TandemBear said:

---

How does California have a housing shortage?

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage

Well, I guess if your goal for 'housing' is actually an "investment vehicle," then perhaps they're right.

If your goal is to provide private equity and foreign investors a really, really good ROI, then we have a shortage.

But do you REALLY think a million new homes would help?

What new homes would be built? Expensive homes, not $150k "starters" for young adults and college grads. These are simply impossible.

Easy to blame it on "shortage" and "government," but conveniently forget how wages haven't kept up at all.

Plus, where are all the folks with gobs of cash, but not a single home to buy or rent?

I don't see them.

"The result of these policies was that from 1970 to 2016, California's population growth (relative to the US average) slowed to a third of what it was during the previous three decades (70 percent faster than the national pace by 2016), while appreciation of median home prices (relative to the US average) more than quadrupled to 80 percent greater than the national rate.[url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage#cite_note-CityLab_Romem-12][12][/url]: 1 [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage#cite_note-LAO_C&C-1][1][/url]: 3 "

Let's think about this statement. How much building space was available in San Francisco after 1970, compared to between 1940 and 1969? I'm guessing the difference was pretty big.

Now make this comparison in San Jose. Well duh, San Jose was a hick town in 1940! Endless room to build, build and build. But at the same time, it wasn't the "destination" and economic engine that it is today, compared to surrounding locales. SF held that position. But it wasn't so segregated between inner bay area and "everywhere else."

I guess I'm kind of making the point for them. Sure, if we just kept building at the previous pace, we'd have turned everything between Morgan Hill and King City "Silicon Valley." But can you imagine the gridlock? How would the central Bay Area deal with 5-10 more million people surrounding it? We'd need TEN Bay Bridges!

I don't know. I guess I'm just very wary of the "endless development" model that's touted as the "cure-all" for our issues. Now if we had all workers earning really good wages, with rights, unions, benefits, retirement & full health care, and we still had homeless camps, then MAYBE I'd buy the "housing shortage" argument. "I got $500k in the bank, but there isn't a SINGLE house out there for me to buy!" Then I'd say there's an obvious housing shortage.

TandemBear said:

---

How would 1M new homes in California make any difference for the bottom tier of wage earners? I don't think it would make a difference at all.

---

This is pretty simple supply-and-demand economics, isn't it? You increase the supply to match the demand and thus reduce prices. The prices come down at the top end and at the low end, so on that low end it helps the bottom tier.

Yes, even if the built houses are high end units. People with money decide to buy those, freeing up other stock for lower income people. I'm not necessarily against other laws to prevent foreign or corporate interests from owning a bunch of these, but you still need more housing regardless.

But it isn't "simple supply and demand." This platitude is trotted out all the time. Folks like Nick Hanauer have rebutted this "basic Econ 101" argument many times. It's over-simplification of a far more complex system at play.

But even so, if we're SO concerned about supply and demand, why allow foreign interests to gobble up our housing stock with all cash purchases while young American families go without? We've set up our market to attract the highest bidders at the expense of the people actually needing the homes. You know, the workers who want to LIVE where they work. The teachers who want to live where they teach.

The "free market" is as much to blame as is the restrictions on building IMO.

TandemBear said:

---

Let's think about this statement. How much building space was available in San Francisco after 1970, compared to between 1940 and 1969? I'm guessing the difference was pretty big.

---

Is there a reason only one corner of the city should have tall buildings with multiple floors? There are large swaths of it where you could easily build UP if not OUT, but local laws and NIMBYism prevent it. If there's traffic? Build more transit. Lots of cities do it.

New York City makes it work. Everywhere in Japan makes it work. Paris has about the same square footage as SF but more than twice as many people. There is room if you allow it to be built.

TandemBear said:

---

But it isn't "simple supply and demand." This platitude is trotted out all the time. Folks like Nick Hanauer have rebutted this "basic Econ 101" argument many times. It's over-simplification of a far more complex system at play.

But even so, if we're SO concerned about supply and demand, why allow foreign interests to gobble up our housing stock with all cash purchases while young American families go without? We've set up our market to attract the highest bidders at the expense of the people actually needing the homes. You know, the workers who want to LIVE where they work. The teachers who want to live where they teach.

The "free market" is as much to blame as is the restrictions on building IMO.

---

Dude, I already said that restrictions on foreign/corporate interests buying housing stock are fine too. I just think it's not enough. You still need more housing to get built in order to control costs.

This is a good, succinct message of the current age of #memefascism. It's why I no longer engage with the fascists. It's a waste of time for you and a sad, pathetic, purpose for them.

https://bsky.app/profile/bildoperationen.bsky.social/post/3ln5gwhirn22g

Quote:

---

Unlike classic fascism, #MemeFascism doesn't even try to produce a coherent narrative. Like Bukele with his torture camps, it can simultaneously celebrate and deny the crimes it commits. Its followers do not want to be seduced, they want to be entertained. And they are entertained by our outrage1/

---

socaltownie said:

---

I thought that we were sorta past this whole "oh so last decade" arguments about savings gluts since 1) it doesn't seem like we have as much cash on balance sheets as we did 20 years ago and 2) There are reasons to believe we WANT savings (and asset appreciation) as the OECD has a huge demographic problem to deal with as society ages.

Do you have something recent you like on this? Definitely interested in reading more and seeing new stuff on this topic.

---

1) It looks to me like we have more cash floating around than last decade. Here is a table showing U.S. corporate cash which is basically doubled from last decade. Just about any chart from FRED shows increases. The 2nd chart is cash at commercial banks.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QFRTCASHINFUSNO
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CASACBW027SBOG

And this doesn't really address my main point of wealth held by private individuals which leads to your 2nd point.
2) Savings and high value assets held by private actors who can't be taxed appropriately are not going to help the OECD deal with their demographic problems.

Third, I'd just point to the 10 year interest rate. It is basically the same as when Ben Bernanke first brought up the savings glut about 20 years ago even though our debt to gdp is double what is was then.

I think the more likely scenario here is that, we used to discuss intelligent things like the savings glut. But since Trump arrived on the scene all our energy has been focused on stupid things like conquering Greenland and whoever catturd wants to bash that day.

You Old Sailer You said:

---

President Donald J. Trump & Vince Vaughn in the Oval Office 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/mav8cMqirJ

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) April 18, 2025

---

Is this supposed to provoke a reaction? I can't figure out why people are supposed to care one way or the other about Trump meeting with Vince Vaughan.

You Old Sailor You said:

---

Saw a bunch of anti-Trump protesters today and felt exactly the same thing here. I can't respect people who were asleep a year ago and now have decided that they're upset about bad things the U.S. government does just because Trump is now the one doing them.

---

How do you know what the anti-Trump protestors believed a year ago?

You Old Sailor You said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

You Old Sailor You said:

---

Saw a bunch of anti-Trump protesters today and felt exactly the same thing here. I can't respect people who were asleep a year ago and now have decided that they're upset about bad things the U.S. government does just because Trump is now the one doing them.

---

How do you know what the anti-Trump protestors believed a year ago?

---

Knowing how the people in the Trump resistance acted a year ago is the easiest thing in the world because you all march in lockstep with each other. The only protesting that was happening last year was against the Gaza genocide and none of it was happening around here.

I was actually thinking I should go the Larry David route and keep a hat on hand when I'm near those folks just to send their blood pressure spiraling.

---

I see, you KNOW none of the anti-Trump protestors could have been swayed by recent events. I suspect the vast majority of the anti-Trump protestors were angered about things other than Gaza.

Hi Eastern, there are numerous threads for you to engage with fascist Cal88. I am trying to preserve this 1 thread for discussions that don't get flooded with the **** they spew. I hope you will participate by not responding to the fascists in this thread.

dajo9 said:

---

Hi Eastern, there are numerous threads for you to engage with fascist Cal88. I am trying to preserve this 1 thread for discussions that don't get flooded with the **** they spew. I hope you will participate by not responding to the fascists in this thread.

---

Perhaps you might need another long vacation as you can't even tell that I haven't posted on this thread in a while.

This being said, the irony of you petulantly behaving as the self-appointed fuhrer of this thread and calling other people "fascist" is kind of amusing.

TandemBear said:

---

Your CalMatters article starts with this:
"California has a housing shortage, so the idea of a big, faceless corporation keeping thousands of homes empty for months is pretty frustrating. But a new proposal in California is aimed at changing that by allowing cities and counties to impose vacancy fines."

How does California have a housing shortage? They've reached this conclusion without any evidence! This is where I think they fail. They've simply taken this statement as fact without even thinking about it. How would 1M new homes in California make any difference for the bottom tier of wage earners? I don't think it would make a difference at all.

---

Which metro do you live. I can show you that the ratio to jobs in every coastal merto in California in 2000 is now significantly worse. You can do the math but I will (but not for all as it takes a bit of time).

TandemBear said:

---

Well, I guess if your goal for 'housing' is actually an "investment vehicle," then perhaps they're right.

If your goal is to provide private equity and foreign investors a really, really good ROI, then we have a shortage.

But do you REALLY think a million new homes would help?

What new homes would be built? Expensive homes, not $150k "starters" for young adults and college grads. These are simply impossible.

Easy to blame it on "shortage" and "government," but conveniently forget how wages haven't kept up at all.

Plus, where are all the folks with gobs of cash, but not a single home to buy or rent?

I don't see them.

"The result of these policies was that from 1970 to 2016, California's population growth (relative to the US average) slowed to a third of what it was during the previous three decades (70 percent faster than the national pace by 2016), while appreciation of median home prices (relative to the US average) more than quadrupled to 80 percent greater than the national rate.[url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage#cite_note-CityLab_Romem-12][12][/url]: 1 [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage#cite_note-LAO_C&C-1][1][/url]: 3 "

Let's think about this statement. How much building space was available in San Francisco after 1970, compared to between 1940 and 1969? I'm guessing the difference was pretty big.

Now make this comparison in San Jose. Well duh, San Jose was a hick town in 1940! Endless room to build, build and build. But at the same time, it wasn't the "destination" and economic engine that it is today, compared to surrounding locales. SF held that position. But it wasn't so segregated between inner bay area and "everywhere else."

I guess I'm kind of making the point for them. Sure, if we just kept building at the previous pace, we'd have turned everything between Morgan Hill and King City "Silicon Valley." But can you imagine the gridlock? How would the central Bay Area deal with 5-10 more million people surrounding it? We'd need TEN Bay Bridges!

I don't know. I guess I'm just very wary of the "endless development" model that's touted as the "cure-all" for our issues. Now if we had all workers earning really good wages, with rights, unions, benefits, retirement & full health care, and we still had homeless camps, then MAYBE I'd buy the "housing shortage" argument. "I got $500k in the bank, but there isn't a SINGLE house out there for me to buy!" Then I'd say there's an obvious housing shortage.

---

Yes. A million new homes would be transformative in helping this state provided they were in the major coastal metros with reasonably strong job growth (SF, San Mateo, Alameda, LA, OC, San Diego).

This is the major problem. We have exiled a HUGE number of Californians to soul crushing (and planet warming) commutes because of coastal elites (yard sign liberals in Klein, Limo Liberal in SCT) refusal to allow poor people to live in their communities. They can go live in RioVista. Honestly that "let them eat cake" attitude is worse than MAGA.

And again, "vacant" housing constitutes only 8% of stock. When you back oiut things that would not be on the market (second homes, renovations, vacant while being advertised for rent) you get down to about 2.5%. I gave you the link. It would be great to get this onto the market but it isn't the main issue.

Corporate ownership - it isn't at all clear that the costs in price of more consolidation outweighs the inefficiencies of mom and pop landlords. I am open to being shown wrong but I haven't seen a lot of good empirical economics (as opposed to far left anti-corporatist no data screaming) that actually shows this relationship.

Edit - One of your arguments about needing 10 bay bridges just drives me CRAZY. It assumes that workers just get beamed up to the USS Enterprise every night. No. They are STILL here - they just don't LIVE in your MSA but rather drive in from places like Modesto starting at 3 a.m. They are ON your bridges....you just don't see their houses as they go home at night. So you get a lot of the ills (traffic, GHG, etc) and lose a bunch of the benefits (tax dollars since those paychecks are spent close to their domicile. What you GET is that the peasants don't LIKE getting up at 3 a.,m. so there is upward pressure on your housing prices as you sit in a 2.2 million dollar tract home.

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I thought that we were sorta past this whole "oh so last decade" arguments about savings gluts since 1) it doesn't seem like we have as much cash on balance sheets as we did 20 years ago and 2) There are reasons to believe we WANT savings (and asset appreciation) as the OECD has a huge demographic problem to deal with as society ages.

Do you have something recent you like on this? Definitely interested in reading more and seeing new stuff on this topic.

---

1) It looks to me like we have more cash floating around than last decade. Here is a table showing U.S. corporate cash which is basically doubled from last decade. Just about any chart from FRED shows increases. The 2nd chart is cash at commercial banks.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QFRTCASHINFUSNO
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CASACBW027SBOG

And this doesn't really address my main point of wealth held by private individuals which leads to your 2nd point.
2) Savings and high value assets held by private actors who can't be taxed appropriately are not going to help the OECD deal with their demographic problems.

Third, I'd just point to the 10 year interest rate. It is basically the same as when Ben Bernanke first brought up the savings glut about 20 years ago even though our debt to gdp is double what is was then.

I think the more likely scenario here is that, we used to discuss intelligent things like the savings glut. But since Trump arrived on the scene all our energy has been focused on stupid things like conquering Greenland and whoever catturd wants to bash that day.

---

The FRED data if you zoom out to max shows that corporate balance sheet cash sorta muddles along until 2020 and then we get this huge spike. Housing prices have been going through the roof prior to that (as well as equity market gains) so I am not sure that this is driving things as much as you think it is.

2) Of course private savings does. We WANT the babyboomers to be sitting on wads of savings or are you excited (I assume you are <50. If not, welcome to the fun years) to pay for their old age. The demographic waves pushing through the system makes it inevitable we would see a ton of savings (which is just deferred consumption)

dajo9 said:

---

This is a good, succinct message of the current age of #memefascism. It's why I no longer engage with the fascists. It's a waste of time for you and a sad, pathetic, purpose for them.

https://bsky.app/profile/bildoperationen.bsky.social/post/3ln5gwhirn22g

Quote:

---

Unlike classic fascism, #MemeFascism doesn't even try to produce a coherent narrative. Like Bukele with his torture camps, it can simultaneously celebrate and deny the crimes it commits. Its followers do not want to be seduced, they want to be entertained. And they are entertained by our outrage1/

---

---

Great little piece in Politico yesterday helping draw the comparison between Trump and professional wrestling. It doesn't HAVE to make sense - just that it is drama and a narrative that starkly paints the world as a battle between right and wrong.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/04/19/donald-trump-pro-wrestling-wwe-00298303

I would LOVE to see a regression on trump support and "Have you watched a professional wrestling broadcast in the last 6 months?) I am totally guessing that this is, by far, the strongest predictive variable of all the ones that people have ever looked at.

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I thought that we were sorta past this whole "oh so last decade" arguments about savings gluts since 1) it doesn't seem like we have as much cash on balance sheets as we did 20 years ago and 2) There are reasons to believe we WANT savings (and asset appreciation) as the OECD has a huge demographic problem to deal with as society ages.

Do you have something recent you like on this? Definitely interested in reading more and seeing new stuff on this topic.

---

1) It looks to me like we have more cash floating around than last decade. Here is a table showing U.S. corporate cash which is basically doubled from last decade. Just about any chart from FRED shows increases. The 2nd chart is cash at commercial banks.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QFRTCASHINFUSNO
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CASACBW027SBOG

And this doesn't really address my main point of wealth held by private individuals which leads to your 2nd point.
2) Savings and high value assets held by private actors who can't be taxed appropriately are not going to help the OECD deal with their demographic problems.

Third, I'd just point to the 10 year interest rate. It is basically the same as when Ben Bernanke first brought up the savings glut about 20 years ago even though our debt to gdp is double what is was then.

I think the more likely scenario here is that, we used to discuss intelligent things like the savings glut. But since Trump arrived on the scene all our energy has been focused on stupid things like conquering Greenland and whoever catturd wants to bash that day.

---

The FRED data if you zoom out to max shows that corporate balance sheet cash sorta muddles along until 2020 and then we get this huge spike. Housing prices have been going through the roof prior to that (as well as equity market gains) so I am not sure that this is driving things as much as you think it is.

2) Of course private savings does. We WANT the babyboomers to be sitting on wads of savings or are you excited (I assume you are <50. If not, welcome to the fun years) to pay for their old age. The demographic waves pushing through the system makes it inevitable we would see a ton of savings (which is just deferred consumption)

---

The data shows corporate cash almost doubled from 2010 to 2020 and is on track to double again this decade.

Housing prices before 2020 were very much subject to regional price variations. I own property in NJ and CA and my NJ property was appreciating at or below inflation until 2020. Since then it has skyrocketed. Conversely, NJ has much better cap rates (income generation).

Private equity is expected to own 40% of single family rental units by 2030. Not only does this additional demand increase prices, big investors are also known to use real estate software that drives up rents, which mom and pop landlords don't use.

I think we have both looked at the data now and see that the savings glut is still a thing. Asset valuations continue to be above historical norms across asset classes. Places the wealthy covet are more affected in real estate (i.e. CA is more agfected than NJ).

Baby boomer savings is very unequally spread. Social security and Medicare need to be strengthened using tax dollars from the high end - not cut

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I thought that we were sorta past this whole "oh so last decade" arguments about savings gluts since 1) it doesn't seem like we have as much cash on balance sheets as we did 20 years ago and 2) There are reasons to believe we WANT savings (and asset appreciation) as the OECD has a huge demographic problem to deal with as society ages.

Do you have something recent you like on this? Definitely interested in reading more and seeing new stuff on this topic.

---

1) It looks to me like we have more cash floating around than last decade. Here is a table showing U.S. corporate cash which is basically doubled from last decade. Just about any chart from FRED shows increases. The 2nd chart is cash at commercial banks.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QFRTCASHINFUSNO
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CASACBW027SBOG

And this doesn't really address my main point of wealth held by private individuals which leads to your 2nd point.
2) Savings and high value assets held by private actors who can't be taxed appropriately are not going to help the OECD deal with their demographic problems.

Third, I'd just point to the 10 year interest rate. It is basically the same as when Ben Bernanke first brought up the savings glut about 20 years ago even though our debt to gdp is double what is was then.

I think the more likely scenario here is that, we used to discuss intelligent things like the savings glut. But since Trump arrived on the scene all our energy has been focused on stupid things like conquering Greenland and whoever catturd wants to bash that day.

---

The FRED data if you zoom out to max shows that corporate balance sheet cash sorta muddles along until 2020 and then we get this huge spike. Housing prices have been going through the roof prior to that (as well as equity market gains) so I am not sure that this is driving things as much as you think it is.

2) Of course private savings does. We WANT the babyboomers to be sitting on wads of savings or are you excited (I assume you are <50. If not, welcome to the fun years) to pay for their old age. The demographic waves pushing through the system makes it inevitable we would see a ton of savings (which is just deferred consumption)

---

The data shows corporate cash almost doubled from 2010 to 2020 and is on track to double again this decade.

Housing prices before 2020 were very much subject to regional price variations. I own property in NJ and CA and my NJ property was appreciating at or below inflation until 2020. Since then it has skyrocketed. Conversely, NJ has much better cap rates (income generation).

Private equity is expected to own 40% of single family rental units by 2030. Not only does this additional demand increase prices, big investors are also known to use real estate software that drives up rents, which mom and pop landlords don't use.

I think we have both looked at the data now and see that the savings glut is still a thing. Asset valuations continue to be above historical norms across asset classes. Places the wealthy covet are more affected in real estate (i.e. CA is more agfected than NJ).

Baby boomer savings is very unequally spread. Social security and Medicare need to be strengthened using tax dollars from the high end - not cut

---

But how much did the economy expand (and inflate) in those years. Your argument so I would suggest making sure the FRED data is in real dollars and then adjust for compounding GDP growth. It is a nice little hour long exercise. Enjoy.

"Private equity is expected to own 40% of single family rental units by 2030. Not only does this additional demand increase prices, big investors are also known to use real estate software that drives up rents, which mom and pop landlords don't use."

I am willing to be convinced but again, go forth and find us a good econometric argument that compares these markets. I am not sure I believe that the consolidation in rentals is doing what you think it does - since mom and pop landlords lack a ton of efficiencies. Rental management DOES have economies of scale and I believe in that as well as believing in collusion and oligopolies. Where econometrics helps is determining which variables are pointing in which direction and how much they impact Y.

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

This is a good, succinct message of the current age of #memefascism. It's why I no longer engage with the fascists. It's a waste of time for you and a sad, pathetic, purpose for them.

https://bsky.app/profile/bildoperationen.bsky.social/post/3ln5gwhirn22g

Quote:

---

Unlike classic fascism, #MemeFascism doesn't even try to produce a coherent narrative. Like Bukele with his torture camps, it can simultaneously celebrate and deny the crimes it commits. Its followers do not want to be seduced, they want to be entertained. And they are entertained by our outrage1/

---

---

Great little piece in Politico yesterday helping draw the comparison between Trump and professional wrestling. It doesn't HAVE to make sense - just that it is drama and a narrative that starkly paints the world as a battle between right and wrong.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/04/19/donald-trump-pro-wrestling-wwe-00298303

I would LOVE to see a regression on trump support and "Have you watched a professional wrestling broadcast in the last 6 months?) I am totally guessing that this is, by far, the strongest predictive variable of all the ones that people have ever looked at.

---

WWE is a good metaphor. And when you engage with the magats in good faith you are basically running around in a ring in your underwear.

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

This is a good, succinct message of the current age of #memefascism. It's why I no longer engage with the fascists. It's a waste of time for you and a sad, pathetic, purpose for them.

https://bsky.app/profile/bildoperationen.bsky.social/post/3ln5gwhirn22g

Quote:

---

Unlike classic fascism, #MemeFascism doesn't even try to produce a coherent narrative. Like Bukele with his torture camps, it can simultaneously celebrate and deny the crimes it commits. Its followers do not want to be seduced, they want to be entertained. And they are entertained by our outrage1/

---

---

Great little piece in Politico yesterday helping draw the comparison between Trump and professional wrestling. It doesn't HAVE to make sense - just that it is drama and a narrative that starkly paints the world as a battle between right and wrong.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/04/19/donald-trump-pro-wrestling-wwe-00298303

I would LOVE to see a regression on trump support and "Have you watched a professional wrestling broadcast in the last 6 months?) I am totally guessing that this is, by far, the strongest predictive variable of all the ones that people have ever looked at.

---

WWE is a good metaphor. And when you engage with the magats in good faith you are basically running around in a ring in your underwear.

---

The piece if you read it dives into how Trump's use of media and narrative is a lot like how the WWE does the same. It really helps explain some of MAGA (and also why it is hard to engage - that they are IN on that some of this is performative....they just are not sure (nor want to be) what is and isn't. It is part of the show.

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I thought that we were sorta past this whole "oh so last decade" arguments about savings gluts since 1) it doesn't seem like we have as much cash on balance sheets as we did 20 years ago and 2) There are reasons to believe we WANT savings (and asset appreciation) as the OECD has a huge demographic problem to deal with as society ages.

Do you have something recent you like on this? Definitely interested in reading more and seeing new stuff on this topic.

---

1) It looks to me like we have more cash floating around than last decade. Here is a table showing U.S. corporate cash which is basically doubled from last decade. Just about any chart from FRED shows increases. The 2nd chart is cash at commercial banks.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QFRTCASHINFUSNO
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CASACBW027SBOG

And this doesn't really address my main point of wealth held by private individuals which leads to your 2nd point.
2) Savings and high value assets held by private actors who can't be taxed appropriately are not going to help the OECD deal with their demographic problems.

Third, I'd just point to the 10 year interest rate. It is basically the same as when Ben Bernanke first brought up the savings glut about 20 years ago even though our debt to gdp is double what is was then.

I think the more likely scenario here is that, we used to discuss intelligent things like the savings glut. But since Trump arrived on the scene all our energy has been focused on stupid things like conquering Greenland and whoever catturd wants to bash that day.

---

The FRED data if you zoom out to max shows that corporate balance sheet cash sorta muddles along until 2020 and then we get this huge spike. Housing prices have been going through the roof prior to that (as well as equity market gains) so I am not sure that this is driving things as much as you think it is.

2) Of course private savings does. We WANT the babyboomers to be sitting on wads of savings or are you excited (I assume you are <50. If not, welcome to the fun years) to pay for their old age. The demographic waves pushing through the system makes it inevitable we would see a ton of savings (which is just deferred consumption)

---

The data shows corporate cash almost doubled from 2010 to 2020 and is on track to double again this decade.

Housing prices before 2020 were very much subject to regional price variations. I own property in NJ and CA and my NJ property was appreciating at or below inflation until 2020. Since then it has skyrocketed. Conversely, NJ has much better cap rates (income generation).

Private equity is expected to own 40% of single family rental units by 2030. Not only does this additional demand increase prices, big investors are also known to use real estate software that drives up rents, which mom and pop landlords don't use.

I think we have both looked at the data now and see that the savings glut is still a thing. Asset valuations continue to be above historical norms across asset classes. Places the wealthy covet are more affected in real estate (i.e. CA is more agfected than NJ).

Baby boomer savings is very unequally spread. Social security and Medicare need to be strengthened using tax dollars from the high end - not cut

---

But how much did the economy expand (and inflate) in those years. Your argument so I would suggest making sure the FRED data is in real dollars and then adjust for compounding GDP growth. It is a nice little hour long exercise. Enjoy.

"Private equity is expected to own 40% of single family rental units by 2030. Not only does this additional demand increase prices, big investors are also known to use real estate software that drives up rents, which mom and pop landlords don't use."

I am willing to be convinced but again, go forth and find us a good econometric argument that compares these markets. I am not sure I believe that the consolidation in rentals is doing what you think it does - since mom and pop landlords lack a ton of efficiencies. Rental management DOES have economies of scale and I believe in that as well as believing in collusion and oligopolies. Where econometrics helps is determining which variables are pointing in which direction and how much they impact Y.

---

On a separate topic I'd like to read literature about efficiencies between corporate landlords and mom and pops. From an economic standpoint I'm sure corporates are more efficient but from a renter viewpoint I bet it's highly variable. Some landlords are good and some are bad at maintenence for both groups. My mother was a terribly inefficient landlord in that she hated to raise rent.

In the 21st century, the anti-fascists are the fascists.

dajo9 said:

---

Hi Eastern, there are numerous threads for you to engage with fascist Cal88. I am trying to preserve this 1 thread for discussions that don't get flooded with the **** they spew. I hope you will participate by not responding to the fascists in this thread.

---

I wasn't paying attention to which thread I was posting to. I'll try keep better track of that in the future. While I occasionally agree with him, usually I don't and in all the posts back and forth between us, I doubt that either one of us has changed the opinion of the other.

It appears that defeating Musk has been easier than i thought it would be. DOGE has been an unmitigated disaster in terms of it's stated goal of reducing costs and increasing efficiency. It's had success in it's real goal of data theft and dismantling government so it can be privatized for billionaire profits.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/musk-wants-leave-politics-because-141635381.html

Great reporting from ProPublica about the massive corruption stemming from DOGE and the efforts from Trump allies to be able to skim off the tip of government charge cards through fees.

It wont stop there. They'll want a taste of all social security, medicare, etc transfers. This swamp corruption is what DOGE was always about. So many sucker's in America.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-peter-thiel-ramp-gsa-smartpay-expense-payment-system

We are in quite the cycle right now:
A) Trump does something stupid - market goes down
B) Trump says something people want to hear - market goes up
Repeat

dajo9 said:

---

We are in quite the cycle right now:
A) Trump does something stupid - market goes down
B) Trump says something people want to hear - market goes up
Repeat

---

I think it's a continuation of what we saw from voters in the elections.
People are stupid, just tell them what they want to hear. There is no real ability among the Americans to tackle the hard things. They want Robin Leach's lifestyles of the rich and famous.

In explaining the obvious, Bloomberg writes about how poor people face a much higher percentage import tax increase than rich Americans. It couldn't happen to a dumber country. Combined with the planned income tax cuts i expect to come out ahead on taxes. Thanks, dummies. Of course, we'll all lose with the damage to the economy.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-24/trump-tariffs-will-hit-low-income-americans-harder-than-richest

It appears that the FBI has arrested a judge who, based on reporting linked below, took action outside of her judicial work to move people around and help a criminal illegal immigrant evade arrest (temporarily). Judges in this country are out of control. This starts at the top, with the Supreme Court who regularly rewrites legislation when they want to - including legislation decriminalizing corruption so they can continue taking in "soft" bribes. Judges think they are untouchable. I imagine this judge will be rescued by some other judge but at least for now she has some accountability..

https://www.tmj4.com/news/milwaukee-county/milwaukee-county-circuit-judge-hannah-dugan-arrested-by-federal-authorities-in-her-courtroom

No one is above the law, including activist judges.

I'm in Oakland. We're seeing TONS of rental housing owners with long-term vacancies. We're members of EBRA and have a pretty good idea of the local housing situation.
Oakland recently added over 25,000 housing units, with another 25k on the way, if I remember correctly.
Look around and you do see a ton of new housing going in. Emeryville and other cities have added a lot of rental units as well.

They are NOT full.

I had four of six units sit vacant for two years. This didn't happen prior to 5 years ago.

So where's the housing shortage?

Not seeing it.

I AM seeing a lot of people who cannot AFFORD going rents and mortgages. CA is expensive and you cannot avoid it. Mature economies tend to have this feature. NY ain't cheap, nor is Paris, Berlin, London or any other economic powerhouse. But when your Fed Min wage is $7.25, you're telling Americans they ain't worth shyte!

This is what happens when you shortchange working Americans.

The Rand Study reveled how $47 Trillion bucks went from the "bottom" 90% of American paychecks to the top 1% from 1975 to 2018. Today, that number is surely north of $50T.

Undermining working and middle class demographics has consequences. We need more pay, not more homes. Let's fill what we have first.

If there were a "shortage," there would be 1% rental vacancies in the Bay Area. Oakland is 8%. San Jose is 4.5%. San Francisco is 5.9%.

That said, the progressives can't shut up about "affordable" housing. Don't hear anyone screaming about wages or lack of wealth.

How is an affordable, tiny apartment going to help Americans build wealth? It won't.

Same with subsidized housing. Does nothing to restore American prosperity.

Until the Dems & progressives start demanding the following:
1) HIGH wages.
2) Excellent benefits
3) Universal affordable health care
4) Basic Minimum Income (Coming AI & additional automation demand this.)
5) Federally supported retirement savings plans start at birth
6) Restoration of wealth for the VAST MAJORITY of Americans
7) Restoration of high marginal taxation.

... I'm NOT advocating for some dumpy, tiny "affordable" housing unit stuffed into a massive, faceless 20 story building.

Because advocating for it means you're accepting less.

Lots packed into that post Tandem. Some i agree with and some I don't.

Not sure why all this criticism goes towards progressives. I consider myself a progressive. I think we have just given up looking for answers from Republicans.

Let's look at wages. Progressives support raising the minimum wage. Republicans do not BUT they do support tariffs because they think if they tax imported consumption enough that will raise wages. Why not just raise minimum wages if you want to raise wages? Why raise certain prices hoping that businesses will survive and adapt with the hope that ultimately prices and wages will be higher? That doesn't make any sense to me. So let's not give Republicans a pass for their asinine policies.

There seems to be this fundamental misunderstanding of "Abundance" in thinking that it's asking for the exclusion of things like higher wages, universal health care, etc. No! Those authors want that too!

They just also think that it should be easy to build housing, transit, renewable energy, etc., in places that need it, without running into so many procedural roadblocks as you do now. They don't think the one should preclude the other. Neither do I.

sycasey said:

---

There seems to be this fundamental misunderstanding of "Abundance" in thinking that it's asking for the exclusion of things like higher wages, universal health care, etc. No! Those authors want that too!

They just also think that it should be easy to build housing, transit, renewable energy, etc., in places that need it, without running into so many procedural roadblocks as you do now. They don't think the one should preclude the other. Neither do I.

---

It all runs into the same problem. Most Americans don't want universal healthcare. Most Americans don't want higher minimum wages. Most Californians don't want more housing. Most Californians don't want public transit.