Only 30K jobs added last week, sign of housing bust? (San Diego: 2015, renting)

[jm1982]

They thought they were diversified with Bernie Madoff

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by jm1982

They thought they were diversified with Bernie Madoff

Then they were dumb. His funds were not in the least bit clear. If they were smart they would have bought vtsax and vtiax. If they were feeling risky they could buy some vghcx and vgenx or any other sector funds found at Schwab or fidelity.

[Lockdev]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Also homes can go down a lot , look at Detroit .. But it doesn't happen overnight
With stocks it literally can
Everything seems fine then there is a headline of bankruptcy stock can go to nothing instantly

Yes, but stocks hold something houses do not: Liquidity.

During the housing crash, houses sat on the market for months, sometimes well over a year. Each month they would lose value, sometimes drastically. I had a neighbor that bought a $500k in 2007. In 2011, that same house was worth in the upper 200s.

With a stock, you can say "SELL" and that stock turns to cash virtually instantly.

Not saying stocks are a great investment.

Then again, neither is real estate right now. You'd be late to the party and buying at the peak(although it looks like we're actually on the way down now in many markets).

As a matter of fact, anything that is affected by asset inflation is a downright awful investment right now.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Lockdev

Yes, but stocks hold something houses do not: Liquidity.

During the housing crash, houses sat on the market for months, sometimes well over a year. Each month they would lose value, sometimes drastically. I had a neighbor that bought a $500k in 2007. In 2011, that same house was worth in the upper 200s.

With a stock, you can say "SELL" and that stock turns to cash virtually instantly.

Not saying stocks are a great investment.

Then again, neither is real estate right now. You'd be late to the party and buying at the peak(although it looks like we're actually on the way down now in many markets).

As a matter of fact, anything that is affected by asset inflation is a downright awful investment right now.

Seems Bay Area real estate doesn't stop going up. I'll concede it's outperforming my portfolio right now.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by Lockdev

Yes, but stocks hold something houses do not: Liquidity.

During the housing crash, houses sat on the market for months, sometimes well over a year. Each month they would lose value, sometimes drastically. I had a neighbor that bought a $500k in 2007. In 2011, that same house was worth in the upper 200s.

With a stock, you can say "SELL" and that stock turns to cash virtually instantly.

Not saying stocks are a great investment.

Then again, neither is real estate right now. You'd be late to the party and buying at the peak(although it looks like we're actually on the way down now in many markets).

As a matter of fact, anything that is affected by asset inflation is a downright awful investment right now.

Perhaps but the same liquidity is also why the market is so volatile
If you wake up to a huge drop in one of your holdings it's not going to make you feel much better than its easily to sell at such a loss too

Regarding your neighbor , he's probably even now since homes went up a lot since 2011 many markets have doubled since then

Tons of stocks of once. "Good solid companies " that are now 1 penny or basically nothing and they are never coming back

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Perhaps but the same liquidity is also why the market is so volatile
If you wake up to a huge drop in one of your holdings it's not going to make you feel much better than its easily to sell at such a loss too

Regarding your neighbor , he's probably even now since homes went up a lot since 2011 many markets have doubled since then

Tons of stocks of once. "Good solid companies " that are now 1 penny or basically nothing and they are never coming back

You keep forgetting index funds exist

[ghdkjwol]

This is an interesting thread. We have the foundations for the future here. You have the masses asking when will they be able to afford a necessity. You have a person who is extracting rent, quite literally, in a very neo-liberal fashion. And you have a debate on which rent extraction method (stocks or RE) is the most conducive to the almighty quick return.

Way back when, someone told "Adam" he would have to toil. When people think they have outsmarted the "someone" who said this, it ends with collapse. The last time was WWII. CA is betting on outsmarting and we have seen now for thousands of years how it ends.

[ghdkjwol]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

Texas unemployment rate is 4.4% CA is 5.3%

[URL="http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-unemployment-update.aspx"]State Unemployment Rates | April 2016[/URL]


Where I live (Austin), the rate is 2.9%

[url=http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.tx_austin_msa.htm]Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX Economy at a Glance[/url]

Oh, over all Texas is surely better. Consider that CA is so busted that some towns have begun to use buckets for water. While it's funny, think about someone in 2016 willing to draw buckets for water. There have been several recent reports of lots of folks leaving the bay area. Mainly upper income people looking to find something sustainable.

I've got one foot out of this sinking empire (including Texas), but it's not at all clear where to go. Some say China, but that's a myth. The nordic countries are more plausible. As we shift to autocratic rule, benevolence will not be a United States virtue.

[Lockdev]

Originally Posted by ghdkjwol

This is an interesting thread. We have the foundations for the future here. You have the masses asking when will they be able to afford a necessity. You have a person who is extracting rent, quite literally, in a very neo-liberal fashion. And you have a debate on which rent extraction method (stocks or RE) is the most conducive to the almighty quick return.

Way back when, someone told "Adam" he would have to toil. When people think they have outsmarted the "someone" who said this, it ends with collapse. The last time was WWII. CA is betting on outsmarting and we have seen now for thousands of years how it ends.

I have to agree.

Many people with money see things in black and white.

They see dollar signs. They don't look past cold numbers.

They don't want to face that truth that they can keep their financial manipulation shenanigans up for only so long before they have a thousand angry people outside of their doorstep.

Just ask Marie Antoinette about that one.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by ghdkjwol

Oh, over all Texas is surely better. Consider that CA is so busted that some towns have begun to use buckets for water.

California is not busted at all. I grew up in Silicon Valley and I couldn't imagine moving somewhere else. If I did, maybe Seattle. Certainly not Texas.

There have been several recent reports of lots of folks leaving the bay area. Mainly upper income people looking to find something sustainable.

That can't be true; if they were upper income they could live anywhere.

I've got one foot out of this sinking empire (including Texas), but it's not at all clear where to go. Some say China, but that's a myth.

China is a communist dictatorship. You are better staying in a free country.

As we shift to autocratic rule, benevolence will not be a United States virtue.

I see no evidence that this is happening.