I've been able to turn up.

Now the tax per capita revenue is the actual money being collected per person irregardless of nominal tax rate, differences in tax law, etc. and until you can present better data (good luck lol) you're going to get ignored here. Especially as long as your whole argument against that data boils down to, "no cuz

Again amusing. I provided specific data on how rental costs, as well as owned housing costs, and on top of that all other housing expenses, varied considerably between the top 2 Texas and California cities.

What data do you have that shows that housing maintenance costs worked out to be thousands of dollars less per year in CA vs TX in 1970?

What data do you present that shows the opposite?

I show data which clearly indicates Texas today has higher maintenance costs primarily due to fuel/public utilities usage, what possible rationale could exist for this being different in 1970?

Actually they don't but even if they were 2x higher in TX vs CA right now it wouldn't matter, the home prices in CA are still so much higher that the difference is more than made up for in the mortgage payment which was already given to you as an example and are studiously ignoring.

Once again you fail to recognize that the reason mortgage costs in California are higher are not just due to the recent bubble, but through 40 years of behavior.

This indicates a structural aspect to the housing costs in California.

A point which has no bearing at all in the discussion apparently.

That's funny, you argue that California's tax policies have had no impact on business here, yet a possible four decade long accelerated housing cost difference - possibly due to tax policy (i.e. Proposition 13), has no bearing on the discussion.

Keeping your data apples to apples is one of those minimum requirements of reasonable and honest discussions. If you can't do that there isn't any point in talking with you at all.

Using relevant data is equally a minimum requirement.

No, your whacking a strawman again, I said, "At the peak a huge chunk of CA's economy was RE related", what did you think "At the peak" meant in the context of that sentence? And the comparison on CA's economic growth over a decade so why are you focusing only on housing?

Once again, the question which you still failed to answer, is that real estate was a huge part of Arizona, Florida, and Nevada economies with the bubble in real estate in those states being as large or larger than California.

Why then were those economies were 'winners' in the last decade while California was a loser?

Thus on the face of it, the assertion that the bursting of the real estate bubble was the primary reason for California's economic under performance in the past decade is in direct contradiction to the behavior of similar real estate bubble states.

Your commentary about the Y2K bubble is somewhat more cogent, but then again I noted also that dotcom was primarily centered in the Bay Area - it had much less impact on the rest of the state, and had similar if lesser economic impact elsewhere.

For that matter, the positive impact of Facebook, Pandora, Google, Apple and other tech companies cannot be ignored if also including the negative impact of Webvan and Pets.com.

[mesyn191]

Re: I should be buying that home in CA coastal town, right?

Sorry, I don't see any link involving your or anyone else's definition of a bubble....I've asked what your definition of a bubble is, you point to a nonexistent link.

You've already quoted it once earlier in the thread but say you don't see it? Here it is again:

I'm using the standard one which everyone else uses except for you it seems.

I show data which clearly indicates Texas today has higher maintenance costs primarily due to fuel/public utilities usage, what possible rationale could exist for this being different in 1970?

Actually you didn't but that doesn't matter since we already know the maintenance/fuel/public utilities prices between CA and TX aren't going to be so large as to wipe out the difference between the home prices. Not even anywhere close, which was already demonstrated to you and are still blatantly ignoring. Here it is again in case you missed it:

The mortgage difference more than makes up for that too since you're looking at nearly a $2k per month less in mortgage bills for a $250k vs $750k loan. Even if utilities and upkeep worked out to be a ridiculous ~$900 more per month for the home in TX you'd still save nearly $12k/yr. Given the avg. wage in the US for individuals (~$42K/yr) as well as households (~$50k/yr) for most people that is a huge savings.

For that matter, the positive impact of Facebook, Pandora, Google, Apple and other tech companies cannot be ignored if also including the negative impact of Webvan and Pets.com.

Pretty much all the gains got wiped out in that burst c1ue, you know that, hell the NASDAQ still hasn't recovered in real terms. And it took CA years to get back the jobs it lost during that bust too:

Mean while the effect on TX was barely there oh and don't forget to notice that giant difference in the dip in employment numbers from the housing bubble bursting:

As I've noted many times before, averages are not useful when variables involve voluntary choices.

Yea you keep saying this but that doesn't matter at all, repeating something will not make it anymore true, and you still haven't tried explain why that matters at all when people have already paid the tax irregardless of whether you think it was avoidable or not OR to give any sort of effective tax rate or tax revenue numbers based on "avoidence-ness" either. Present some data, from a disinterested 3rd party of course, or don't bother replying since I'll be adding you to my ignore list as a troll.

Funny how anything that disagrees with your simplistic statements is a 'shifting of goal posts'.

You consistently either a)don't address what I say and then move to another topic, b)ignore good 3rd party data in favor of bizarre personal definitions, c)state something without giving any data to back up your statement and then refuse to even try and support what you're saying when you're called on it, d)strawman me, e)fail to read and/or misread the thread.

Here is a good exampe of c for instance:

What data do you present that shows the opposite?

You made the claim and the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, you have to back it up.

i see we've taken to berating each other over technical points of argument. sigh.

I don't like doing that either but he refuses to use the data at hand or present good data of his own, there isn't much else to be done when talking with someone who does that. Of course you can't really have a conversation with someone who is trolling you....

[flintlock]

Re: CA Declares War on Suburbia

Being "right" is all some people consider worthwhile I suppose. I've learned to read ahead and if I see the same two members posting multiple, long, point by point posts I move on to the next thread. You guys might consider using private mail to carry on your "debates" and spare Itulip the storage capacity. Once it goes past a few posts back and forth, the chance of anyone's mind being changed is slim.

[c1ue]

Re: CA Declares War on Suburbia

You've already quoted it once earlier in the thread but say you don't see it? Here it is again:

I had missed it, thank you for re-posting.

Now let's look at your standard definition:

The first one:

A situation in which prices for securities, especially stocks, rise far above their actual value. This trend continues until investors realize just how far prices have risen, usually, but not always, resulting in a sharp decline.

Doesn't seem to apply given we're talking real estate, not securities.

The second one:

A price level that is much higher than warranted by the fundamentals. Bubbles occur when prices continue to rise simply because enough investors believe investments bought at the current price can subsequently be sold at even higher prices. They can occur in virtually any commodity including stocks, real estate, and even tulips.

This one can at least apply to real estate, but doesn't actually have any descriptive characteristics to determine what is or is not a bubble.

The third one:

A period of rapid expansion and price increases, followed by a market slowdown and contraction.Many analysts claim a real estate bubble exists in some cities characterized by a price growth of more than 30 percent per year.Other analysts disagree.

Given that Texas did not experience a slowdown or contraction until the GFC occurred, and even then the slowdown/contraction is quiet small, I still don't see it as being obvious that there was a bubble in Texas.

The definition does apply quite clearly to California.

Actually you didn't but that doesn't matter since we already know the maintenance/fuel/public utilities prices between CA and TX aren't going to be so large as to wipe out the difference between the home prices. Not even anywhere close, which was already demonstrated to you and are still blatantly ignoring. Here it is again in case you missed it:

Actually I did. Clearly posted in #40 in this thread:

(From BLS consumer spending by region/city numbers, as there are no state level numbers)

City	LA	SF	Dallas	Houston
Housing.....................................	20,584	26,268	18,181	19,323
Shelter....................................	14,126	19,190	10,183	10,903
Owned dwellings...........................	7,433	11,194	6,336	7,499
Rented dwellings..........................	6,070	6,573	3,338	2,793
Other lodging.............................	623	1,423	508	612
Utilities, fuels, and public services......	3,049	3,207	4,346	4,539
Household operations.......................	1,325	1,498	1,204	1,494
Housekeeping supplies......................	597	611	704	618
Household furnishings and equipment........	1,487	1,762	1,744	1,770

You are equally ignoring what was said: that the price differences in 1970 (i.e. before the financialization of the US economy) could be ascribed at least in part to cost differences, but that since 1970 California house prices have consistently grown faster than Texas.

The reasons for this difference could be purely growth driven, could be purely policy driven, but in all likelihood is a combination of both.

I've never said that the house prices today are solely due to differences in maintenance, etc - there are all sorts of reasons why that would be a doubtful statement, including property tax policy differences (high property tax keeping Texas house prices down with Proposition 13 doing the opposite for CA).

Pretty much all the gains got wiped out in that burst c1ue, you know that, hell the NASDAQ still hasn't recovered in real terms. And it took CA years to get back the jobs it lost during that bust too:

I don't dispute there were significant job gains due to the dotcom bubble, but then again the decline wasn't very large. In fact the data you present shows that total employment never even declined back to the beginning of 2000 levels.

Thus while I can accept the dotcom bubble had some effect, it is difficult for me to see how it could have a large effect given what occurred with the real estate bubble: a one million plus employment spike followed by a return to Y2K employment levels.

Certainly it could be argued that some of the dotcom losses were offset by real estate bubble gains, but that would be saying that the real estate bubble (and more importantly real estate related jobs like construction) was already starting full bore in 2001 to 2003 - which is highly suspect.

Mean while the effect on TX was barely there oh and don't forget to notice that giant difference in the dip in employment numbers from the housing bubble bursting:

That's funny, because the Texas increase is a steady one unlike the spike in California from 2005 to 2006.

There is a dip post 2008/GFC, but even then the employment dip was in the 100K range - 10 times smaller than California's in magnitude, and 6 or 7 times smaller in relative magnitude.

Nor has Texas employment gone anywhere near 2000 levels as California's has.

So what was your point again? That there was a bubble in Texas as well as California?

The evidence from your employment data is hardly overwhelming.

Yea you keep saying this but that doesn't matter at all, repeating something will not make it anymore true, and you still haven't tried explain why that matters at all when people have already paid the tax irregardless of whether you think it was avoidable or not OR to give any sort of effective tax rate or tax revenue numbers based on "avoidence-ness" either. Present some data, from a disinterested 3rd party of course, or don't bother replying since I'll be adding you to my ignore list as a troll.

A tax which is only paid by those people who choose to pay it is not a structural burden on the overall population. I've shown precisely examples where 'averaging' is worthless, and equally so 'averaging' of real estate property taxes is not supportable.

If you can show that real estate property taxes are in some way inherently unavoidable, then this would be a valid counterpoint. Unfortunately the Texas rental cost numbers show that this is not true: Texas rentals costs are far less than California rental costs despite median property tax paid numbers being nearly the same.

You consistently either a)don't address what I say and then move to another topic, b)ignore good 3rd party data in favor of bizarre personal definitions, c)state something without giving any data to back up your statement and then refuse to even try and support what you're saying when you're called on it, d)strawman me, e)fail to read and/or misread the thread.

That's funny, I pointed out that there are inherent problems with the methodology of using averages to describe the economic impact of real estate property taxes because the tax is avoidable.

If the tax is avoidable, then a large number of people do avoid paying it. If large numbers of people are avoiding paying something, then clearly you cannot ascribe the economic impact of said tax equally to everyone, which is what an average does.

Rather than address any of this, you fall back on: this is what everyone does. Sorry, I don't accept that as an acceptable reason any more than I accept that Paul Krugman has a Nobel prize for economics, therefore should be listened to whenever he makes an economic pronouncement.

Here is a good exampe of c for instance:

You made the claim and the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, you have to back it up.

Given that I had presented data, and made a reasonable assumption, it is quite reasonable to expect in turn some data and/or reasonable assumptions if you choose to rebut said data+assumption.

To recap: I presented BLS data on consumer spending in the 2 largest cities each for California and Texas. This data was recent. The data showed clearly there were significant differences in housing maintenance costs (i.e. spending outside of mortgage service/rental) between the Texas and California cities. Given that the category where most of the difference arose from (utilities/fuels/public services) is likely consistent over time - it seems reasonable to say that this difference also existed in 1970.

You, on the other hand, say it ain't true. Because you say so. You don't question the data, you don't question the assumption, you merely dismiss with your disbelief.

And so I must provide 1970 data?

Where then is the burden of proof? On the one who has provided data and a reasonable observation, or on the one who merely declares a disbelief?

[reggie]

Re: CA Declares War on Suburbia

Being "right" is all some people consider worthwhile I suppose. I've learned to read ahead and if I see the same two members posting multiple, long, point by point posts I move on to the next thread. You guys might consider using private mail to carry on your "debates" and spare Itulip the storage capacity. Once it goes past a few posts back and forth, the chance of anyone's mind being changed is slim.

Hmmmm.... could this be a deliberate technique to obfuscate, or obliterate, a point?

Moreover, when a Member A's points are countered without substantiation by Member B, what is a poster to do? One option is for Member A to walk away from the thread, which seems to be what you are suggesting by your post. The other option, of course, is for Member A to meticulously demonstrate their argument, which of course takes detail, and thus longer point-by-point posts by Member A. It's unfortunate that other Members can't "hang" with the detail, because this creates a grey-area where Member B types can maintain traction.

[mesyn191]

Re: CA Declares War on Suburbia

Now let's look at your standard definition...Texas did not experience a slowdown or contraction until the GFC occurred, and even then the slowdown/contraction is quiet small

Wow so you feel you can ignore the 2nd given meaning when it clearly applies? I guess I should thank you for doing some obvious cherry picking, you easily discredit yourself for me. Also most of the country didn't start to show a slowdown until well after the credit burst had already occurred and I'd already said earlier that TX didn't bubble as much as CA either so you're "points" are mooted again.

Actually I did. Clearly posted in #40 in this thread:

No, that is city data, we're comparing states. We were doing that the whole thread until you decided to start shifting goal posts around and make the comparison apples to oranges. Which I'd already pointed out to you before hand and why.

the decline wasn't very large...total employment never even declined back to the beginning of 2000 levels...it is difficult for me to see how it could have a large effect given what occurred with the real estate bubble

Actually it was, it just looks like chump change compared to the housing bubble burst's effect on employment. You're also heeeavily downplaying just how bad it is by pointing out that employment numbers didn't go below 2000, the population grew in that state throughout the nearly 3yr employment numbers declined or stagnated. People went into most any job they could get while those "cushy" IT jobs evaporated and were replaced by much lower paying work, the economy was in shambles for years in CA until the housing bubble started to really get going.

So what was your point again? That there was a bubble in Texas as well as California? The evidence from your employment data is hardly overwhelming.

The employment data was to demonstrate the difference in impact the housing bubble had on the CA and TX states' economies, that there was a huge difference was something I'd brought up before. That there was a difference in the magnitude of each states' housing bubbles was also something I'd said before, meanwhile you were the one who'd said this: "Depends on what you call a bubble...From my view, a less than 10% change in Case Shiller from 2003 to peak, back down to present levels for Dallas is not a bubble."

A tax which is only paid by those people who choose to pay it is not a structural burden on the overall population. I've shown precisely examples where 'averaging' is worthless, and equally so 'averaging' of real estate property taxes is not supportable.

Choose has nothing to do with and would be mooted by actual collected revenue numbers anyways and you're "examples" are worthless hypotheticals just like your extra special personal definition of taxation. You also still have not given a tax rate or per capita revenue number or any number at all really based on this extra special personal definition for CA vs TX or any of the other states either. You're just making claims without backing them up at all.

you fall back on: this is what everyone does. Sorry, I don't accept that as an acceptable reason any more than I accept that Paul Krugman has a Nobel prize for economics, therefore should be listened to whenever he makes an economic pronouncement.

Using well sourced 3rd party data and commonly accepted definitions is pretty far from a "argument from authority" logical fallacy c1ue. And hand waving wildly while saying "consensus is baaad" isn't really an example of a honest position in a discussion either is it? Anyways off to the ignore list with you.

[c1ue]

Re: CA Declares War on Suburbia

Wow so you feel you can ignore the 2nd given meaning when it clearly applies?

The second definition has no numbers attached to it. Therefore using it as a litmus test is completely pointless.

This is exactly why I asked what your definition is - clearly your definition of bubble is the same as the famous Supreme Court justice's view on obscenity: I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it.

Unfortunately in economics this is not helpful.

No, that is city data, we're comparing states. We were doing that the whole thread until you decided to start shifting goal posts around and make the comparison apples to oranges. Which I'd already pointed out to you before hand and why.

It is amusing how you keep trying to say that I'm shifting goalposts, when in reality what I'm doing is providing alternate data. If the BLS' consumer spending survey was broken out by state, I would be using that. Unfortunately, they don't do so.

However, they do provide city data within their regional set. I've asked you previously to justify why this city data cannot serve as some form of proxy for the overall state, but rather than address this you continually try to paint this alternate information as being a 'change in goal posts'.

Actually it was, it just looks like chump change compared to the housing bubble burst's effect on employment.

Given that employment anywhere at the lowest point in the 2000 to 2010 era was higher than most of 2000 and pre-dotcom bubble burst 2001, I find it interesting that you say it was a big deal.

Sure, there were job losses, but if the job losses were only a portion of overall job gains, then you cannot say that the dotcom bubble in fact was a net negative for California's economy.

The same cannot be said for the housing bubble where employment was lower post bubble than pre bubble.

So once again you are asserting your own theories without basis in fact.

The employment data was to demonstrate the difference in impact the housing bubble had on the CA and TX states' economies, that there was a huge difference was something I'd brought up before. That there was a difference in the magnitude of each states' housing bubbles was also something I'd said before, meanwhile you were the one who'd said this: "Depends on what you call a bubble...From my view, a less than 10% change in Case Shiller from 2003 to peak, back down to present levels for Dallas is not a bubble."

The problem with the above statement is that you assume there was a bubble in Texas, even though the behavior of Texas real estate is significantly different than that of California in the period in question.

Which again goes back to the factual and numerical definition of what a bubble is.

Choose has nothing to do with and would be mooted by actual collected revenue numbers anyways and you're "examples" are worthless hypotheticals just like your extra special personal definition of taxation. You also still have not given a tax rate or per capita revenue number or any number at all really based on this extra special personal definition for CA vs TX or any of the other states either. You're just making claims without backing them up at all.

As you cannot seem to bring a factual criticism to my points, then clearly there is no point discussing this. You have a specific conclusion rooted in a specific belief, supported by specific sets of data.

Using well sourced 3rd party data and commonly accepted definitions is pretty far from a "argument from authority" logical fallacy c1ue. And hand waving wildly while saying "consensus is baaad" isn't really an example of a honest position in a discussion either is it? Anyways off to the ignore list with you.

Repeating over and over again that your view is based on belief in consensus does not in any way strengthen it. Consensus can arise for all sorts of reasons, only a few of which are that the consensus is correct.

Furthermore the consensus you speak of is based upon a profession widely reviled for its inability to both predict near future events and explain past/ongoing events adequately. Thus placing your faith in this set of charlatans is interesting but ultimately brings no credibility to your view.