The U.S. Housing Boom Is Coming to an End, Starting in Dallas
wsj.com
wsj.com
This isn't the weather or even the price of gold. This is policy choices by government officials and should reported that way.
I'm not saying (in this post) that it is a good thing or bad thing, but it's what is actually going on and that's what newspapers ought to report.
Edit: This is incorrect. The Board Of Governors who set interest rates is a part of the federal govrnment as an agency (accountable to Congress), the individual Federal Reserve Banks are not.
Yes, it is. It's established by US statute, its board of governors is appointed by the President, and its personnel are paid by the US government. It is not considered part of any of the usual three branches of the US government (legislative, executive, judicial), but that doesn't mean it's not part of the US government.
The bank is also privately owned and not by any government. I learned this because a technology director at the Dallas bank works with me in our side job.
Each of the Federal Reserve banks is structured on paper as a private corporation, yes. But the US government effectively controls what they do; the private corporations do not exercise any of the normal functions of ownership that other private corporations do.
I've done both.
> At the federal reserve they aren't regulated as a federal employer or a federal agency.
Not the same way, no. But that doesn't mean the Federal Reserve is not an instrument of government policy. It is.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a policy making arm of the United States Federal Government. It was created by and can be abolished by or have any of its functions changed or decisions overruled by statute, it's members are officers of the United States within the meaning of Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the US Constitution appointed by the President of the United States by and with the consent of the Senate.
Please stop spreading this nonsense. You may as well be telling people that they don't have to pay taxes because of the yellow fringes on flags in court houses.
https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed46.html
> The Federal Reserve System is supervised by the Board of Governors. Located in Washington, D.C., the Board is a federal government agency consisting of seven members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The Board has about 1,850 employees.
Please stop spreading this nonsense.
If you look at inflation by sector instead of focusing on nominal and ignoring everything else, you find asset bubbles on stocks, bonds, and real estate, no wage growth and low rates of nominal inflation.
=> lets tighten our belts! decease debt, decrease risk
> massive levels of QE.
=> print more money, lend it out at 0%
their actions are directly opposite their statements.
they are trying to kick the can down the road as long as possible while enriching themselves and their friends
problem is the can is picking up more dirt. you can use a bigger shoe but and eventually your foot will break.
they know this as well so the plan is pump and dump.
significant "real" wealth has not been created since 2008. feel free to point out where.. I'll wait
by boosting the market and skimming the top continuously you'll be safe from the pop. paid for by the pension plans of everyday joe.
> Federal Spending was increasing modestly, year on year, in the mid 2000s. But it jumped by $700 billion a year in the Great Recession to bail out the banks and provide “stimulus.” Since the recession federal spending held steady at about $3.6 trillion per year for a few years, before resuming growth in 2015. Viewed from a GDP perspective, federal spending was steady at about 19 percent GDP in the mid 2000s and then jumped, in the Great Recession to almost 25 percent GDP. But in the subsequent economic recovery federal spending has steadily declined as a percent of GDP down to about 20 percent in 2014. But in 2015 federal spending started to increase as a percent of GDP.
The federal government never cut public expenditure. It went up considerably due to the stimulus and was magnified in terms of percentage of gdp due to drop in gdp. Over the years following the crisis the expenditures dropped as a percentage of gdp from the new elevated rate due to gdp growth, but saying there was austerity by the federal government is not true
Maybe, but there was no austerity. There was a freeze in total spending in absolute terms and inflation was practically zero so real terms as well. The years prior to the crisis spending grew in absolute terms as th economy grew so spending stayed at the elevated rate
Almost as if this could have all been predicted[0].
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory
But besides that, the Fed doing exactly what is was chartered to do and constantly issues press releases about is not a shocking revelation of hetereodox economics.
Full employment should be a burden taken on by elected representatives in congress or the executive.
The dual mandate asks a fish to make sure the boat flies.
Median income has gone up by about 150% (to 2.5x) in nominal terms between 1986 and 2016.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
The story here is quite different - only a 19% increase, and much more unstable over the years. Most of the increase happened before 2000. Almost no change since then.
1. Every idiotic meme about how goods X, Y, and Z have more than doubled in price while [real] wages haven't. I'm torn between thinking the meme creators are completely clueless or epic trolls.
2. There is a substantial linkage between nominal wages and nominal inflation, especially for limited, competitively bid goods (like housing).
Looking at median house prices https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CSUSHPINSA , it looks like they went up slightly more than median wages (2.85x vs 2.5x in 30 years), which I think is likely more than explained by today's lower than historical norms interest rates (increasing affordability). https://www.macrotrends.net/2604/30-year-fixed-mortgage-rate...
Mortgage rates over 10% in 1988 and under 5% today means that 1988 houses were less affordable on 1988 wages than 2018 houses are on 2018 wages.
That means that it's sufficient for the lower income tiers (relative to the house value) to have a few months of high interest rates (in a time frame of 15-25 years) in order to lose the house.
Buying at the current rates is risky, while the risk of rising rates in 1988 was much lower. Factoring that in should change your conclusion.
http://www.freddiemac.com/perspectives/sean_becketti/2017041...
People got burned bad by ARMs in the housing crash of 2009 and they still aren't willing to take the risk.
("Yes and") There's also very little rate benefit to adjustable mortgages right now, so it's quite sensible to take a fixed rate mortgage. When I bought my first house (in 1996), I recall that fixed rate mortgages were several points higher than adjustable rate mortgages during their fixed portion. In cases like that, it made for an actual decision.
With both fixed rates and ARMs having roughly the same initial rates, there's little reason to choose adjustable.
Health Care and Other Benefit Costs
As nonwage benefits are beefed up by U.S. employers, such as expanded paid leave and performance-based bonuses, fewer dollars in their total rewards budgets may be available for salary increases.
But health care benefit costs are a prime suspect.
"The rise of health-care costs is the most important reason wages have not increased more for U.S. workers," Nobel economics laureate Edward C. Prescott and Lee E. Ohanian of the Center for the Advanced Study in Economic Efficiency at Arizona State University, wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 2018. "The extra compensation is swallowed up by health-insurance premiums."
A new white paper provides evidence that "the rising values of fringe benefits, such as health insurance, may have offset potential wage gains for middle-income workers" despite falling unemployment. The authors, Jeff Larrimore of the Federal Reserve and David Splinter of the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, contend that when factoring in the cost of health coverage, "total compensation may be higher than previously believed, also implying that employer-sponsored health insurance benefits may represent a larger share of employee compensation."
Economics columnist Robert J. Samuelson wrote in the Washington Post:
The problem is plain: We'd all like both cheaper health insurance and higher wages, but the way the health-care system is operating today, we might get neither. As insurance premiums get more expensive, inflation-adjusted ("real") wages will continue to stagnate or decline.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/compensatio...Otherwise, there’d be a line to file strategic bankruptcy after the last tuition payment was due...
It's a mild deterrent for some cases, but for a lot of situations, having the degree isn't anywhere near as valuable as having the education.
If you pay a property manager 10% to make it their problem, the economics of paying a mortgage on a home you're no longer living in and renting it out become significantly more questionable - particularly in some place like the Bay Area, where mortgage payments are already often more than you would pay to rent the equivalent dwelling.
As a "DI3K", a house makes a ton of sense. We need space, we need a place for five people to live, and we need a house in an area where the schools are going to be great for the next 18 years. We don't need mobility as far as relocation goes, because it just doesn't make sense in our life choices right now. I mean, it's certainly possible, but I've seen second-hand what moving from town to town every 6 months does to a 7-year-old.
I'm not mad that our property (as far from the coasts as possible) has increased in value ~$50-80K, either.
Don't forget shorter mortgage commitments are available (And a much better deal when you can swing them).
Not having two student loan payments and a couple unnecessarily-high car payments (a couple well-to-do millennials surely make possible) could certainly push your mortgage affordability much higher than someone straddle with that debt (but completely able to pay and maintain it).
Eventually there are a ton of empty houses on the market without buyers, sellers are forced to lower their prices. People in upside down mortgages cannot sell as housing prices are lowered and foreclose, further dragging down the price. Market crashes. People with capital swoop in and buy up houses to rent out, driving up rent further as they can set the price.
This collapse will be slightly quicker than the last as the market is not as propped up with sub prime style loans. If salaries don't keep up with inflation a crash is inevitable. Deck is stacked against people without a strong financial base (upper middle class parents) but hey, they can stay on their parents health insurance for longer now, so that's nice.
I'm guessing from your comment that you've never actually done the budget on what it costs to turn "cheap" land into somewhere you can build a nice residence.
Edit: randomly chosen example, I have nothing to do with the seller here: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2089463438_zpid/
It seems possible you could create a process to do this level of development on an industrial scale and get costs down to the level mentioned.
But other problems remain, like getting the train service.
the cost of commuter rail service, never mind anything approaching high speed, utterly destroys your argument. it cannot be done.
http://ontheworldmap.com/japan/city/tokyo/tokyo-rail-map.jpg
My builder has a vacant home in my neighborhood. He ran Ethernet to all rooms, and put in other silly features, and just couldn't comprehend why his price was too high.
Anecdote: I realized how out of the mainstream I was when recently viewing a video produced by a high-profile gamer on Youtube showing off the specifications of his desktop gaming rig via Windows Task Manager. Yes, he had gobs of memory, many cores, and dual RTXs. But what caught my eye was that the network chart showed he was using wireless networking. On a desktop PC with two RTX 2080s. It make me laugh a bit; it made me cry a bit.
If the house isn't already wired for CAT5, wireless makes sense.
Still, for me, I can't fathom investing the kind of money this fellow had on a gaming rig to then pair it with wireless networking. The scenario in brief: On one hand, I've opted for a blistering no-compromises frame rate, but on the other, I am tolerating a few more milliseconds of lag. Does not compute.
I remember enjoying the analysis that Riot did comparing wireless and wired gaming [1]. The chart showing the percentage of players using wired versus wireless at each of their ranking tiers is especially interesting.
In my home, I use Ubiquiti UniFi wireless access points. Comparing my workstation (wired) with my laptop (wireless, situated about 10 feet from an access point), pings to Google are delayed ~1.5ms by wireless with a few more random hiccups. Is that a big deal? No, not really for me. But then, I don't really game nor do I have dual RTX 2080s.
[1] https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/page/ethernet-vs-wifi-ping...
Isn't this normal by now?
My house is only a few years old but wasn't particularly expensive. When I bought it, it was already wired up with ethernet - I just had to replace the wall plates (they were RJ11 outlets instead of RJ45) and hook up an ethernet switch.
From what I've seen of other homes, it appears to be common for electricians to use ethernet for phone lines. Why wouldn't you? The difference in material costs is neglegable.
Why should this significantly increase the cost of a new home? Re-wiring an old home is annoying, but I don't see any reason why it should cost much for a new home.
Perhaps more importantly, wireless still connects to a wired router which needs to be somewhere in the house (unless we switch to more long-distance wireless, which I don't see happening anytime soon without both technical and political advances).
In my house, a major upgrade we did was install 3 additional access points, and we still have dead zones in one area because there was no Ethernet port (it would be 2, but one was a bedroom, so we ran a wire along the wall. Ugly, but bedrooms need wifi).
You are certainly correct that most people won't need Ethernet ports in every room
And while wifi is pretty good now, people still hit issues and plug in their various TV devices and game consoles.
Everything adds up, and when you realize that your kids are going to watch moves on their tablets, you quickly realize that money is better spent on something else.
I just ran ethernet and CATV cables to where the TVs go.
I feel wired ethernet is essential. 2.4GHz is saturated and 5.8GHz has trouble penetrating certain rooms. I'm lucky that my 10yo condo has Cat5 wiring to telephone jacks in each room. Rather than an expensive wire run I just punch in new jacks.
What boggles my mind is poorly designed designer kitchens, bathrooms, and closets. Like adding granite countertops and a built in espresso maker suddenly means luxury. Our old apartment has less square footage yet felt 2x as large.
Thought it was crazy it was bubbling like this again. Time will tell if that was dumb or smart but I did pay off all my debt including student loans...
I personally think a crash is coming soonish. But that's just my gut.
File that under “duh”. Home buyers want to get the best house they can afford based on a given monthly payment amount, and as interest rates rise, the home price that you can afford for the same monthly payment decreases. Which gives rise to high interest rates actually being a good thing for prospective home buyers: you end up with lower home prices across the board and eventually you’ll be able to refinance into a lower rate.
I wonder if WSJ was chasing Bloomberg? Or if this phenomenon isn't really as strong nationwide as is being implied, but is mostly only in certain parts of Texas?
That seems like a serious conflict of interests.
To ensure you've got someone who is truly on your side as the buyer, maybe it'd make sense for your agent to be paid for services as consumed. E.g. $50 for doing a private showing, $200 for putting together the first offer and $70 for subsequent offers.
I've actually heard/read of a few boutique style agencies taking this approach in LA. Will dig around the history and update this post if I find the blog post talking about it.
Does the buyer's agent in the US handle the role of a conveyancer in sorting paperwork of the final sale?
In UK only seller has an agent and fees are 1-2%.
That said, of course there is a group of agents who sweep problems under the rug to close. In my experience, there is a higher than average amount of agents like this among the top producers. But the group is not that big.
For any piece of real estate, there's basically a price at which it would sell itself. People hire a real estate agent because they believe the agent will work to sell for more than that base price.
In my experience, both real estate agents represent the buyer as it is the buyer who is supplying the money. Your closing attorney is the professional more likely to represent your interests.
That said, I agree with the broader point: if you value something that has a price on it then you really ought to pay for it at some point. You can object to anything you want ("there are still ads!", "why can't I pay per article?"), but it's all besides the point. There is a price attached and you can pay it or not pay it, but refusing to pay while still consuming it isn't really defensible, beyond "I can do it and you can't stop me".
I think (hope?) most people here would agree that a hack providing you with a full WSJ subscription would be inappropriate. But many are fine with a single article. Perhaps that's hypocritical, I dunno.
This is "hacker" news, after all.
Are you sure that this is what you'd want?
This is still a far cry from "affordable", but it's a change of pace from the last six years.
1/8th of a percent on a 30 year mortgage equals 80 dollars more per month on a 500k home, over 30 years, that is 28 grand more you are paying. The mortgage rates went from low 3% to high 5%, now even at 6%, in a matter of a few years. Of course this will cool the market a bit, people can do the math that much more in interest is hundreds of thousands.
This is very different from the 2008 crisis where people that had no business owning homes were defaulting on their loans. This is just supply and demand, standard capitalism. Home prices will come down a bit and they will start selling more homes.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/housi...
If only there were a good word for that...