This Washington Post article really shows the trend well of how we continue to enjoy the economy established when Obama was President. One thing this article does not show, unfortunately, is the deficit which has spiked up since Trump became President.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/07/how-trump-tries-obscure-strong-economy-he-inherited/?utm_term=.975e5952ac58

Presidents take way too much credit for the economy as they all inherit an economy that is trending. But let's face it, you will not give Trump credit for anything.

GBear4Life said:

---

Presidents take way too much credit for the economy as they all inherit an economy that is trending. But let's face it, you will not give Trump credit for anything.

---

Not only that, I think the metrics we use to evaluate whether or not an economy is doing well are flawed and value the wrong facts.

For example, if the economy is doing well, how the hell are CEO pay increasing by nearly a million dollars per year, while the median salary of a company actually shrinks? If that is a healthy economy, I do not want to be apart of it.

Quote:

---

Overall, tech CEO salary rose 15 percent last year on average to $6.6 million, according to preliminary proxy statement data from executive compensation company Equilar, which looks at the 3,000 largest companies in the US by market cap. The average median pay for all their workers actually declined 2 percent to $82,500, for a CEO to employee pay ratio of 129 to 1.

---

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/2/18522927/ceo-pay-ratio-tech-employee-salary-2018

Corporate profits and activity may be increasing, but those profits are being gained at the expense of the employees and the rise of the gig economy (which is just a fancy name for companies to shirk their responsibilities and commitments to their employees). In short society as a whole is not benefiting from the good economic numbers, because those economic numbers don't reflect the overall wellness of society.

The winners and losers (mostly losers) in a U.S.China trade war - Axios


https://www.axios.com/winners-losers-us-china-trade-war-227dd9e3-f7f1-4744-b091-a3ce4b7ba5aa.html

golden sloth said:

---

Corporate profits and activity may be increasing, but those profits are being gained at the expense of the employees and the rise of the gig economy (which is just a fancy name for companies to shirk their responsibilities and commitments to their employees). In short society as a whole is not benefiting from the good economic numbers, because those economic numbers don't reflect the overall wellness of society.

---

I agree with this, but I don't think the CEO-employee disparity is the culprit of that. It symbolizes the realities we're facing, sure.

dajo9 said:

---

This Washington Post article really shows the trend well of how we continue to enjoy the economy established when Obama was President. One thing this article does not show, unfortunately, is the deficit which has spiked up since Trump became President.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/07/how-trump-tries-obscure-strong-economy-he-inherited/?utm_term=.975e5952ac58

---

Actually, the Theodore Roosevelt economy is going strong. But really, Trump will get no credit for the booming economy from the Washington Post. If the economy was tanking, surely Obama had nothing to do with it.

golden sloth said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

This Washington Post article really shows the trend well of how we continue to enjoy the economy established when Obama was President. One thing this article does not show, unfortunately, is the deficit which has spiked up since Trump became President.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/07/how-trump-tries-obscure-strong-economy-he-inherited/?utm_term=.975e5952ac58

---

Actually, the Theodore Roosevelt economy is going strong. But really, Trump will get no credit for the booming economy from the Washington Post. If the economy was tanking, surely Obama had nothing to do with it.

---

I don't think anyone should say the economy is booming when an average income does not afford a crappy house.

---

This is why socialism has become popular because clearly it's not working for some people. Then there's this crap, where idiot bankers and the wealthy are saying people/kids can't afford stuff because they're buying coffee and eating $10 toast. Utter B.S.

Another Bear said:

---

In ten years Trump LOST a cool billion. Frankly he doesn't know W.T.F. he's doing regarding the economy or business.

Tell me, how much of that loss is depreciation on assets, a paper loss?

---

dajo9 said:

---

This Washington Post article really shows the trend well of how we continue to enjoy the economy established when Obama was President. One thing this article does not show, unfortunately, is the deficit which has spiked up since Trump became President.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/07/how-trump-tries-obscure-strong-economy-he-inherited/?utm_term=.975e5952ac58

Another opinion not fact based. You could not name one piece of legislation Obama passed that created jobs. The only thing that kept the ecomomy advancing under Obama was low interest rates and quanative easing by the Fed. And don't tell me the stimulas created jobs.

---

Sonofoski said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

In ten years Trump LOST a cool billion. Frankly he doesn't know W.T.F. he's doing regarding the economy or business.

Tell me, how much of that loss is depreciation on assets, a paper loss?

---

---

I can't answer that but 4 of his major business investments declared bankruptcy in 1991 / 1992 so his losses were tangible

Sonofoski said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

This Washington Post article really shows the trend well of how we continue to enjoy the economy established when Obama was President. One thing this article does not show, unfortunately, is the deficit which has spiked up since Trump became President.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/07/how-trump-tries-obscure-strong-economy-he-inherited/?utm_term=.975e5952ac58

Another opinion not fact based. You could not name one piece of legislation Obama passed that created jobs. The only thing that kept the ecomomy advancing under Obama was low interest rates and quanative easing by the Fed. And don't tell me the stimulas created jobs.

---

---

Stimulus created jobs, bailing out the auto industry saved jobs (including mine), Obama's middle class tax cuts in 2013 created jobs, and Obamacare created jobs by putting consumers on more sound financial footing, all while cutting the deficit by 1/3.

You know what doesn't create jobs in the current economic environment? Putting more money into the hands of the wealthy who already have so much wealth they are buying huge amounts of 10 year Treasuries at 2.5% because they don't have anything better to do with all their money.

Also, duly noted that you're of the opinion that quantitative easing worked in helping the economy. I agree with you.

Another Bear said:

---

This is why socialism has become popular because clearly it's not working for some people. Then there's this crap, where idiot bankers and the wealthy are saying people/kids can't afford stuff because they're buying coffee and eating $10 toast. Utter B.S.

---

Both Chase and Warren are right. I think Warren's tweet was to illuminate that Chase is a bit tone-deaf and the wrong one's to issue such (albeit true) advice.

Its hard to say eating out instead of at home is what prevents people from my generation from buying a home in SF. If the average home meal costs $5.00 and the average restaurant meal costs $15.00, that is a difference of $10. If that occurs twice a day, 5 days a week, over 50 weeks (because the numbers are round) that roughly equates to $5,000 a year that could be saved. If we use a hypothetical couple, that could be $10,000 worth of savings for the family.

Meanwhile, the median house price for Q1 rose $310,000 between 2017 and 2018, and the median condo price rose approximately $52,000. The median household income raised about $10,000 from $110,816 to $120,478. That means for a condo, and eating at home, the typical couple fell $30,000 farther behind being able to buy that condo. This means after a year of sacrifices and typical salary increases they are farther away from being able to buy a home. Therefore, I find it hard to blame the couple for not saving enough, and this reality should not indicate a 'good' economy.

https://brannigangroup.com/yet-another-dramatic-jump-in-san-francisco-median-house-price-to-over-1600000/

Sonofoski said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

In ten years Trump LOST a cool billion. Frankly he doesn't know W.T.F. he's doing regarding the economy or business.

Tell me, how much of that loss is depreciation on assets, a paper loss?

---

---

No...you EXPLAIN it to me smart guy. Go ahead, show your expertises and knowledge and make it snappy. And use Trump as a working example.

I am not sure that using an area of real estate that encompasses 0.001% of the United States is representative of the United State's problems of the cost of housing.

I'm in agreement with oski003.

Time for me to shut off the computer.

dajo9 said:

---

I'm in agreement with oski003.

Time for me to shut off the computer.

---

I can't believe what I'm seeing. Dajo and Oski are exchanging jerseys at midfield. Dajo now wearing 003 on his back and Oski is now sporting a 9.

Yes the SF real estate market is small and an extreme example...but it is part of the greater SF metro area and those trends still exist, just not as dramatically but ti's still NUTS.

Did you guys hear about the 60s era Santa Clara ranch house? 3-bd, nothing special, needed work...listed at $1.5m. It went $800k over listing for sale price of $2.3m...for a rancher that needed another $500k of work. Look if cookie cutter ranch homes from the 60s are going for that much, there's a problem.

Also, brand new 1 bd apt in downtown Oakland...$3,100/month. Sure it's likely nice...but that's the monthly mortgage for a $1m house.

Then there's the push factor and ripple effect that the Bay Area real estate is creating as people look elsewhere. Prices have gone up because of that. Most major metro areas, in reasonable states, are experiencing significant rising housing costs...sort of like the Bay Area in the 90s.

What's the address of that ranch house so I can Redfin it? I'm interested in the relevant details, such as square footage of the house and the land it is on.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/12/now-this-is-ridiculous-782000-over-asking-for-a-house-in-sunnyvale/

1. I get that the SF market is a bit of an extreme case, but median income has not been keeping up with median housing prices in a large number of the big cities, which has then had people move away creating the same problem in secondary cities (and I don't mean that dismissively). Income has not kept pace with housing prices in LA, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Las Vegas, Denver, New York, Boston, DC and Miami (I was going to do a long research project and link to it, but then I got lazy [call me out if you want, but this is in good faith]). This means it not just a SF problem, and given the relative population of those places, it effects a good percentage of the country. The exception is still the industrial midwest like Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Cincinnati.

2. My point that the bank blaming people for not saving enough to make big purchases still stands, as saving pennies to make a $10 purchase is not completely pointless, but pretty close, particularly when the income to house price gap keeps widening. What is the point of saving 5 cents if the while you save that the price goes up a dollar.

3. Going back to my original point (tangentially), we (as a country) need to come up with better metrics to evaluate the strength of the economy because the economy in the bay area is amazing right now, but it is harder to buy a house. Who is the strong economy benefiting if the median people are getting farther and farther from home ownership. I know home ownership isn't just an economic issue as local government and current land-owners are a big part of the problem, but I do believe the economy is a part of the problem and it illustrates the need for better tools to measure how well the economy helps provide people with financial stability, security, and opportunity.

golden sloth said:

---

Its hard to say eating out instead of at home is what prevents people from my generation from buying a home in SF. If the average home meal costs $5.00 and the average restaurant meal costs $15.00, that is a difference of $10. If that occurs twice a day, 5 days a week, over 50 weeks (because the numbers are round) that roughly equates to $5,000 a year that could be saved. If we use a hypothetical couple, that could be $10,000 worth of savings for the family.

Meanwhile, the median house price for Q1 rose $310,000 between 2017 and 2018, and the median condo price rose approximately $52,000. The median household income raised about $10,000 from $110,816 to $120,478. That means for a condo, and eating at home, the typical couple fell $30,000 farther behind being able to buy that condo. This means after a year of sacrifices and typical salary increases they are farther away from being able to buy a home. Therefore, I find it hard to blame the couple for not saving enough, and this reality should not indicate a 'good' economy.

https://brannigangroup.com/yet-another-dramatic-jump-in-san-francisco-median-house-price-to-over-1600000/

---

Buying a home in SF? Is it a birthright to live in a coastal city? Only the top 3% can buy SFH in SF.

Price affordability is getting worse. Home ownership rates are at 40 year lows IIRC, as the investor class scooped up millions of properties at the bottom of the crash.

But the median household income is like 52k. You can afford a decent starter home in most suburbs, just not near the water.

Research on spending habits are pretty clear -- people do dumb stuff with the money they do have; they don't have basic priorities set or basic financial literacy.

Simply not taking on that $400/mo car payment, and investing $200 of that every month for 40 years with compound interest is a ton of money.

Warren and you are technically right, but we also know people, particularly those with household incomes lower than $70k or so, don't maximize the money they do earn.

How many people you know who are/were broke but also buying starbucks everyday to over $40/week? That's $160/mo invested over a lifetime. It's a lot.

All that China and tech money parking their money in SF/bay area real estate. There's nowhere to build more homes in SF except towards the sky.

GBear4Life said:

---

All that China and tech money parking their money in SF/bay area real estate. There's nowhere to build more homes in SF except towards the sky.

---

Yup, and we need to follow New Zealand's example and ban foreign nationals from buying investment properties here and not living in them, or if they do, tax the living hell out of them. I also support increasing density, but its the local landowners that shut that down. Personally, there is a middle ground between no new development and letting the developers do as they please. I'm fine with the character of the city changing.

To adjust housing prices in the the Bay Area, an earthquake will help. It always does. Otherwise, more government funded affordable housing ((meaning annual family income of under $130k in SF) to help increase inventory and counter crazy market rate housing.

golden sloth said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

All that China and tech money parking their money in SF/bay area real estate. There's nowhere to build more homes in SF except towards the sky.

---

Yup, and we need to follow New Zealand's example and ban foreign nationals from buying investment properties here and not living in them, or if they do, tax the living hell out of them. I also support increasing density, but its the local landowners that shut that down. Personally, there is a middle ground between no new development and letting the developers do as they please. I'm fine with the character of the city changing.

---

I've advocated for that too. I know a lot of HUD homes, which are designated for primary resident buyers only, were scooped up by both foreign and domestic investors who let it sit empty the first year and rent it out afterwards (I believe after the first year it doesn't have to be your primary residence). They makde an absolute killing.

Toronto charges a huge tax on unoccupied homes. That's how they are trying to solve their high cost of housing issue.

GBear4Life said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Its hard to say eating out instead of at home is what prevents people from my generation from buying a home in SF. If the average home meal costs $5.00 and the average restaurant meal costs $15.00, that is a difference of $10. If that occurs twice a day, 5 days a week, over 50 weeks (because the numbers are round) that roughly equates to $5,000 a year that could be saved. If we use a hypothetical couple, that could be $10,000 worth of savings for the family.

Meanwhile, the median house price for Q1 rose $310,000 between 2017 and 2018, and the median condo price rose approximately $52,000. The median household income raised about $10,000 from $110,816 to $120,478. That means for a condo, and eating at home, the typical couple fell $30,000 farther behind being able to buy that condo. This means after a year of sacrifices and typical salary increases they are farther away from being able to buy a home. Therefore, I find it hard to blame the couple for not saving enough, and this reality should not indicate a 'good' economy.

https://brannigangroup.com/yet-another-dramatic-jump-in-san-francisco-median-house-price-to-over-1600000/

---

Buying a home in SF? Is it a birthright to live in a coastal city? Only the top 3% can buy SFH in SF.

Price affordability is getting worse. Home ownership rates are at 40 year lows IIRC, as the investor class scooped up millions of properties at the bottom of the crash.

But the median household income is like 52k. You can afford a decent starter home in most suburbs, just not near the water.

Research on spending habits are pretty clear -- people do dumb stuff with the money they do have; they don't have basic priorities set or basic financial literacy.

Simply not taking on that $400/mo car payment, and investing $200 of that every month for 40 years with compound interest is a ton of money.

Warren and you are technically right, but we also know people, particularly those with household incomes lower than $70k or so, don't maximize the money they do earn.

How many people you know who are/were broke but also buying starbucks everyday to over $40/week? That's $160/mo invested over a lifetime. It's a lot.

---

The problem is that if people were to move away from the coastal cities, they would not be able to make the same income, and the proportions of median income to median house price are still not favorable and trending worse. So its not as simple as moving to cheaper parts of the country. As for moving to the suburbs, I don't think the expectation should be that people need to commute over an hour and half each way in order to have a house, 3 hour daily commutes present significant health risks that people should not be forced to accept. It also sucks that at one point one income was enough to buy a house, now you almost always need two incomes, which means you need to be married.

Here is a cool chart showing the increase. At first glance, yea, there was definitely a bubble in 2007.

[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/business/price-to-income-ratio-in-metro-areas/98/]https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-income-ratio/[/url]

And if you wanted it broken down by city (as of 2012)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/business/price-to-income-ratio-in-metro-areas/98/

Another Bear said:

---

Yes the SF real estate market is small and an extreme example...but it is part of the greater SF metro area and those trends still exist, just not as dramatically but ti's still NUTS.

Did you guys hear about the 60s era Santa Clara ranch house? 3-bd, nothing special, needed work...listed at $1.5m. It went $800k over listing for sale price of $2.3m...for a rancher that needed another $500k of work. Look if cookie cutter ranch homes from the 60s are going for that much, there's a problem.

Also, brand new 1 bd apt in downtown Oakland...$3,100/month. Sure it's likely nice...but that's the monthly mortgage for a $1m house.

Then there's the push factor and ripple effect that the Bay Area real estate is creating as people look elsewhere. Prices have gone up because of that. Most major metro areas, in reasonable states, are experiencing significant rising housing costs...sort of like the Bay Area in the 90s.

---

It boggles my mind that the modest 1920's era house in Oakland where I grew up is now worth 102 times what my parents paid for it in 1959. At least according to Zillow.

Wealth inequality and scarcity of coastal housing are your problems. The former can be solved. The latter cannor.

dajo9 said:

---

Sonofoski said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

This Washington Post article really shows the trend well of how we continue to enjoy the economy established when Obama was President. One thing this article does not show, unfortunately, is the deficit which has spiked up since Trump became President.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/07/how-trump-tries-obscure-strong-economy-he-inherited/?utm_term=.975e5952ac58

Another opinion not fact based. You could not name one piece of legislation Obama passed that created jobs. The only thing that kept the ecomomy advancing under Obama was low interest rates and quanative easing by the Fed. And don't tell me the stimulas created jobs.

---

---

Stimulus created jobs, bailing out the auto industry saved jobs (including mine), Obama's middle class tax cuts in 2013 created jobs, and Obamacare created jobs by putting consumers on more sound financial footing, all while cutting the deficit by 1/3.

You know what doesn't create jobs in the current economic environment? Putting more money into the hands of the wealthy who already have so much wealth they are buying huge amounts of 10 year Treasuries at 2.5% because they don't have anything better to do with all their money.

Also, duly noted that you're of the opinion that quantitative easing worked in helping the economy. I agree with you.

Obamacare created jobs by putting consumers on more sound financial footing, all while cutting the deficit by 1/3.

How do you create jobs by putting consumers on sound financial footing?

And, if Obama created jobs, why wasn't it reflected in the labor statistics? After all, the unemployment number each month is only a measure of those actively looking for jobs, it does not measure those who cannot find jobs because there are no jobs available.

So if this current economy is the result of Obama's best efforts, which of those policies has Trump maintained that we can give Obama credit for? And, why in the 8 years of Obama did we not see more jobs available to be filled than there are individuals to fill them.

Did you know that February was the 12th conssecutive month that had more job openings than unemployed people? I guess we can give Obama credit for that too as he is the one that created jobs by putting consumers on sound financial footing.

---