The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Economics => Topic started by: bijou on November 21, 2009, 11:10:23 AM
-
Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- California, Delaware, South Carolina and Florida registered record rates of unemployment in October as weakness in the labor market stretches from coast to coast and limits the economic recovery.
Joblessness rose in 29 U.S. states last month compared with 22 in September, the Labor Department said today in Washington. Michigan had the highest jobless rate at 15.1 percent, followed by Nevada at 13 percent and Rhode Island at 12.9 percent. ...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQsHAD0w1egE
-
Yup, around here all sorts of layoff still going on. House prices are still outrageous though. I feel really bad about, but I keep hoping that more foreclosed properties will come on the market and bring down prices so that I could buy a place.
-
Where I am (Jacksonville, FL) houses and cars are practically being given away. I feel for those who have been foreclosed on, but if you could'nt have afforded those homes in the first place then you should'nt have bought them. Everyone should have at least one year's salary tucked away for a rainy day.
-
Yup, around here all sorts of layoff still going on. House prices are still outrageous though. I feel really bad about, but I keep hoping that more foreclosed properties will come on the market and bring down prices so that I could buy a place.
Wait until the next wave of ARM readjustments.
-
Where I am (Jacksonville, FL) houses and cars are practically being given away. I feel for those who have been foreclosed on, but if you could'nt have afforded those homes in the first place then you should'nt have bought them. Everyone should have at least one year's salary tucked away for a rainy day.
I know what you mean. My cousin's friend bought two (2!) houses on a salary that really couldn't have even supported the mortgage on one of them. When he and his wife realized how bad off they were going to be when it readjusted, they maxed out their credit cards, walked away from their houses, and declared bankruptcy. Freaking idiots like them are the reason we are in this mess. :bird:
I have a lot of sympathy for people who are losing their house because they've lost their job, but not that much for people who couldn't afford their mortgage even with their job.
-
California's chickens are coming home to roost....
-
IMHO, bancruptcy should be thrown out. Yes, I really do understand there are times it may be needed, but 99% of them (it seems) are self inflicted. Screw 'em.
And CA hasn't learned, nor has the DNC, that increasing taxes only hurts their revenue and causes a shitstorm.
-
Where I am (Jacksonville, FL) houses and cars are practically being given away. I feel for those who have been foreclosed on, but if you could'nt have afforded those homes in the first place then you should'nt have bought them. Everyone should have at least one year's salary tucked away for a rainy day.
Not everyone that has been foreclosed on is guilty of buying more house than they can afford. Many of them have been laid off and can no longer afford the payments that they were able to while drawing a paycheck.
But I agree that folks should have a significant rainy day fund. I dunno about a years worth, but 4-6 months is a minimum in my book. I am recently re-employed after a 9 month period, and I am already starting to restock my fund.
-
Not everyone that has been foreclosed on is guilty of buying more house than they can afford. Many of them have been laid off and can no longer afford the payments that they were able to while drawing a paycheck.
But I agree that folks should have a significant rainy day fund. I dunno about a years worth, but 4-6 months is a minimum in my book. I am recently re-employed after a 9 month period, and I am already starting to restock my fund.
I was just going to post this rich! Shit I know a couple of guys who were making six figures, lost their jobs through downsizing at the same time their wives started divorce proceedings. This particular guy had about 6 months salary saved up and the wife burned through it and he has now lost his home because of it! So it's very easy to sit back and proclaim everybody should have a years salary put away for a rainy day. Unfortunately life has a way of throwing folks a curveball at times and we don't live in a perfect world!
-
Not everyone that has been foreclosed on is guilty of buying more house than they can afford. Many of them have been laid off and can no longer afford the payments that they were able to while drawing a paycheck.
But I agree that folks should have a significant rainy day fund. I dunno about a years worth, but 4-6 months is a minimum in my book. I am recently re-employed after a 9 month period, and I am already starting to restock my fund.
That's the exception, Rich. When it takes both salaries to sustain a house payment, you've intentionally put yourself in a dangerous place based on the assumption of consistent or increasing income. Bad assumption to make.
-
Of course individual cases vary, but the real estate bubble, in macro terms, was created by a huge number of people buying houses they could not afford, and the sale of those houses in turn drove the market higher yet. That went on and on, fueled by mortgage loans that should never have been made. Lenders went insane, and people, who always want nice stuff, believed them when they were told they could afford it. It is similar to the "creative financing" disaster of the 70s, in spades. I remember just a couple of years ago driving through neighborhoods of new, huge beautiful homes, the sidewalks crawling with little kids. I remarked to my wife that I couldn't understand how so many young couples could afford such nice property. Well, now I know. They couldn't.
When I started buying property, way back in the dark ages, you applied for a loan, and were on pins and needles waiting to find out if it was approved. In the application process, you laid bare your entire life. It was nerve-wracking, but the result was property owners who could meet their obligations, unless there was some really exceptional circumstance. During this bubble, it was apparently the other way around, with lenders desperate to write as many mortgages as possible, based on the assumption of an accelerating upward spiral of values. Borrowers didn't even verify their resources. Crazy.
-
That's the exception, Rich. When it takes both salaries to sustain a house payment, you've intentionally put yourself in a dangerous place based on the assumption of consistent or increasing income. Bad assumption to make.
Honestly now... How many married folks do you know where both work, that can actually get by if one or the other is laid off for an extended period? I personally don't know any.
If it weren't for my severance package, we would have lost the house about 3 months after I got laid off and I assure you we didn't buy more house than we could afford.
Of course most of us live our day to day lives based on the assumption of continued income. We have to, even if all you do is rent. Buying groceries, paying utilities, car payments and insurance etc. are usually factored in when doing a household budget. That budget must include the assumption of a certain constant income.
-
Honestly now... How many married folks do you know where both work, that can actually get by if one or the other is laid off for an extended period? I personally don't know any.
If it weren't for my severance package, we would have lost the house about 3 months after I got laid off and I assure you we didn't buy more house than we could afford.
Of course most of us live our day to day lives based on the assumption of continued income. We have to, even if all you do is rent. Buying groceries, paying utilities, car payments and insurance etc. are usually factored in when doing a household budget. That budget must include the assumption of a certain constant income.
I know a lot of families who live on one income. Did that when I was married as well. In fact, I think my perception now is that I'd live on the lower of the two incomes should I ever get married again. I am also trying to rebuild my buffer back up to give me at least 6 months of expenses. Just paranoid enough about this administratoina nd economy that I want to be very prepared.
-
Honestly now... How many married folks do you know where both work, that can actually get by if one or the other is laid off for an extended period? I personally don't know any.
If it weren't for my severance package, we would have lost the house about 3 months after I got laid off and I assure you we didn't buy more house than we could afford.
Of course most of us live our day to day lives based on the assumption of continued income. We have to, even if all you do is rent. Buying groceries, paying utilities, car payments and insurance etc. are usually factored in when doing a household budget. That budget must include the assumption of a certain constant income.
Yes! I was going to say that by bkg's rationale you should never buy a house....because God knows you or your spouse could lose a job. I really hope some of the folks in this thread never have to eat their words.....because i know a few good people who have!
-
I know a lot of families who live on one income. Did that when I was married as well. In fact, I think my perception now is that I'd live on the lower of the two incomes should I ever get married again. I am also trying to rebuild my buffer back up to give me at least 6 months of expenses. Just paranoid enough about this administratoina nd economy that I want to be very prepared.
I suppose that depends on the actual amount of income and the cost of living variance geographically. But I sure do agree with the premise.
But most folks don't have that option these days.
-
Yes! I was going to say that by bkg's rationale you should never buy a house....because God knows you or your spouse could lose a job. I really hope some of the folks in this thread never have to eat their words.....because i know a few good people who have!
To add to that, assuming one is single, they must still assume a certain continued income to make ends meet.
They can perhaps figure their budget based on less than what they currently make, but they must assume a certain level of constant income unless they are planning to be homeless, and eating out of garbage cans.
Rent = $x
Groceries = $x
Utilities = $x
x+x+x equals a minimum income required to live.
Yes, I know I can go live in a tent and hunt my food with a spear, but I am talking about real life.
-
Yes! I was going to say that by bkg's rationale you should never buy a house....because God knows you or your spouse could lose a job. I really hope some of the folks in this thread never have to eat their words.....because i know a few good people who have!
You're being irrational. I never once said that you should never buy a house. Not once.
-
I suppose that depends on the actual amount of income and the cost of living variance geographically. But I sure do agree with the premise.
But most folks don't have that option these days.
Absolutely it depends on income, but just like gov't, it depends more on spending.
It's just about being frugal where needed, smart about large purchases, focusing on the future, and being prepared. I'm not saying it's easy, but it is doable - I know many who have done it.
Yes, everyone needs continued income, and as a single person I FULLY understand that if I lose my job, then all income ceases. Fully get that. So do I buy something that takes 50% of my net income or something that costs me 25% of my net income and save for a rainy day? I'm not the best at that, I admit, but it's still part of my life.
I think everyone is being irrational and defensive about my comments. Dave Ramsey would agree.
-
Absolutely it depends on income, but just like gov't, it depends more on spending.
It's just about being frugal where needed, smart about large purchases, focusing on the future, and being prepared. I'm not saying it's easy, but it is doable - I know many who have done it.
Yes, everyone needs continued income, and as a single person I FULLY understand that if I lose my job, then all income ceases. Fully get that. So do I buy something that takes 50% of my net income or something that costs me 25% of my net income and save for a rainy day? I'm not the best at that, I admit, but it's still part of my life.
I think everyone is being irrational and defensive about my comments. Dave Ramsey would agree.
I don't think anyone here is being irrational at all. It is merely a difference of opinion.
-
I don't think anyone here is being irrational at all. It is merely a difference of opinion.
When people start talking about the alternative being living in a tent as the alternative to two-income home buying, irrationality has ensued.
-
You're being irrational. I never once said that you should never buy a house. Not once.
No you didn't...but it seemed to be implied when you said this:When it takes both salaries to sustain a house payment, you've intentionally put yourself in a dangerous place based on the assumption of consistent or increasing income. Bad assumption to make.
Ok lets say it doesn't take two incomes to sustain a mortgage,what happens when the person making the mortgage payment loses his or her job. Making a purchase the size of a house involves risk no matter what your income. Things happen to people bkg! Things that are out of their control at times. Illness,job loss,divorce,death.....life is risk. You cannot plan for everything. I stand by what i said earlier...I pray to God you never have to eat your words brother....they are awfully bitter going down.
-
Smart about large purchases...
Houses and cars.
The purchase of either presumes a continued income as they have long term payoffs.
So, for the sake of argument, I decide to buy a new Hyundia Elantra for $14,000. My payment might be $350 per month based on interest rate on a 48 month loan.
I have the current income to make the payment, and I assume that I will continue to make at least that much for the duration of the loan.
According to you if I lose my job due to corporate downsizing, I had over extended myself on the purchase?
-
When people start talking about the alternative being living in a tent as the alternative to two-income home buying, irrationality has ensued.
Who said that? Btw.....Black and white thinking is also very irrational.
-
When people start talking about the alternative being living in a tent as the alternative to two-income home buying, irrationality has ensued.
Ummm... You do know "tongue in cheek" when you see it right?
-
Who said that? Btw.....Black and white thinking is also very irrational.
He is talking about the tail end of my post in reply 15 on this thread.
-
He is talking about the tail end of my post in reply 15 on this thread.
Oh ok! I must have missed that.
-
No you didn't...but it seemed to be implied when you said this:Ok lets say it doesn't take two incomes to sustain a mortgage,what happens when the person making the mortgage payment loses his or her job. Making a purchase the size of a house involves risk no matter what your income. Things happen to people bkg! Things that are out of their control at times. Illness,job loss,divorce,death.....life is risk. You cannot plan for everything. I stand by what i said earlier...I pray to God you never have to eat your words brother....they are awfully bitter going down.
Dude - I'm single. I have one income and have already acknowledged the risk. If you have two incomes, why not buy a house that ONE of those incomes qualifies for rather than both? That way, if one loses their job, the second income will have provided a) opportunity to build a rainy day fund and/or b) a greater chance of having a sustainable ability to make the mortgage.
I don't understand why you're so defensive. I don't care how you purchased or why - it's none of my business. At the same time I ask you this: what is a more bitter pill to swallow? Me eating my words or you losing your house if one spouse loses a job and the other spouse cannot sustain house payments?
Do you really think it's a financially better decision to buy a house on both incomes than one? If so, please explain.
-
Dude - I'm single. I have one income and have already acknowledged the risk. If you have two incomes, why not buy a house that ONE of those incomes qualifies for rather than both? That way, if one loses their job, the second income will have provided a) opportunity to build a rainy day fund and/or b) a greater chance of having a sustainable ability to make the mortgage.
I don't understand why you're so defensive. I don't care how you purchased or why - it's none of my business. At the same time I ask you this: what is a more bitter pill to swallow? Me eating my words or you losing your house if one spouse loses a job and the other spouse cannot sustain house payments?
Do you really think it's a financially better decision to buy a house on both incomes than one? If so, please explain.
Yes! It is optimal to do it that way......we don't live in an optimal time as you well know. Like i said things happen to people. Spouses empty accounts and take off,you lose your job to downsizing,you have a divorce and lose your ass like most men ,your spouse dies. I am not being defensive and i'm not speaking of my own situation. I got the feeling from the tone of your posts that you are a very black and white thinker....it doesn't seem to allow for things outside a persons control. As far as you eating your words or someone losing their home due to unforseen circumstances....Well they are both equally bad....i don't wish either of them on anybody. These things i have spoken of have and do happen to very responsible people. This isn't just happening to moonbats and people foolish with their money. I just ask you to remember that because none of us are safe from it anymore.
-
Yes! It is optimal to do it that way......we don't live in an optimal time as you well know. Like i said things happen to people. Spouses empty accounts and take off,you lose your job to downsizing,you have a divorce and lose your ass like most men ,your spouse dies. I am not being defensive and i'm not speaking of my own situation. I got the feeling from the tone of your posts that you are a very black and white thinker....it doesn't seem to allow for things outside a persons control. As far as you eating your words or someone losing their home due to unforseen circumstances....Well they are both equally bad....i don't wish either of them on anybody. These things i have spoken of have and do happen to very responsible people. This isn't just happening to moonbats and people foolish with their money. I just ask you to remember that because none of us are safe from it anymore.
I agree and disagree. Black and white? In many ways, yes. I'm not trying to force my views on anyone, just saying it's safer and CAN be done. Yes, shit happens. My divorce cost me almost $100K when adding in the value of the house - I know the impact. Yes, a person can die. Yes a person can steal. But overall, the situation is still much more stable if only one income is necessary.
The "we don't live in those times," well, I think that's something that every generation says. :-)
-
The "we don't live in those times," well, I think that's something that every generation says.
Yes but not every generation has had to over come a raving socialist/communist as their CINC! :-)
-
Yes but not every generation has had to over come a raving socialist/communist as their CINC! :-)
Certainly not one this outspoken, overt or to chicken shit to tell the truth... but I think if we look back, there were a few people in the early part of the 20th that may have qualified.
-
Certainly not one this outspoken, overt or to chicken shit to tell the truth... but I think if we look back, there were a few people in the early part of the 20th that may have qualified.
**cough... FDR... cough** :uhsure:
-
**cough... FDR... cough** :uhsure:
Mike...lets remember Lord Zero isn't done yet! :o :banghead: :-)
-
I think 0bama is pretty much done. They can't pass anything before the end of the year. I think Xmas sales this year are shaping up to be pretty poor. There will be huge tax increases at the start of the year, both personal and employment. Mid January there will a huge amount of noise about what to do about jobs. I kind of think that 0bama will wind up a cipher, as he has already passed most of the work over to Nancy and Harry anyway. And even they will have to face reality.
-
I think 0bama is pretty much done. They can't pass anything before the end of the year. I think Xmas sales this year are shaping up to be pretty poor. There will be huge tax increases at the start of the year, both personal and employment. Mid January there will a huge amount of noise about what to do about jobs. I kind of think that 0bama will wind up a cipher, as he has already passed most of the work over to Nancy and Harry anyway. And even they will have to face reality.
From your lips to God's ear! I hope BO is all about DONE.
You forgot to mention that next year we will also be seeing the bloody, gory increase of foreclosures. Better get ready to see more, and more "tent cities" popping up or folks moving in with their relatives...
-
From your lips to God's ear! I hope BO is all about DONE.
You forgot to mention that next year we will also be seeing the bloody, gory increase of foreclosures. Better get ready to see more, and more "tent cities" popping up or folks moving in with their relatives...
Yup, the "due date" for foreclosures keeps getting pushed back, but eventually it is going to come to a head.