Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (246697)	8/20/2005 8:36:16 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571401

Amy, re: You must live in Florida too : ) Everything is relative. In California, salaries are high and housing costs are high. In Florida, salaries are low and housing costs are (relatively) low. But other costs in Florida and California are about the same; gas, food, insurance, autos, books for the kids for school, clothing, health care. So those other items are proportionally a much higher percentage of a Floridian's salary than a person in California. When they go up, it has a more significant impact. This from a good article in the St. Pete Times: But Florida has accumulated some striking distinctions. Just last week, the Tampa Bay area was deemed the least affordable metro area in the nation based on the cost of housing and getting around. The study by two nonprofit think tanks said bay area residents spend an average of 57.7 percent of household expenditures on housing and transportation. No. 2 in the survey: Miami. pqasb.pqarchiver.com I think you need to review your perspective. $2.75 for a gallon of gas isn't as significant an issue to a person earning $200K as it is to a school teacher earning $20K. John

To: Amy J who wrote (246697)	8/20/2005 8:42:14 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571401

NYT editorial today--- again, the folks getting really squeezed are the folks with lower incomes, because these price increases are a greater percentage of their paycheck. August 20, 2005 The Oil Effect Just when it was starting to seem as if consumers were really shaking off high energy prices, Wal-Mart announced this week that its profits stumbled in the second quarter, rising at their slowest rate in four years. Forced to choose between their closets and their gasoline tanks, Americans unsurprisingly chose their tanks. Wal-Mart warned that future sales would be curtailed as well, and no wonder: gasoline is now averaging $2.60 a gallon nationwide, nearly a 39 percent increase from last year. At the same time, natural gas prices are up 60 percent to 90 percent around the country, presaging steep home-heating bills in the months ahead on top of high prices at the pump. With most other prices relatively tame, consumers could weather the energy squeeze if they had a cushion. They don't. Wage gains for most Americans are barely keeping up with inflation. And according to a recent Commerce Department report, Americans, on average, are now saving nothing each month, so they obviously cannot pay higher energy bills by reducing the amount they save. That leaves rising home values to cover growing energy costs. According to a recent report by John Makin, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, the housing boom has offset the economic drag of higher oil prices by enabling homeowners to get cash through refinancing or selling at a profit, and by creating a "wealth effect": as their houses appreciate, homeowners feel rich and thus spend freely, even as they neglect to save. Mr. Makin estimates that a mere leveling off of housing prices would be sufficient to remove the economic boost from real estate. That would slow consumer spending and, with it, the economy. No one knows when that leveling off will occur. But homes are already becoming increasingly unaffordable, and refinancings are slowing down. There are early signs that banks are beginning to tighten their lending standards. And the Federal Reserve, which has been trying for more than a year to push up mortgage rates, will probably succeed in that endeavor at some point. The pain that now seems imminent might have been avoided. Conservation could have reduced energy demand and prices, while properly targeted job growth and savings incentives - not tax cuts for the rich - could have built a stronger job recovery, helping to foster higher wages and new savings. Maybe next time around.