That is more than the population of Germany. It also looks like the government will also stop subsidizing home loans, which will mean people will be moving back to the cities and renting. It might be a good idea to buy property in an urban center and rent it out. I'm just throwing that idea out there, what does everyone else think?
You underestimate the powers of al-Qaeda and superviruses.
smagpole wrote:
You underestimate the powers of al-Qaeda and superviruses.
Solid post.
smagpole wrote:
You underestimate the powers of al-Qaeda and superviruses.
Superviruses? Maybe. Al-Qaeda? Very very unlikely.
People will go where the jobs are not where housing is. Federal subisdies of mortgages helps cities more than suburbs. 40 years is a long time. If you would have bought you property in 1970 detroit (still doing well off the auto boom), you might not be too happy with the 2010 results. If you bough in SF or NYC on the other hand.....The definition of suburb versus city is also pretty vague. A suburb can be anything from people living on 2 acre lots (standard in CT suburbs) to 8+ houses to the acre (bay area suburbs). I sort of expect denser suburbs rather than a major city influx (most cities can't really grow much) but I have not real evidence to back it up.
TCB wrote:
That is more than the population of Germany. It also looks like the government will also stop subsidizing home loans, which will mean people will be moving back to the cities and renting. It might be a good idea to buy property in an urban center and rent it out. I'm just throwing that idea out there, what does everyone else think?
sfdasdfsdaa wrote:
Federal subisdies of mortgages helps cities more than suburbs.
I sort of expect denser suburbs rather than a major city influx (most cities can't really grow much) but I have not real evidence to back it up.
How do you figure that subsidies help cities more than suburbs? People living in cities rent because it makes more sense, especially in large buildings with many occupants. Subsidized mortgages have been one of the main drivers for people fleeing cities towards the suburbs over the past half century.
I expect denser suburbs too, but I also expect denser cities as well, so long as the conditions are right (higher borrowing costs). Cities have plenty of room to grow as long as regulation does not stand in the way of them growing upwards.
Cities are far more productive than everywhere else. Jobs will be there. Detroit failed because it concentrated itself in a single industry that was controlled by three companies that sunk themselves. New York and San Fransisco have prospered because of a high concentration of highly intelligent individuals.
i think you're a few years early still - in most parts of the US.
i also think that rents have a lot more to do with the local jobs picture and income than with population (population is directly related to the availability of jobs, and thus indirectly, i'm arguing, related to real estate prices/rents).
so if you want to buy an apartment building, realize that you are betting on the city / neighborhood. the person who mentioned detroit made a good point. also consider baltimore, cleveland, pittsburgh ... it was relatively recently that baltimore was far larger and more prosperous than washington dc, even though that seems impossible now.
The next 40 years?
Heavens - I don’t think you’ll survive the next 5 years without the most gigantic national default in history.
U.S. government debt is absolutely exploding.
The U.S. national debt is currently $14,081,561,324,681.83.
It is more than 14 times larger than it was back in 1980 and imagine just what the annual interest payments alone are on that sort of debt.
Unfortunately, the US national debt also continues to grow at breathtaking speed, in fact, the Obama administration is projecting that the federal budget deficit for this year will be an all-time record 1.6 trillion dollars
That’s money that has to be borrowed or America will starve - or the Fed turning more and more to the printing presses with the resulting disastrous consequences.
Now Obama has proposed a budget that would increase U.S. government spending to an additional $5.6 trillion on top of the $14 trillion plus by 2015.
No mention whatsoever about reducing this millstone.
Unless something changes right now, the outlook for U.S. government finances in future years is downright apocalyptic.
Think something is likely to change?
Property is always valuable. Unless your land is eroding into the sea, then it's just as good as when you bought it. Whether or not the economy puts the value of a dollar higher or lower or if house prices bounce around, you still own that same percentage of soil. As the demand for it increases, the relative value of it is increasing even if maybe your house doesn't assess for the same thing as it did in a different year. I'd say a 20%+ population boom would mean good things for a piece of land you own now.
[quote]sfdasdfsdaa wrote:
If you would have bought you property in 1970 detroit (still doing well off the auto boom), you might not be too happy with the 2010 results. If you bough in SF or NYC on the other hand.....
[quote]
Perhaps you are a bit off on your 1970 detroit citation. Considering the race riots were in 1967, and hundreds of thousands had fled the city by 1970.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot
"The white exodus from Detroit had been prodigiously steady prior to the riot, totally twenty-two thousand in 1966, but afterwards it was frantic. In 1967, with less than half the year remaining after the summer explosion—the outward population migration reached sixty-seven thousand. In 1968 the figure hit eighty-thousand, followed by forty-six thousand in 1969"
Cities housing costs substantially more. The mortgage deduction is worth very little to the average person (making 60k a year and living in a 250k house). Your interest and taxes are barely more than the standard deduction and your paying 15% federal income tax. Compare that to the city couple earning 200k (28%) buying the 800k condo.The mortgage deduction is a very small part of why suburbs are cheaper. And things like crime and the desire for privacy are probably more of a factor. You have to remember until the car, dense living had a lot of advantages that go away when you can drive around.Seems to me like high borrowing costs hurt both. Just growing up isn't adequate as you also need to scale everything else. Can it be done. Sure. We could also all start living in much smaller living spaces (i.e. the japanese have 100 sq studios).AS for why detroit fell it is a lot more complicated than saying the people in NYC and SF were smarter.
TCB wrote:
sfdasdfsdaa wrote:Federal subisdies of mortgages helps cities more than suburbs.
I sort of expect denser suburbs rather than a major city influx (most cities can't really grow much) but I have not real evidence to back it up.
How do you figure that subsidies help cities more than suburbs? People living in cities rent because it makes more sense, especially in large buildings with many occupants. Subsidized mortgages have been one of the main drivers for people fleeing cities towards the suburbs over the past half century.
I expect denser suburbs too, but I also expect denser cities as well, so long as the conditions are right (higher borrowing costs). Cities have plenty of room to grow as long as regulation does not stand in the way of them growing upwards.
Cities are far more productive than everywhere else. Jobs will be there. Detroit failed because it concentrated itself in a single industry that was controlled by three companies that sunk themselves. New York and San Fransisco have prospered because of a high concentration of highly intelligent individuals.
This makes me feel better about my situation.
I own and rent out a townhouse in a Virgina suburb of DC.
Maybe it will be best to keep that rental income flowing in while in my retirement instead of selling it at retirement age and then pass the cash cow to my kids when I kick the bucket.
And I own the house I live in between DC and Baltimore.
As the population and cities expand, that suburban house will eventually be in the mega city.
I could sell it and move into a nice old folks home in Florida.
sfdasdfsdaa wrote:
Cities housing costs substantially more.
The mortgage deduction is a very small part of why suburbs are cheaper. And things like crime and the desire for privacy are probably more of a factor. You have to remember until the car, dense living had a lot of advantages that go away when you can drive around.
Seems to me like high borrowing costs hurt both. Just growing up isn't adequate as you also need to scale everything else.
You are exactly right that city housing costs more. That is why people RENT in cities like New York and Boston instead of buying houses. And that is why home mortgages benefit people in suburbs more, because people in cities aren't taking out mortgages.
The government has also been heavily subsidizing transportation for people who live in suburbs too. It can keep building more highways and roads, and gas prices are going to go up tremendously too, so people will have to live in cities and denser townships too in the future.
Building up is a good solution to future problems (probably the best). It is environmentally friendly, energy efficient, space efficient, and greatly improves the overall productivity of the populace.
X-Runner wrote:
This makes me feel better about my situation.
I own and rent out a townhouse in a Virgina suburb of DC.
Maybe it will be best to keep that rental income flowing in while in my retirement instead of selling it at retirement age and then pass the cash cow to my kids when I kick the bucket.
And I own the house I live in between DC and Baltimore.
As the population and cities expand, that suburban house will eventually be in the mega city.
I could sell it and move into a nice old folks home in Florida.
That's really smart except for the fact that you live in Maryland.
Historically, it is ALWAYS A GOOD TIME to buy real estate.
A huge advantage is that you are controlling your own money.
The safest way is to invest in single family homes. Do not take out a loan. Save until you can pay cash. Remember a good rental home should cost about half what a regular first time buyer home should cost. Learn to do most of the repairs yourself. Try to put all the rental money back and buy another house when you can.
I never worry about the economy or what somebody says houses are worth. Our rents were down a little the last couple years, but by buying the houses right, we still made a great %. And when the economy is bad, it is a great time to pick up more rentals even cheaper. When the economy gets back, we make even more.
This is the way I look at rentals. Roughly 30% of houses are rented. If there are 20,000 houses in the two towns we have rentals, there would be 6,000 used as rentals. We have 20+ which is a very small amount of all possible rentals. If ours are nice at a reasonable price, we never have a problem renting them out.
As long as you do the upkeep, you will always have a growing income as well as a growing value of the properties over the long term.
You aren't going to "get rich quick" but if you keep at it, you will do far better than your peers when it gets retirement time.