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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (43769)	10/28/2005 3:16:13 AM
From: Live2Sail	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Grace, 1) What about my other post showing that I should buy sooner rather than later to enjoy the benefits of prop. 13 immediately? 2) Please give me your number for existing homes in CA. I know you covet your stats like Golem covets The Ring, but the internet is about sharing. I have found a number. It is likely not your number. I have already read the NAR site. I could not find a number for CA even though it is one of the states for which they make a tally. 3) I don't know why you compare housing turnover in the U.S. to Japan's. The U.S. has one of the most mobile, if not the most mobile workforce in the world. Europeans and Asians are stunned by how far from home and how often we move. What other countries have as many major cities/workcenters as the U.S. It makes sense that we have a higher turnover than Japan. That comparison is meaningless. You cite a high turnover in CA during a period of the greatest boom ever. The tax-free gains cap of 250/500k will affect Californians disproportionately due to the high median price of homes -- giving an incentive to move before they have to pay taxes raising the turnover rate. Also, California has two large urban areas where people move back-and-forth. It is a very mobile population. Only Texas comes to mind as maybe being similar. 4) Prop. 13 was introduced because of perceived profligate spending by the government. 5) Prop. 13 would have a much larger burden on the elderly because they have had the chance to enjoy the benefit longer. That's Lizzie's biggest beef. If one is not for kicking people out of their homes, then rent control should be considered. 6) If you think that you've got some statistics to dispel some fallacious thinking, then you have quite a large audience. It seems that most here think that Prop. 13 creates a "Lock-in." Most of my friends and acquaintances in CA think P13 creates a lock-in. Prof. Hal Varian of Cal-Berkeley, who literally wrote the damn book on Econ, believes it. You've got a lot of work to do to convince people one-by-one on SI. Why not write a paper, or a series of papers on the fallacies that you see. Find some real panel data and calculate statistics to back up your conjectures. Then, publish a few of these papers in peer-reviewed conference or journal. I know that you have much disdain for acadmeia, but it'll help people take you more seriously. You can take those papers and create a monograph like Freakonomics . Graceonomics or The World According to Grace. 7) In reality, it will be near impossible for either of us to prove our point. You chastise the authors of the one of the Prop. 13 papers for picking a poor control group. Yet, with Prop. 13, all we can produce is an observational statistic. There will always be confounding variables. That's one of the huge problems with economics -- it's very hard to create an experiment. L2S