.
Not an issue. Make bigger house on a bigger lot. Price of house is not just due to demand or cost of land. Also building and materials costs 
Schools require special earthquake design requirements. Cannot convert old commercial into schools… as far as housing… new housing is only affordable for the top 10%… the poor can only afford old Class C housing in old tired neighborhoods like Oakland, east San Jose, Stockton and South Sacramento.
With modern monetary policy, government is killing saving accounts and cash. No poor will be able to buy a home that require some down-payment. I can fore see more public housing or housing subsidies to make use of “resources (the poor people)”. Basically, not only housing is out of hands of poor, but also money.
True. Before you can have assets you need to have cash and if cash is being devalued faster than you can earn and save it then…
.
Is there anything wrong with being a renter? Being a renter in SV is not as bad as you might think.
There are SWEs who are working in SV and renting but own houses in other States e.g. Texas. Rental yield of Austin is about 2 to 3 times that of SV and has similar price appreciation over a 10 year period (2010-2020).
That is there is no need to buy a house in SV, can buy elsewhere to benefit from the secular uptrend.
1 Like
America has set out on the path of self-destruction. What MMT will do by killing cash and savings accounts is that it will create a class of permanently indebted people. Most likely, the down payment to purchase homes will go away. Then maybe everyone will be given credit to buy homes and then made to pay for the rest of the life. Much like in the medieval era, when the peasants and the serfs were indebted for life and paid the feudal masters. They never were financially free. A new class of slaves, if you will. There will be two classes of people, those who will print money, and the others who will borrow money and hope future printing will kill their present debts. How long will this continue? People would also be hesitant to save and lend money for the fear of loosing it in the next round of money printing (or stimulus).
Census takers count them anyway regardless if they fill out the forms or not. One came out and asked me about the neighbors and about whether they had children or not.
I can’t find people to work at $35/hr. In fact skilled labor is over $50/hr
Another 2 Trillion Stimulus, and labor will be $75/hour.
1 Like
When labor hits $100/hr, nobody will work… just trade stocks, Bitcoin and currency.
When labor hits $100/hr, McChicken sandwich will sell for $25 apiece. The median price of Bay area homes will be 15 Million. It will be cheaper to live in blue tents in a public park or a sidewalk.
20% of California’s population will self identify as homeless.
Are you saying that Asset Price Inflation created by MMT is really a Labor Price Inflation,
or </sarcasm on > labor productivity gains </sarcasm off>?
We are all just spit balling here. But I have seen real inflation in action. The 70s in the BA. And Argentina in 1990. It was so bad in Argentina that all normal economic activity stopped. People called arbolitos(the little trees) would just trade currency on the street. Great to have dollars. Dinner for 8 with wine $20US
What I wrote will happen sooner if countries allow their currencies to float against dollars (un peg). This is what MMT says also. MMT says keeping currencies detached so that more can be printed without requiring others permission. China is likely first to go out of dollars influence. Others will follow. Enjoy your dollars till you can. Once everyone starts floating, there is not real bottom to how low the currencies will devalue. This will likely happen unless, of course, some one sane comes to enforce monetary discipline.
2 Likes
1 Like
long dry spells shorten life expectancy. the trend will accelerate exodus to wettier climates.
Californians leaving are doing so because of politics of California. Not due to dry weather.
2 Likes
95% renewable energy? A fake article. It is like saying I go on diet when I am not hungry.
No kidding. CA doesn’t even produce enough energy to sustain itself - it buys it from outside the state. Arizona’s Palo Verde nuclear pant is one key supplier. Now there’s the REAL answer to climate change alarmists. Not intermittent solar and wind with no viable way to store excess and no backup when it’s not available.
Cool headline.
“ There are several caveats. For one thing, Saturday’s 94.5% figure — a record, as confirmed to me by the California Independent System Operator — was fleeting, lasting just four seconds. It was specific to the state’s main power grid, which covers four-fifths of California but doesn’t include Los Angeles, Sacramento and several other regions. It came at a time of year defined by abundant sunshine and relatively cool weather, meaning it’s easier for renewable power to do the job traditionally done by fossil fuels.”
“And fossil fuels actually were doing part of the job — more than the 94.5% figure might suggest. California was producing enough clean power to supply nearly 95% of its in-state needs, but it was also burning a bunch of natural gas and exporting electricity to its Western neighbors. It’s impossible to say exactly how much of the Golden State’s own supply was coming from renewables.”
Um, California exports electricity to the Pacific Ocean? Which western neighbors are they talking about.
Also, you’re paying 3x more pre kWh. That’s crushing to lower income people who have to pay those higher utility bills. It’s not climate change that’s hurting low income people. It’s leftist policies that drive up the cost of utilities and gas.
Just to be really clear. Here is their own graph which illustrates the issues with renewables. There’s only a few hours a day they could do it, and it took perfect weather. What do you do the rest of the time?
1 Like