Total compensation to city employees rose from just over $27 million in 2000-01 to just under $50 million in 2007-08, which is an increase of $21.7 million over an eight year period. At the same time, tax revenues only increased by $6.2 million from $18.3 million to $25.2 million.
While employee salaries increased by 50% of this time period, benefits nearly doubled, and retirement pensions increased by over five fold. Retirement pensions rose from $900,000 in 2000-01 to $5.8 million.
A large amount of these increases have come to upper management within the city rather than the rank and file employees. On Tuesday the Vanguard plans to breakdown the city’s 100K Club–those city employees who earned over $100,000 in 2007, almost all of whom are upper level management employees for the city of Davis.
These numbers call into question the city’s long term fiscal health. While the council majority of Mayor Ruth Asmundson, and Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Don Saylor have maintained that they have balanced the budget with the requisite reserves, critics have pointed out that this comes from an unusually large amount of unmet needs. These, unmet city needs, such as road repairs and other projects have been put on hold and will likely cost the city more in the future.
To this point, the council majority has dismissed criticism that the fiscal climate is not nearly as rosy as it appears.
During the last city council election Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Don Saylor repeatedly claimed that the city had a balanced budget with a 15% reserve each year of their tenure. At the same time, the council has tacitly acknowledged the problem with discussions of possible sales tax increases, 911 service call tax, and possibly a public safety tax in addition to the recently passed Parks Tax from 2006.
Councilmember Lamar Heystek told the Vanguard:
“It is clear that year after year, tax revenue is becoming less and less sufficient to address rapidly growing employee expenses. In order for the City to improve its financial picture, we must take steps to control the costs of our highest-paid personnel so that the disparity between tax revenue and employee expenses does not continue to escalate.”
One possible implication painted by this budget picture is that the city use employee salaries and their impact on the budget as rationale to find new ways to generate revenue in order to balance the budget.
As mentioned previously, new taxes are already being weighed by the council. However, for those concerned about the specter of new growth pressures, this might be part of the impetus behind the increased employee salaries. The city will look to generate additional revenue and that means possibly additional commercial development and more likely additional housing in an attempt to get short-term gains from development deals and longer-term gains from an increased tax-base. However, as previously pointed out, that only goes so far. With additional housing, comes also the additional need for services, which figure to be ever-the-more-costly with the high price of employees and their benefits and pensions.
This sets the stage for a potential tax-hike coupled with the need for more business. But there is a note of caution here as well. The new Target store for instance, is projected to bring in a rather lucrative $600,000; however, this is a drop in the barrel compared to the huge totals for salaries and pensions that the city is facing in the future.
Even more ominous, is the fact that many of the employees’ contracts are up in 2009. As we shall see on Tuesday, a large number of those contracts go to public safety employees, in particular firefighters who donated huge amounts to Stephen Souza and Don Saylor’s reelection campaigns. That likely means that Stephen Souza and Don Saylor will be in no position to say, “no” to future lucrative contracts.
Stay tuned this week for upcoming reports on the City of Davis’ fiscal state of affairs.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
How is it than no one has posted a comment on such an important topic as this?? Folks, this is what it is ALL about-WE simply cannot afford to let this keep on happening! We are getting hosed by mostly kind, articulate people who don’t give a rats ass about us. It’s only about what they can extract FROM us. Excellent article by the way and Thank You! for doing what had to be done.
How is it than no one has posted a comment on such an important topic as this?? Folks, this is what it is ALL about-WE simply cannot afford to let this keep on happening! We are getting hosed by mostly kind, articulate people who don’t give a rats ass about us. It’s only about what they can extract FROM us. Excellent article by the way and Thank You! for doing what had to be done.
How is it than no one has posted a comment on such an important topic as this?? Folks, this is what it is ALL about-WE simply cannot afford to let this keep on happening! We are getting hosed by mostly kind, articulate people who don’t give a rats ass about us. It’s only about what they can extract FROM us. Excellent article by the way and Thank You! for doing what had to be done.
How is it than no one has posted a comment on such an important topic as this?? Folks, this is what it is ALL about-WE simply cannot afford to let this keep on happening! We are getting hosed by mostly kind, articulate people who don’t give a rats ass about us. It’s only about what they can extract FROM us. Excellent article by the way and Thank You! for doing what had to be done.
All I can think is that people are numbers phobic.
All I can think is that people are numbers phobic.
All I can think is that people are numbers phobic.
All I can think is that people are numbers phobic.
Did anyone notice that the new infill housing development of 83 homes is expected to generate a net cost to the city of $14,000 (which is more than likely a very conservative number)? While detractors of Target may complain it will only generate $600,000 in tax revenue, that is better than a $14,000 deficit!
The point I am trying to make here is more commercial development is certainly needed. More housing that ends up costing the city is detrimental to our economic health. With huge increases in water and sewer prices coming down the pike, a possible public safety tax, another school parcel tax, etc., citizens are going to be taxed right out of the city.
This is a train wreck waiting to happen, unless we start actively working to bring in more commercial business, while holding the line at more housing until we can get a handle on creating the necessary tax revenue to pay for all the city services we have. Either that, or we start cutting city services.
Another town was mentioned in the paper in the last few days, which chose to give its public safety folks a huge salary/pension increase. Ultimately, if the city cannot pay their bills for “unmet needs”, the city will have to declare bankruptcy much as Vallejo did. Then the employee contracts are renegotiated by a judge!
Thanks for the wake-up call DPD!!!
Did anyone notice that the new infill housing development of 83 homes is expected to generate a net cost to the city of $14,000 (which is more than likely a very conservative number)? While detractors of Target may complain it will only generate $600,000 in tax revenue, that is better than a $14,000 deficit!
The point I am trying to make here is more commercial development is certainly needed. More housing that ends up costing the city is detrimental to our economic health. With huge increases in water and sewer prices coming down the pike, a possible public safety tax, another school parcel tax, etc., citizens are going to be taxed right out of the city.
This is a train wreck waiting to happen, unless we start actively working to bring in more commercial business, while holding the line at more housing until we can get a handle on creating the necessary tax revenue to pay for all the city services we have. Either that, or we start cutting city services.
Another town was mentioned in the paper in the last few days, which chose to give its public safety folks a huge salary/pension increase. Ultimately, if the city cannot pay their bills for “unmet needs”, the city will have to declare bankruptcy much as Vallejo did. Then the employee contracts are renegotiated by a judge!
Thanks for the wake-up call DPD!!!
Did anyone notice that the new infill housing development of 83 homes is expected to generate a net cost to the city of $14,000 (which is more than likely a very conservative number)? While detractors of Target may complain it will only generate $600,000 in tax revenue, that is better than a $14,000 deficit!
The point I am trying to make here is more commercial development is certainly needed. More housing that ends up costing the city is detrimental to our economic health. With huge increases in water and sewer prices coming down the pike, a possible public safety tax, another school parcel tax, etc., citizens are going to be taxed right out of the city.
This is a train wreck waiting to happen, unless we start actively working to bring in more commercial business, while holding the line at more housing until we can get a handle on creating the necessary tax revenue to pay for all the city services we have. Either that, or we start cutting city services.
Another town was mentioned in the paper in the last few days, which chose to give its public safety folks a huge salary/pension increase. Ultimately, if the city cannot pay their bills for “unmet needs”, the city will have to declare bankruptcy much as Vallejo did. Then the employee contracts are renegotiated by a judge!
Thanks for the wake-up call DPD!!!
Did anyone notice that the new infill housing development of 83 homes is expected to generate a net cost to the city of $14,000 (which is more than likely a very conservative number)? While detractors of Target may complain it will only generate $600,000 in tax revenue, that is better than a $14,000 deficit!
The point I am trying to make here is more commercial development is certainly needed. More housing that ends up costing the city is detrimental to our economic health. With huge increases in water and sewer prices coming down the pike, a possible public safety tax, another school parcel tax, etc., citizens are going to be taxed right out of the city.
This is a train wreck waiting to happen, unless we start actively working to bring in more commercial business, while holding the line at more housing until we can get a handle on creating the necessary tax revenue to pay for all the city services we have. Either that, or we start cutting city services.
Another town was mentioned in the paper in the last few days, which chose to give its public safety folks a huge salary/pension increase. Ultimately, if the city cannot pay their bills for “unmet needs”, the city will have to declare bankruptcy much as Vallejo did. Then the employee contracts are renegotiated by a judge!
Thanks for the wake-up call DPD!!!
University employees are not receiving a raise this year due to the state budget. Other people are getting laid off. People I know are getting excited about things like “Beef shoulder at Nugget for $4.99 – large enough to feed an entire family!” and planning “staycations.”
Sadly, I just can’t see giving city employees any kind of raise this year or next.
University employees are not receiving a raise this year due to the state budget. Other people are getting laid off. People I know are getting excited about things like “Beef shoulder at Nugget for $4.99 – large enough to feed an entire family!” and planning “staycations.”
Sadly, I just can’t see giving city employees any kind of raise this year or next.
University employees are not receiving a raise this year due to the state budget. Other people are getting laid off. People I know are getting excited about things like “Beef shoulder at Nugget for $4.99 – large enough to feed an entire family!” and planning “staycations.”
Sadly, I just can’t see giving city employees any kind of raise this year or next.
University employees are not receiving a raise this year due to the state budget. Other people are getting laid off. People I know are getting excited about things like “Beef shoulder at Nugget for $4.99 – large enough to feed an entire family!” and planning “staycations.”
Sadly, I just can’t see giving city employees any kind of raise this year or next.
“Did anyone notice that the new infill housing development of 83 homes is expected to generate a net cost to the city of $14,000 (which is more than likely a very conservative number)?”
There are four reasons why housing developments, such as the Verona project you reference, are normally net money losers for the city of Davis:
1. Although property tax revenues will go up with development, large portions of that tax will go to the school district, the county and the state. As such, the city coffers see only a modest increase in property tax revenues, unless the development is high end;
2. Low-income housing. In Davis, we force developers to build a proportion of very low-end housing (25%) and a proportion of middle-income housing (25%) with each project. The result is not that we have a lot more affordable housing — in fact, we had more market-rate housing available before we ever forced any developers to build low-income housing (and this is true in every community in California). The result is that we get much less in property tax from housing development than we would if we permitted the market to determine the prices of all for-sale housing;
3. Low-income housing generates a lot more need for all government services, particularly police; and
4. We pay in benefits and salaries to city employees more than such employees would get in the free market. (For the upper end employees, the cost of benefits is WAY higher than their equivalent in the free market.)
“Did anyone notice that the new infill housing development of 83 homes is expected to generate a net cost to the city of $14,000 (which is more than likely a very conservative number)?”
There are four reasons why housing developments, such as the Verona project you reference, are normally net money losers for the city of Davis:
1. Although property tax revenues will go up with development, large portions of that tax will go to the school district, the county and the state. As such, the city coffers see only a modest increase in property tax revenues, unless the development is high end;
2. Low-income housing. In Davis, we force developers to build a proportion of very low-end housing (25%) and a proportion of middle-income housing (25%) with each project. The result is not that we have a lot more affordable housing — in fact, we had more market-rate housing available before we ever forced any developers to build low-income housing (and this is true in every community in California). The result is that we get much less in property tax from housing development than we would if we permitted the market to determine the prices of all for-sale housing;
3. Low-income housing generates a lot more need for all government services, particularly police; and
4. We pay in benefits and salaries to city employees more than such employees would get in the free market. (For the upper end employees, the cost of benefits is WAY higher than their equivalent in the free market.)
“Did anyone notice that the new infill housing development of 83 homes is expected to generate a net cost to the city of $14,000 (which is more than likely a very conservative number)?”
There are four reasons why housing developments, such as the Verona project you reference, are normally net money losers for the city of Davis:
1. Although property tax revenues will go up with development, large portions of that tax will go to the school district, the county and the state. As such, the city coffers see only a modest increase in property tax revenues, unless the development is high end;
2. Low-income housing. In Davis, we force developers to build a proportion of very low-end housing (25%) and a proportion of middle-income housing (25%) with each project. The result is not that we have a lot more affordable housing — in fact, we had more market-rate housing available before we ever forced any developers to build low-income housing (and this is true in every community in California). The result is that we get much less in property tax from housing development than we would if we permitted the market to determine the prices of all for-sale housing;
3. Low-income housing generates a lot more need for all government services, particularly police; and
4. We pay in benefits and salaries to city employees more than such employees would get in the free market. (For the upper end employees, the cost of benefits is WAY higher than their equivalent in the free market.)
“Did anyone notice that the new infill housing development of 83 homes is expected to generate a net cost to the city of $14,000 (which is more than likely a very conservative number)?”
There are four reasons why housing developments, such as the Verona project you reference, are normally net money losers for the city of Davis:
1. Although property tax revenues will go up with development, large portions of that tax will go to the school district, the county and the state. As such, the city coffers see only a modest increase in property tax revenues, unless the development is high end;
2. Low-income housing. In Davis, we force developers to build a proportion of very low-end housing (25%) and a proportion of middle-income housing (25%) with each project. The result is not that we have a lot more affordable housing — in fact, we had more market-rate housing available before we ever forced any developers to build low-income housing (and this is true in every community in California). The result is that we get much less in property tax from housing development than we would if we permitted the market to determine the prices of all for-sale housing;
3. Low-income housing generates a lot more need for all government services, particularly police; and
4. We pay in benefits and salaries to city employees more than such employees would get in the free market. (For the upper end employees, the cost of benefits is WAY higher than their equivalent in the free market.)
Adding to my previous post, I think this is why Sue Greenwald has advocated for more high-tech development. Her reasoning is that a high-tech company, which has expensive plant & equipment — which is subject to property tax — will pay much higher property taxes and demand much less in services than housing will.
That would be true even when compared to very high-end housing in Davis. It is especially true given our economically unsound housing laws.
Adding to my previous post, I think this is why Sue Greenwald has advocated for more high-tech development. Her reasoning is that a high-tech company, which has expensive plant & equipment — which is subject to property tax — will pay much higher property taxes and demand much less in services than housing will.
That would be true even when compared to very high-end housing in Davis. It is especially true given our economically unsound housing laws.
Adding to my previous post, I think this is why Sue Greenwald has advocated for more high-tech development. Her reasoning is that a high-tech company, which has expensive plant & equipment — which is subject to property tax — will pay much higher property taxes and demand much less in services than housing will.
That would be true even when compared to very high-end housing in Davis. It is especially true given our economically unsound housing laws.
Adding to my previous post, I think this is why Sue Greenwald has advocated for more high-tech development. Her reasoning is that a high-tech company, which has expensive plant & equipment — which is subject to property tax — will pay much higher property taxes and demand much less in services than housing will.
That would be true even when compared to very high-end housing in Davis. It is especially true given our economically unsound housing laws.
For all the time I lived in Davis, it never possessed anything close to resembling an economic development policy.
The consequences of that deficiency are about to come home to roost in the most vicious way.
–Richard Estes
For all the time I lived in Davis, it never possessed anything close to resembling an economic development policy.
The consequences of that deficiency are about to come home to roost in the most vicious way.
–Richard Estes
For all the time I lived in Davis, it never possessed anything close to resembling an economic development policy.
The consequences of that deficiency are about to come home to roost in the most vicious way.
–Richard Estes
For all the time I lived in Davis, it never possessed anything close to resembling an economic development policy.
The consequences of that deficiency are about to come home to roost in the most vicious way.
–Richard Estes
“While detractors of Target may complain it will only generate $600,000 in tax revenue, that is better than a $14,000 deficit!”
While that is undoubtedly true. Part of the problem here is that it seems that employee compensation is going up nearly $3 million per year. To put that into terms comparable with Target, it would be the equivalent of building four or five new Targets every year to meet the demands of the increases employee compensation package.
“While detractors of Target may complain it will only generate $600,000 in tax revenue, that is better than a $14,000 deficit!”
While that is undoubtedly true. Part of the problem here is that it seems that employee compensation is going up nearly $3 million per year. To put that into terms comparable with Target, it would be the equivalent of building four or five new Targets every year to meet the demands of the increases employee compensation package.
“While detractors of Target may complain it will only generate $600,000 in tax revenue, that is better than a $14,000 deficit!”
While that is undoubtedly true. Part of the problem here is that it seems that employee compensation is going up nearly $3 million per year. To put that into terms comparable with Target, it would be the equivalent of building four or five new Targets every year to meet the demands of the increases employee compensation package.
“While detractors of Target may complain it will only generate $600,000 in tax revenue, that is better than a $14,000 deficit!”
While that is undoubtedly true. Part of the problem here is that it seems that employee compensation is going up nearly $3 million per year. To put that into terms comparable with Target, it would be the equivalent of building four or five new Targets every year to meet the demands of the increases employee compensation package.
2. Low-income housing. In Davis, we force developers to build a proportion of very low-end housing (25%) and a proportion of middle-income housing (25%) with each project. The result is not that we have a lot more affordable housing — in fact, we had more market-rate housing available before we ever forced any developers to build low-income housing (and this is true in every community in California). The result is that we get much less in property tax from housing development than we would if we permitted the market to determine the prices of all for-sale housing;
Rich conveniently forgets that there is no such thing as an open, unrestricted market in housing development. With the advent of zoning, around the end of the 19th century, I believe, the “free market” in housing disappeared.
Don’t believe it? Okay, try to buy some property, whether infill or adjacent to the city of Davis, and try to build 20 750 square foot detached units, on lot sizes about 1/2 the lot sizes in far East Davis.
You can’t do it. It’s illegal. Zoning imposes requirements for the construction of housing that make it impossible to construct homes for lower middle class and lower class people in Davis. They are limited to apartments, again through government regulatory action, not by the marketplace, because the market could, if permitted to do so, provide such housing.
That why affordable housing requirements are regrettably necessarily, because government effectively prohibits the construction of affordable housing otherwise. Zoning and affordable housing requirements are therefore part of a complicated dance whereby the political jurisdiction controls its socioeconomic composition and regulates the extent of acceptable profit to developers.
Obviously, it’s a rather fluid and flexible process that changes over time based upon a number of factors, some economic and some not. But, leaving questions about the desirability or lack of desirability of such homogeneity aside, to allow developers to construct homes in Davis based upon zoning restrictions that only permit them to construct homes for upper middle income people, make the substantial profit associated with it, and describe such housing as “market rate” is . . . well, it’s a long way from Adam Smith and Frederick von Hayek, and closer to the “cost-plus” and “no-bid” contracting processes associating with the military and intelligence services.
–Richard Estes
2. Low-income housing. In Davis, we force developers to build a proportion of very low-end housing (25%) and a proportion of middle-income housing (25%) with each project. The result is not that we have a lot more affordable housing — in fact, we had more market-rate housing available before we ever forced any developers to build low-income housing (and this is true in every community in California). The result is that we get much less in property tax from housing development than we would if we permitted the market to determine the prices of all for-sale housing;
Rich conveniently forgets that there is no such thing as an open, unrestricted market in housing development. With the advent of zoning, around the end of the 19th century, I believe, the “free market” in housing disappeared.
Don’t believe it? Okay, try to buy some property, whether infill or adjacent to the city of Davis, and try to build 20 750 square foot detached units, on lot sizes about 1/2 the lot sizes in far East Davis.
You can’t do it. It’s illegal. Zoning imposes requirements for the construction of housing that make it impossible to construct homes for lower middle class and lower class people in Davis. They are limited to apartments, again through government regulatory action, not by the marketplace, because the market could, if permitted to do so, provide such housing.
That why affordable housing requirements are regrettably necessarily, because government effectively prohibits the construction of affordable housing otherwise. Zoning and affordable housing requirements are therefore part of a complicated dance whereby the political jurisdiction controls its socioeconomic composition and regulates the extent of acceptable profit to developers.
Obviously, it’s a rather fluid and flexible process that changes over time based upon a number of factors, some economic and some not. But, leaving questions about the desirability or lack of desirability of such homogeneity aside, to allow developers to construct homes in Davis based upon zoning restrictions that only permit them to construct homes for upper middle income people, make the substantial profit associated with it, and describe such housing as “market rate” is . . . well, it’s a long way from Adam Smith and Frederick von Hayek, and closer to the “cost-plus” and “no-bid” contracting processes associating with the military and intelligence services.
–Richard Estes
2. Low-income housing. In Davis, we force developers to build a proportion of very low-end housing (25%) and a proportion of middle-income housing (25%) with each project. The result is not that we have a lot more affordable housing — in fact, we had more market-rate housing available before we ever forced any developers to build low-income housing (and this is true in every community in California). The result is that we get much less in property tax from housing development than we would if we permitted the market to determine the prices of all for-sale housing;
Rich conveniently forgets that there is no such thing as an open, unrestricted market in housing development. With the advent of zoning, around the end of the 19th century, I believe, the “free market” in housing disappeared.
Don’t believe it? Okay, try to buy some property, whether infill or adjacent to the city of Davis, and try to build 20 750 square foot detached units, on lot sizes about 1/2 the lot sizes in far East Davis.
You can’t do it. It’s illegal. Zoning imposes requirements for the construction of housing that make it impossible to construct homes for lower middle class and lower class people in Davis. They are limited to apartments, again through government regulatory action, not by the marketplace, because the market could, if permitted to do so, provide such housing.
That why affordable housing requirements are regrettably necessarily, because government effectively prohibits the construction of affordable housing otherwise. Zoning and affordable housing requirements are therefore part of a complicated dance whereby the political jurisdiction controls its socioeconomic composition and regulates the extent of acceptable profit to developers.
Obviously, it’s a rather fluid and flexible process that changes over time based upon a number of factors, some economic and some not. But, leaving questions about the desirability or lack of desirability of such homogeneity aside, to allow developers to construct homes in Davis based upon zoning restrictions that only permit them to construct homes for upper middle income people, make the substantial profit associated with it, and describe such housing as “market rate” is . . . well, it’s a long way from Adam Smith and Frederick von Hayek, and closer to the “cost-plus” and “no-bid” contracting processes associating with the military and intelligence services.
–Richard Estes
2. Low-income housing. In Davis, we force developers to build a proportion of very low-end housing (25%) and a proportion of middle-income housing (25%) with each project. The result is not that we have a lot more affordable housing — in fact, we had more market-rate housing available before we ever forced any developers to build low-income housing (and this is true in every community in California). The result is that we get much less in property tax from housing development than we would if we permitted the market to determine the prices of all for-sale housing;
Rich conveniently forgets that there is no such thing as an open, unrestricted market in housing development. With the advent of zoning, around the end of the 19th century, I believe, the “free market” in housing disappeared.
Don’t believe it? Okay, try to buy some property, whether infill or adjacent to the city of Davis, and try to build 20 750 square foot detached units, on lot sizes about 1/2 the lot sizes in far East Davis.
You can’t do it. It’s illegal. Zoning imposes requirements for the construction of housing that make it impossible to construct homes for lower middle class and lower class people in Davis. They are limited to apartments, again through government regulatory action, not by the marketplace, because the market could, if permitted to do so, provide such housing.
That why affordable housing requirements are regrettably necessarily, because government effectively prohibits the construction of affordable housing otherwise. Zoning and affordable housing requirements are therefore part of a complicated dance whereby the political jurisdiction controls its socioeconomic composition and regulates the extent of acceptable profit to developers.
Obviously, it’s a rather fluid and flexible process that changes over time based upon a number of factors, some economic and some not. But, leaving questions about the desirability or lack of desirability of such homogeneity aside, to allow developers to construct homes in Davis based upon zoning restrictions that only permit them to construct homes for upper middle income people, make the substantial profit associated with it, and describe such housing as “market rate” is . . . well, it’s a long way from Adam Smith and Frederick von Hayek, and closer to the “cost-plus” and “no-bid” contracting processes associating with the military and intelligence services.
–Richard Estes
When Target opens in Davis, some sales may shift from Woodland to Davis. But much of Target’s sales will shift from existing businesses. Even the most conservative estimate (by the consultant hired by Target) is that local businesses will lose about 20% of their sales to Target. An independent analyst puts the figure above 50%. Extensive studies across America have shown that when mega-retailers come to town, local businesses lose an average of 30% of sales. So much of the sales tax generated by Target will be at the expense of existing local retailers.
Stores this big can be a regional draw, but more so when they are grouped with other mega-retailers. Woodland now has a bigger Target, and a Costco, in addition to the Wal-Mart and all the other huge retailers east of town. Vacaville is seriously overbuilt for retail, Woodland is probably at capacity. It is hard to imagine where all the customers for the Davis Target are going to come from. Why would anyone drive to Davis from Woodland, Vacaville, or West Sacramento to shop at a Target store?
For that matter, it is questionable whether all, or even most, of the shopping currently done by Davis residents at Target in Woodland will magically shift to a Davis store. Bargain-oriented shoppers will continue to head north for the mall and the other warehouse-style shopping opportunities there. So the purported tax income is likely to be less than promised.
It is hard to measure the cost to city government when a huge project of this type is built. The increased cost for public services, ranging from infrastructure to police services, can be greater than the income. When Target was under consideration, the Finance and Budget Commission concluded “the proposed project would not generate significant net fiscal benefits to the city.”
When Target opens in Davis, some sales may shift from Woodland to Davis. But much of Target’s sales will shift from existing businesses. Even the most conservative estimate (by the consultant hired by Target) is that local businesses will lose about 20% of their sales to Target. An independent analyst puts the figure above 50%. Extensive studies across America have shown that when mega-retailers come to town, local businesses lose an average of 30% of sales. So much of the sales tax generated by Target will be at the expense of existing local retailers.
Stores this big can be a regional draw, but more so when they are grouped with other mega-retailers. Woodland now has a bigger Target, and a Costco, in addition to the Wal-Mart and all the other huge retailers east of town. Vacaville is seriously overbuilt for retail, Woodland is probably at capacity. It is hard to imagine where all the customers for the Davis Target are going to come from. Why would anyone drive to Davis from Woodland, Vacaville, or West Sacramento to shop at a Target store?
For that matter, it is questionable whether all, or even most, of the shopping currently done by Davis residents at Target in Woodland will magically shift to a Davis store. Bargain-oriented shoppers will continue to head north for the mall and the other warehouse-style shopping opportunities there. So the purported tax income is likely to be less than promised.
It is hard to measure the cost to city government when a huge project of this type is built. The increased cost for public services, ranging from infrastructure to police services, can be greater than the income. When Target was under consideration, the Finance and Budget Commission concluded “the proposed project would not generate significant net fiscal benefits to the city.”
When Target opens in Davis, some sales may shift from Woodland to Davis. But much of Target’s sales will shift from existing businesses. Even the most conservative estimate (by the consultant hired by Target) is that local businesses will lose about 20% of their sales to Target. An independent analyst puts the figure above 50%. Extensive studies across America have shown that when mega-retailers come to town, local businesses lose an average of 30% of sales. So much of the sales tax generated by Target will be at the expense of existing local retailers.
Stores this big can be a regional draw, but more so when they are grouped with other mega-retailers. Woodland now has a bigger Target, and a Costco, in addition to the Wal-Mart and all the other huge retailers east of town. Vacaville is seriously overbuilt for retail, Woodland is probably at capacity. It is hard to imagine where all the customers for the Davis Target are going to come from. Why would anyone drive to Davis from Woodland, Vacaville, or West Sacramento to shop at a Target store?
For that matter, it is questionable whether all, or even most, of the shopping currently done by Davis residents at Target in Woodland will magically shift to a Davis store. Bargain-oriented shoppers will continue to head north for the mall and the other warehouse-style shopping opportunities there. So the purported tax income is likely to be less than promised.
It is hard to measure the cost to city government when a huge project of this type is built. The increased cost for public services, ranging from infrastructure to police services, can be greater than the income. When Target was under consideration, the Finance and Budget Commission concluded “the proposed project would not generate significant net fiscal benefits to the city.”
When Target opens in Davis, some sales may shift from Woodland to Davis. But much of Target’s sales will shift from existing businesses. Even the most conservative estimate (by the consultant hired by Target) is that local businesses will lose about 20% of their sales to Target. An independent analyst puts the figure above 50%. Extensive studies across America have shown that when mega-retailers come to town, local businesses lose an average of 30% of sales. So much of the sales tax generated by Target will be at the expense of existing local retailers.
Stores this big can be a regional draw, but more so when they are grouped with other mega-retailers. Woodland now has a bigger Target, and a Costco, in addition to the Wal-Mart and all the other huge retailers east of town. Vacaville is seriously overbuilt for retail, Woodland is probably at capacity. It is hard to imagine where all the customers for the Davis Target are going to come from. Why would anyone drive to Davis from Woodland, Vacaville, or West Sacramento to shop at a Target store?
For that matter, it is questionable whether all, or even most, of the shopping currently done by Davis residents at Target in Woodland will magically shift to a Davis store. Bargain-oriented shoppers will continue to head north for the mall and the other warehouse-style shopping opportunities there. So the purported tax income is likely to be less than promised.
It is hard to measure the cost to city government when a huge project of this type is built. The increased cost for public services, ranging from infrastructure to police services, can be greater than the income. When Target was under consideration, the Finance and Budget Commission concluded “the proposed project would not generate significant net fiscal benefits to the city.”
Don: It’s hard to be a regional draw when everyone in the region has one. That’s why uniqueness is nice. Maybe people will come because it’s LEED certified.
Speaking of which my parents tell me that their Synagogue in San Luis Obispo has become the first LEED certified Synagogue in the world. It’s also the lowest certification rating, just like the Target. Guess the Davis Jewish community is slacking.
Don: It’s hard to be a regional draw when everyone in the region has one. That’s why uniqueness is nice. Maybe people will come because it’s LEED certified.
Speaking of which my parents tell me that their Synagogue in San Luis Obispo has become the first LEED certified Synagogue in the world. It’s also the lowest certification rating, just like the Target. Guess the Davis Jewish community is slacking.
Don: It’s hard to be a regional draw when everyone in the region has one. That’s why uniqueness is nice. Maybe people will come because it’s LEED certified.
Speaking of which my parents tell me that their Synagogue in San Luis Obispo has become the first LEED certified Synagogue in the world. It’s also the lowest certification rating, just like the Target. Guess the Davis Jewish community is slacking.
Don: It’s hard to be a regional draw when everyone in the region has one. That’s why uniqueness is nice. Maybe people will come because it’s LEED certified.
Speaking of which my parents tell me that their Synagogue in San Luis Obispo has become the first LEED certified Synagogue in the world. It’s also the lowest certification rating, just like the Target. Guess the Davis Jewish community is slacking.
more to the point of what looks like a very interesting investigation; how can we dramatically reduce the number and cost of Davis public employees?
more to the point of what looks like a very interesting investigation; how can we dramatically reduce the number and cost of Davis public employees?
more to the point of what looks like a very interesting investigation; how can we dramatically reduce the number and cost of Davis public employees?
more to the point of what looks like a very interesting investigation; how can we dramatically reduce the number and cost of Davis public employees?
Mike:
You ask the key question. Here are my thoughts on it.
I don’t really believe the city is overstaffed, although I am open to hearing from people who think it is.
The real problem has been not the growth in numbers but the increase in salary. It would be hard to reduce the salary of employees given CBA’s, what I would like to see happen is that the city drastically slow down the growth in salary size. That’s doable and over time the cost will be reduced by inflation.
For that to happen, the city is going to have to hold the line in negotiation with some of these employees. That is difficult when certain employees basically helped bankroll certain councilmembers reelection campaign. But it’s not a lost cause. The key person in this will be Ruth Asmundson who has at times expressed concern about spending and was also more critical than her counterparts on the issue of the Grand Jury report.
Mike:
You ask the key question. Here are my thoughts on it.
I don’t really believe the city is overstaffed, although I am open to hearing from people who think it is.
The real problem has been not the growth in numbers but the increase in salary. It would be hard to reduce the salary of employees given CBA’s, what I would like to see happen is that the city drastically slow down the growth in salary size. That’s doable and over time the cost will be reduced by inflation.
For that to happen, the city is going to have to hold the line in negotiation with some of these employees. That is difficult when certain employees basically helped bankroll certain councilmembers reelection campaign. But it’s not a lost cause. The key person in this will be Ruth Asmundson who has at times expressed concern about spending and was also more critical than her counterparts on the issue of the Grand Jury report.
Mike:
You ask the key question. Here are my thoughts on it.
I don’t really believe the city is overstaffed, although I am open to hearing from people who think it is.
The real problem has been not the growth in numbers but the increase in salary. It would be hard to reduce the salary of employees given CBA’s, what I would like to see happen is that the city drastically slow down the growth in salary size. That’s doable and over time the cost will be reduced by inflation.
For that to happen, the city is going to have to hold the line in negotiation with some of these employees. That is difficult when certain employees basically helped bankroll certain councilmembers reelection campaign. But it’s not a lost cause. The key person in this will be Ruth Asmundson who has at times expressed concern about spending and was also more critical than her counterparts on the issue of the Grand Jury report.
Mike:
You ask the key question. Here are my thoughts on it.
I don’t really believe the city is overstaffed, although I am open to hearing from people who think it is.
The real problem has been not the growth in numbers but the increase in salary. It would be hard to reduce the salary of employees given CBA’s, what I would like to see happen is that the city drastically slow down the growth in salary size. That’s doable and over time the cost will be reduced by inflation.
For that to happen, the city is going to have to hold the line in negotiation with some of these employees. That is difficult when certain employees basically helped bankroll certain councilmembers reelection campaign. But it’s not a lost cause. The key person in this will be Ruth Asmundson who has at times expressed concern about spending and was also more critical than her counterparts on the issue of the Grand Jury report.
“Rich conveniently forgets that there is no such thing as an open, unrestricted market in housing development.”
I never really addressed this. What I tried to get at was that our policies of not allowing the market to set the prices for literally half of all new houses has the unintended consequence of harming the city’s finances.
“With the advent of zoning, around the end of the 19th century, I believe, the “free market” in housing disappeared.”
I thought it was in the 1920s that most zoning laws and city planning staffs came into vogue. I could be wrong about that, but that was my understanding.
“Okay, try to buy some property, whether infill or adjacent to the city of Davis, and try to build 20 750 square foot detached units, on lot sizes about 1/2 the lot sizes in far East Davis. You can’t do it. It’s illegal.”
Given that we have something like 38 million people in California, what is so terrible about the idea that affordable housing is attached rental apartments and not detached SFH’s? I am all for giving housing stamps — just like we give food stamps — to people who on their own cannot afford to pay a market rent for a decent place to live.
“Zoning imposes requirements for the construction of housing that make it impossible to construct homes for lower middle class and lower class people in Davis.”
I suppose that is true. Our building standards, also, much higher than in the past, raise the cost of new housing. However, the big impediment (compared with say the 1960s and before) is the very much higher price of land. No matter what laws a city passes, it cannot get around that unfortunate fact. We have too many people chasing too few lots. (Of course, that is a lot less true today than it was a few years ago, before the bubble burst — but the idea holds.)
“Rich conveniently forgets that there is no such thing as an open, unrestricted market in housing development.”
I never really addressed this. What I tried to get at was that our policies of not allowing the market to set the prices for literally half of all new houses has the unintended consequence of harming the city’s finances.
“With the advent of zoning, around the end of the 19th century, I believe, the “free market” in housing disappeared.”
I thought it was in the 1920s that most zoning laws and city planning staffs came into vogue. I could be wrong about that, but that was my understanding.
“Okay, try to buy some property, whether infill or adjacent to the city of Davis, and try to build 20 750 square foot detached units, on lot sizes about 1/2 the lot sizes in far East Davis. You can’t do it. It’s illegal.”
Given that we have something like 38 million people in California, what is so terrible about the idea that affordable housing is attached rental apartments and not detached SFH’s? I am all for giving housing stamps — just like we give food stamps — to people who on their own cannot afford to pay a market rent for a decent place to live.
“Zoning imposes requirements for the construction of housing that make it impossible to construct homes for lower middle class and lower class people in Davis.”
I suppose that is true. Our building standards, also, much higher than in the past, raise the cost of new housing. However, the big impediment (compared with say the 1960s and before) is the very much higher price of land. No matter what laws a city passes, it cannot get around that unfortunate fact. We have too many people chasing too few lots. (Of course, that is a lot less true today than it was a few years ago, before the bubble burst — but the idea holds.)
“Rich conveniently forgets that there is no such thing as an open, unrestricted market in housing development.”
I never really addressed this. What I tried to get at was that our policies of not allowing the market to set the prices for literally half of all new houses has the unintended consequence of harming the city’s finances.
“With the advent of zoning, around the end of the 19th century, I believe, the “free market” in housing disappeared.”
I thought it was in the 1920s that most zoning laws and city planning staffs came into vogue. I could be wrong about that, but that was my understanding.
“Okay, try to buy some property, whether infill or adjacent to the city of Davis, and try to build 20 750 square foot detached units, on lot sizes about 1/2 the lot sizes in far East Davis. You can’t do it. It’s illegal.”
Given that we have something like 38 million people in California, what is so terrible about the idea that affordable housing is attached rental apartments and not detached SFH’s? I am all for giving housing stamps — just like we give food stamps — to people who on their own cannot afford to pay a market rent for a decent place to live.
“Zoning imposes requirements for the construction of housing that make it impossible to construct homes for lower middle class and lower class people in Davis.”
I suppose that is true. Our building standards, also, much higher than in the past, raise the cost of new housing. However, the big impediment (compared with say the 1960s and before) is the very much higher price of land. No matter what laws a city passes, it cannot get around that unfortunate fact. We have too many people chasing too few lots. (Of course, that is a lot less true today than it was a few years ago, before the bubble burst — but the idea holds.)
“Rich conveniently forgets that there is no such thing as an open, unrestricted market in housing development.”
I never really addressed this. What I tried to get at was that our policies of not allowing the market to set the prices for literally half of all new houses has the unintended consequence of harming the city’s finances.
“With the advent of zoning, around the end of the 19th century, I believe, the “free market” in housing disappeared.”
I thought it was in the 1920s that most zoning laws and city planning staffs came into vogue. I could be wrong about that, but that was my understanding.
“Okay, try to buy some property, whether infill or adjacent to the city of Davis, and try to build 20 750 square foot detached units, on lot sizes about 1/2 the lot sizes in far East Davis. You can’t do it. It’s illegal.”
Given that we have something like 38 million people in California, what is so terrible about the idea that affordable housing is attached rental apartments and not detached SFH’s? I am all for giving housing stamps — just like we give food stamps — to people who on their own cannot afford to pay a market rent for a decent place to live.
“Zoning imposes requirements for the construction of housing that make it impossible to construct homes for lower middle class and lower class people in Davis.”
I suppose that is true. Our building standards, also, much higher than in the past, raise the cost of new housing. However, the big impediment (compared with say the 1960s and before) is the very much higher price of land. No matter what laws a city passes, it cannot get around that unfortunate fact. We have too many people chasing too few lots. (Of course, that is a lot less true today than it was a few years ago, before the bubble burst — but the idea holds.)
Talk about lucrative contracts – look at what the firefighters are getting:
Firefighter I: $84,524*
Firefighter II: $92,977*
Police Officer: $74,968*
* Don’t forget that City of Davis employees get “cafeteria” benefits, which means they get an additional $16,076 added to their paychecks towards medical benefits. (Employees who are already covered under a spouse’s medical plan get to keep the entire $16,076 in additional take-home salary.)
yes, zoning may well have first emerged in the 1920s, and my larger point is, it’s not really a “market” if it is warped by regulatory prohibitions to compel a certain kind of housing, or, if one wants to be exact, it’s a market of a rather narrow kind, of a commodity defined by the regulatory actions of the government
Given that we have something like 38 million people in California, what is so terrible about the idea that affordable housing is attached rental apartments and not detached SFH’s?
Renters do not develop equity in their properties, and hence, do not accumulate wealth over their course of their lives, while owners of properties do. This is apparently one of the major explanations for the difference between the wealth of whites and African Americans historically, as whites were allowed to buy homes, while African Americans were prohibited from doing so through racially restricted covenants. Thus, current zoning practices that aggregate the lower middle income and lower income people in rental housing while allowing wealthier people to purchase housing has the practical effect of “reproducing” pre-existing social status.
I suppose that is true. Our building standards, also, much higher than in the past, raise the cost of new housing. However, the big impediment (compared with say the 1960s and before) is the very much higher price of land. No matter what laws a city passes, it cannot get around that unfortunate fact. We have too many people chasing too few lots. (Of course, that is a lot less true today than it was a few years ago, before the bubble burst — but the idea holds.)
Upon careful reading, I can’t disagree with this statement factually, as it does not deny the reality that, with relaxed zoning restrictions for residential construction, it is possible to build small lot homes, zero lot homes and condos for lower middle income people, and, in some places elsewhere in the valley, even poor ones, and they can be built safely with quality materials.
The decision to do otherwise is not one imposed by the market, it is a political one. Which gets me back to my initial point, applying market principles to a situation that has been consciously regulated to inhibit the market strikes me as incongruous. or, again, to be more precise, paradoxical.
The environmental consequences of the overreliance upon the SFH have been pretty well documented, I think.
–Richard Estes
Talk about lucrative contracts – look at what the firefighters are getting:
Firefighter I: $84,524*
Firefighter II: $92,977*
Police Officer: $74,968*
* Don’t forget that City of Davis employees get “cafeteria” benefits, which means they get an additional $16,076 added to their paychecks towards medical benefits. (Employees who are already covered under a spouse’s medical plan get to keep the entire $16,076 in additional take-home salary.)
yes, zoning may well have first emerged in the 1920s, and my larger point is, it’s not really a “market” if it is warped by regulatory prohibitions to compel a certain kind of housing, or, if one wants to be exact, it’s a market of a rather narrow kind, of a commodity defined by the regulatory actions of the government
Given that we have something like 38 million people in California, what is so terrible about the idea that affordable housing is attached rental apartments and not detached SFH’s?
Renters do not develop equity in their properties, and hence, do not accumulate wealth over their course of their lives, while owners of properties do. This is apparently one of the major explanations for the difference between the wealth of whites and African Americans historically, as whites were allowed to buy homes, while African Americans were prohibited from doing so through racially restricted covenants. Thus, current zoning practices that aggregate the lower middle income and lower income people in rental housing while allowing wealthier people to purchase housing has the practical effect of “reproducing” pre-existing social status.
I suppose that is true. Our building standards, also, much higher than in the past, raise the cost of new housing. However, the big impediment (compared with say the 1960s and before) is the very much higher price of land. No matter what laws a city passes, it cannot get around that unfortunate fact. We have too many people chasing too few lots. (Of course, that is a lot less true today than it was a few years ago, before the bubble burst — but the idea holds.)
Upon careful reading, I can’t disagree with this statement factually, as it does not deny the reality that, with relaxed zoning restrictions for residential construction, it is possible to build small lot homes, zero lot homes and condos for lower middle income people, and, in some places elsewhere in the valley, even poor ones, and they can be built safely with quality materials.
The decision to do otherwise is not one imposed by the market, it is a political one. Which gets me back to my initial point, applying market principles to a situation that has been consciously regulated to inhibit the market strikes me as incongruous. or, again, to be more precise, paradoxical.
The environmental consequences of the overreliance upon the SFH have been pretty well documented, I think.
–Richard Estes
Talk about lucrative contracts – look at what the firefighters are getting:
Firefighter I: $84,524*
Firefighter II: $92,977*
Police Officer: $74,968*
* Don’t forget that City of Davis employees get “cafeteria” benefits, which means they get an additional $16,076 added to their paychecks towards medical benefits. (Employees who are already covered under a spouse’s medical plan get to keep the entire $16,076 in additional take-home salary.)
yes, zoning may well have first emerged in the 1920s, and my larger point is, it’s not really a “market” if it is warped by regulatory prohibitions to compel a certain kind of housing, or, if one wants to be exact, it’s a market of a rather narrow kind, of a commodity defined by the regulatory actions of the government
Given that we have something like 38 million people in California, what is so terrible about the idea that affordable housing is attached rental apartments and not detached SFH’s?
Renters do not develop equity in their properties, and hence, do not accumulate wealth over their course of their lives, while owners of properties do. This is apparently one of the major explanations for the difference between the wealth of whites and African Americans historically, as whites were allowed to buy homes, while African Americans were prohibited from doing so through racially restricted covenants. Thus, current zoning practices that aggregate the lower middle income and lower income people in rental housing while allowing wealthier people to purchase housing has the practical effect of “reproducing” pre-existing social status.
I suppose that is true. Our building standards, also, much higher than in the past, raise the cost of new housing. However, the big impediment (compared with say the 1960s and before) is the very much higher price of land. No matter what laws a city passes, it cannot get around that unfortunate fact. We have too many people chasing too few lots. (Of course, that is a lot less true today than it was a few years ago, before the bubble burst — but the idea holds.)
Upon careful reading, I can’t disagree with this statement factually, as it does not deny the reality that, with relaxed zoning restrictions for residential construction, it is possible to build small lot homes, zero lot homes and condos for lower middle income people, and, in some places elsewhere in the valley, even poor ones, and they can be built safely with quality materials.
The decision to do otherwise is not one imposed by the market, it is a political one. Which gets me back to my initial point, applying market principles to a situation that has been consciously regulated to inhibit the market strikes me as incongruous. or, again, to be more precise, paradoxical.
The environmental consequences of the overreliance upon the SFH have been pretty well documented, I think.
–Richard Estes
Talk about lucrative contracts – look at what the firefighters are getting:
Firefighter I: $84,524*
Firefighter II: $92,977*
Police Officer: $74,968*
* Don’t forget that City of Davis employees get “cafeteria” benefits, which means they get an additional $16,076 added to their paychecks towards medical benefits. (Employees who are already covered under a spouse’s medical plan get to keep the entire $16,076 in additional take-home salary.)
yes, zoning may well have first emerged in the 1920s, and my larger point is, it’s not really a “market” if it is warped by regulatory prohibitions to compel a certain kind of housing, or, if one wants to be exact, it’s a market of a rather narrow kind, of a commodity defined by the regulatory actions of the government
Given that we have something like 38 million people in California, what is so terrible about the idea that affordable housing is attached rental apartments and not detached SFH’s?
Renters do not develop equity in their properties, and hence, do not accumulate wealth over their course of their lives, while owners of properties do. This is apparently one of the major explanations for the difference between the wealth of whites and African Americans historically, as whites were allowed to buy homes, while African Americans were prohibited from doing so through racially restricted covenants. Thus, current zoning practices that aggregate the lower middle income and lower income people in rental housing while allowing wealthier people to purchase housing has the practical effect of “reproducing” pre-existing social status.
I suppose that is true. Our building standards, also, much higher than in the past, raise the cost of new housing. However, the big impediment (compared with say the 1960s and before) is the very much higher price of land. No matter what laws a city passes, it cannot get around that unfortunate fact. We have too many people chasing too few lots. (Of course, that is a lot less true today than it was a few years ago, before the bubble burst — but the idea holds.)
Upon careful reading, I can’t disagree with this statement factually, as it does not deny the reality that, with relaxed zoning restrictions for residential construction, it is possible to build small lot homes, zero lot homes and condos for lower middle income people, and, in some places elsewhere in the valley, even poor ones, and they can be built safely with quality materials.
The decision to do otherwise is not one imposed by the market, it is a political one. Which gets me back to my initial point, applying market principles to a situation that has been consciously regulated to inhibit the market strikes me as incongruous. or, again, to be more precise, paradoxical.
The environmental consequences of the overreliance upon the SFH have been pretty well documented, I think.
–Richard Estes
Anonymous 6:03: Just wait until tomorrow, it’ll make your eyes pop out.
Anonymous 6:03: Just wait until tomorrow, it’ll make your eyes pop out.
Anonymous 6:03: Just wait until tomorrow, it’ll make your eyes pop out.
Anonymous 6:03: Just wait until tomorrow, it’ll make your eyes pop out.
In addition to the “firefighter” comment above, keep in mind that there is no shortage of qualified firefighter applicants. Testing events for even ONE firefigher vacancy regularly draws hundreds of applicants. (In contrast, Davis Police struggles to fill their vacancies for substantially less pay.)
Also keep in mind that that vast majority of fire calls in Davis are medical, not fire. (The CalFire firefighters on the front line of the state’s wildland fires only make $55,598…)
In addition to the “firefighter” comment above, keep in mind that there is no shortage of qualified firefighter applicants. Testing events for even ONE firefigher vacancy regularly draws hundreds of applicants. (In contrast, Davis Police struggles to fill their vacancies for substantially less pay.)
Also keep in mind that that vast majority of fire calls in Davis are medical, not fire. (The CalFire firefighters on the front line of the state’s wildland fires only make $55,598…)
In addition to the “firefighter” comment above, keep in mind that there is no shortage of qualified firefighter applicants. Testing events for even ONE firefigher vacancy regularly draws hundreds of applicants. (In contrast, Davis Police struggles to fill their vacancies for substantially less pay.)
Also keep in mind that that vast majority of fire calls in Davis are medical, not fire. (The CalFire firefighters on the front line of the state’s wildland fires only make $55,598…)
In addition to the “firefighter” comment above, keep in mind that there is no shortage of qualified firefighter applicants. Testing events for even ONE firefigher vacancy regularly draws hundreds of applicants. (In contrast, Davis Police struggles to fill their vacancies for substantially less pay.)
Also keep in mind that that vast majority of fire calls in Davis are medical, not fire. (The CalFire firefighters on the front line of the state’s wildland fires only make $55,598…)
Although Target may generate $600,000 in tax revenue they will cost the city money in services and, as Don stated above, the Finance and Budget Commission concluded “the proposed project would not generate significant net fiscal benefits to the city.” In order to fairly compare the Verona housing project to Target we would need to know the amount of tax revenue Verona would generate in addition to the net benefit of -$14,000 as well as the net benefit of Target.
Also, as Don stated, Target will canibalize tax revenue from existing Davis businesses which could make Target a net loser as well.
We need to cut the fat salaries. This will come when Davis declares bankruptcy although by then Don and Ruth will be long gone declaring “It didn’t happen on my watch!”
We also need to organize a sewer rate increase protest like El Macero recently did. Organizing a tax revolt is one of the few good things to come from buying into a homeowner association.
Bob Kohler
Although Target may generate $600,000 in tax revenue they will cost the city money in services and, as Don stated above, the Finance and Budget Commission concluded “the proposed project would not generate significant net fiscal benefits to the city.” In order to fairly compare the Verona housing project to Target we would need to know the amount of tax revenue Verona would generate in addition to the net benefit of -$14,000 as well as the net benefit of Target.
Also, as Don stated, Target will canibalize tax revenue from existing Davis businesses which could make Target a net loser as well.
We need to cut the fat salaries. This will come when Davis declares bankruptcy although by then Don and Ruth will be long gone declaring “It didn’t happen on my watch!”
We also need to organize a sewer rate increase protest like El Macero recently did. Organizing a tax revolt is one of the few good things to come from buying into a homeowner association.
Bob Kohler
Although Target may generate $600,000 in tax revenue they will cost the city money in services and, as Don stated above, the Finance and Budget Commission concluded “the proposed project would not generate significant net fiscal benefits to the city.” In order to fairly compare the Verona housing project to Target we would need to know the amount of tax revenue Verona would generate in addition to the net benefit of -$14,000 as well as the net benefit of Target.
Also, as Don stated, Target will canibalize tax revenue from existing Davis businesses which could make Target a net loser as well.
We need to cut the fat salaries. This will come when Davis declares bankruptcy although by then Don and Ruth will be long gone declaring “It didn’t happen on my watch!”
We also need to organize a sewer rate increase protest like El Macero recently did. Organizing a tax revolt is one of the few good things to come from buying into a homeowner association.
Bob Kohler
Although Target may generate $600,000 in tax revenue they will cost the city money in services and, as Don stated above, the Finance and Budget Commission concluded “the proposed project would not generate significant net fiscal benefits to the city.” In order to fairly compare the Verona housing project to Target we would need to know the amount of tax revenue Verona would generate in addition to the net benefit of -$14,000 as well as the net benefit of Target.
Also, as Don stated, Target will canibalize tax revenue from existing Davis businesses which could make Target a net loser as well.
We need to cut the fat salaries. This will come when Davis declares bankruptcy although by then Don and Ruth will be long gone declaring “It didn’t happen on my watch!”
We also need to organize a sewer rate increase protest like El Macero recently did. Organizing a tax revolt is one of the few good things to come from buying into a homeowner association.
Bob Kohler
“Renters do not develop equity in their properties, and hence, do not accumulate wealth over their course of their lives, while owners of properties do.”
This is an interesting question. I think, empirically, because of something you did not mention, you are right.
The thing you didn’t mention (though you might have done so simply because you thought it so obvious it need not be brought up) is that most Americans, if not forced to save and invest their money, won’t save and invest their money. However, with a mortgage, short of foreclosure, they are forced to save money and thereby build wealth.
But in cases where people are more responsible with their money, investment in a house usually is not a good investment over the long haul.
Granted, if you bought a house in a place which was for a time very cheap and it subsequently became very expensive — as a whole lot of Californians can claim — that generalization is not true.
However, the truth is that home prices have generally inflated at 3-4% per year over a given 20-year period. By contrast, a broad market index of stocks will grow at roughly double that per annum.
In other words, an investor in the stock market will outperform an investor in his homestead.
And because a house in most markets will sell at a significant premium to its rental value, a smart investor will be better off* paying rent and taking his savings (mortage less rent) and investing them in the S&P 500.
* Of course, if the house is not selling at any premium or if the region is temporarily cheap, buying a house can be a good investment.
“Renters do not develop equity in their properties, and hence, do not accumulate wealth over their course of their lives, while owners of properties do.”
This is an interesting question. I think, empirically, because of something you did not mention, you are right.
The thing you didn’t mention (though you might have done so simply because you thought it so obvious it need not be brought up) is that most Americans, if not forced to save and invest their money, won’t save and invest their money. However, with a mortgage, short of foreclosure, they are forced to save money and thereby build wealth.
But in cases where people are more responsible with their money, investment in a house usually is not a good investment over the long haul.
Granted, if you bought a house in a place which was for a time very cheap and it subsequently became very expensive — as a whole lot of Californians can claim — that generalization is not true.
However, the truth is that home prices have generally inflated at 3-4% per year over a given 20-year period. By contrast, a broad market index of stocks will grow at roughly double that per annum.
In other words, an investor in the stock market will outperform an investor in his homestead.
And because a house in most markets will sell at a significant premium to its rental value, a smart investor will be better off* paying rent and taking his savings (mortage less rent) and investing them in the S&P 500.
* Of course, if the house is not selling at any premium or if the region is temporarily cheap, buying a house can be a good investment.
“Renters do not develop equity in their properties, and hence, do not accumulate wealth over their course of their lives, while owners of properties do.”
This is an interesting question. I think, empirically, because of something you did not mention, you are right.
The thing you didn’t mention (though you might have done so simply because you thought it so obvious it need not be brought up) is that most Americans, if not forced to save and invest their money, won’t save and invest their money. However, with a mortgage, short of foreclosure, they are forced to save money and thereby build wealth.
But in cases where people are more responsible with their money, investment in a house usually is not a good investment over the long haul.
Granted, if you bought a house in a place which was for a time very cheap and it subsequently became very expensive — as a whole lot of Californians can claim — that generalization is not true.
However, the truth is that home prices have generally inflated at 3-4% per year over a given 20-year period. By contrast, a broad market index of stocks will grow at roughly double that per annum.
In other words, an investor in the stock market will outperform an investor in his homestead.
And because a house in most markets will sell at a significant premium to its rental value, a smart investor will be better off* paying rent and taking his savings (mortage less rent) and investing them in the S&P 500.
* Of course, if the house is not selling at any premium or if the region is temporarily cheap, buying a house can be a good investment.
“Renters do not develop equity in their properties, and hence, do not accumulate wealth over their course of their lives, while owners of properties do.”
This is an interesting question. I think, empirically, because of something you did not mention, you are right.
The thing you didn’t mention (though you might have done so simply because you thought it so obvious it need not be brought up) is that most Americans, if not forced to save and invest their money, won’t save and invest their money. However, with a mortgage, short of foreclosure, they are forced to save money and thereby build wealth.
But in cases where people are more responsible with their money, investment in a house usually is not a good investment over the long haul.
Granted, if you bought a house in a place which was for a time very cheap and it subsequently became very expensive — as a whole lot of Californians can claim — that generalization is not true.
However, the truth is that home prices have generally inflated at 3-4% per year over a given 20-year period. By contrast, a broad market index of stocks will grow at roughly double that per annum.
In other words, an investor in the stock market will outperform an investor in his homestead.
And because a house in most markets will sell at a significant premium to its rental value, a smart investor will be better off* paying rent and taking his savings (mortage less rent) and investing them in the S&P 500.
* Of course, if the house is not selling at any premium or if the region is temporarily cheap, buying a house can be a good investment.
Just to show what the difference is with a 7% growth rate and a 3.5% growth rate, consider someone who buys a $600,000 house today in Davis (and for simplicity's sake, pays no property tax or expenses for keeping up his house*) with someone who instead puts his money in the S&P.
Buying the S&P is a low risk investment over 20 years. It is almost assuredly going to grow 7% or more per year. Hence, that $600,000 (with the annual gains reinvested, but not taxed) will become $2,321,811.
Buying a house, likewise is low risk over time. The biggest risk, though, is that the neighborhood your house is in will decline. If it is normal, it will inflate at roughly 3.5% per year over those 20 years. Hence, your $600,000 house today will be worth $1,193,873 in two decades.
Comparing the two, the home buyer will have lost $1,127,938.
* For argument's sake, presume that property tax and other homeowner expenses are equal to the rent the non-homeowner will have to pay over that same period.
Just to show what the difference is with a 7% growth rate and a 3.5% growth rate, consider someone who buys a $600,000 house today in Davis (and for simplicity's sake, pays no property tax or expenses for keeping up his house*) with someone who instead puts his money in the S&P.
Buying the S&P is a low risk investment over 20 years. It is almost assuredly going to grow 7% or more per year. Hence, that $600,000 (with the annual gains reinvested, but not taxed) will become $2,321,811.
Buying a house, likewise is low risk over time. The biggest risk, though, is that the neighborhood your house is in will decline. If it is normal, it will inflate at roughly 3.5% per year over those 20 years. Hence, your $600,000 house today will be worth $1,193,873 in two decades.
Comparing the two, the home buyer will have lost $1,127,938.
* For argument's sake, presume that property tax and other homeowner expenses are equal to the rent the non-homeowner will have to pay over that same period.
Just to show what the difference is with a 7% growth rate and a 3.5% growth rate, consider someone who buys a $600,000 house today in Davis (and for simplicity's sake, pays no property tax or expenses for keeping up his house*) with someone who instead puts his money in the S&P.
Buying the S&P is a low risk investment over 20 years. It is almost assuredly going to grow 7% or more per year. Hence, that $600,000 (with the annual gains reinvested, but not taxed) will become $2,321,811.
Buying a house, likewise is low risk over time. The biggest risk, though, is that the neighborhood your house is in will decline. If it is normal, it will inflate at roughly 3.5% per year over those 20 years. Hence, your $600,000 house today will be worth $1,193,873 in two decades.
Comparing the two, the home buyer will have lost $1,127,938.
* For argument's sake, presume that property tax and other homeowner expenses are equal to the rent the non-homeowner will have to pay over that same period.
Just to show what the difference is with a 7% growth rate and a 3.5% growth rate, consider someone who buys a $600,000 house today in Davis (and for simplicity's sake, pays no property tax or expenses for keeping up his house*) with someone who instead puts his money in the S&P.
Buying the S&P is a low risk investment over 20 years. It is almost assuredly going to grow 7% or more per year. Hence, that $600,000 (with the annual gains reinvested, but not taxed) will become $2,321,811.
Buying a house, likewise is low risk over time. The biggest risk, though, is that the neighborhood your house is in will decline. If it is normal, it will inflate at roughly 3.5% per year over those 20 years. Hence, your $600,000 house today will be worth $1,193,873 in two decades.
Comparing the two, the home buyer will have lost $1,127,938.
* For argument's sake, presume that property tax and other homeowner expenses are equal to the rent the non-homeowner will have to pay over that same period.
Target is going to suck the life out of the downtown businesses, if the landlords haven’t already beaten them to it. When a new shop opens, expect it to last 2-5 years, the amount of time new businesses can show a financial loss. Many people of this town only care about saving money, not about a company’s impact on the town or the planet. I wouldn’t set foot in a Wal-Mart no matter how cheap I can buy milk or laundry detergent. It receives the most in governmental subsidies and needs them the least.
As for city employees salaries, Davis citizen pay lower per capita in taxes when looking to our comparision cities.
All I hear is complaining when it comes to money and this city. No one wants big-box stores (but they generate the tax money). What exactly is Target anyway? La Mesa RV just closed so we can kiss that revenue bye-bye. Didn’t Genentech look at Davis for its manufacturing plant (the largest biotech manufacturing plant in the world) and we said no way! So just what do we want, our cake and eat it too?
Davis employees provide great service to its townspeople and we need to get over it and understand that cost money. Do you want parks, bike greenbelts, pedestrian overpasses, public pools, city after school programs, public safety and on and on for FREE?? NO! That all cost money (how much for a public pool upgrade at Manor?) and if we like the way our town looks, then pry open your wallets and dust off the cobwebs.
Target is going to suck the life out of the downtown businesses, if the landlords haven’t already beaten them to it. When a new shop opens, expect it to last 2-5 years, the amount of time new businesses can show a financial loss. Many people of this town only care about saving money, not about a company’s impact on the town or the planet. I wouldn’t set foot in a Wal-Mart no matter how cheap I can buy milk or laundry detergent. It receives the most in governmental subsidies and needs them the least.
As for city employees salaries, Davis citizen pay lower per capita in taxes when looking to our comparision cities.
All I hear is complaining when it comes to money and this city. No one wants big-box stores (but they generate the tax money). What exactly is Target anyway? La Mesa RV just closed so we can kiss that revenue bye-bye. Didn’t Genentech look at Davis for its manufacturing plant (the largest biotech manufacturing plant in the world) and we said no way! So just what do we want, our cake and eat it too?
Davis employees provide great service to its townspeople and we need to get over it and understand that cost money. Do you want parks, bike greenbelts, pedestrian overpasses, public pools, city after school programs, public safety and on and on for FREE?? NO! That all cost money (how much for a public pool upgrade at Manor?) and if we like the way our town looks, then pry open your wallets and dust off the cobwebs.
Target is going to suck the life out of the downtown businesses, if the landlords haven’t already beaten them to it. When a new shop opens, expect it to last 2-5 years, the amount of time new businesses can show a financial loss. Many people of this town only care about saving money, not about a company’s impact on the town or the planet. I wouldn’t set foot in a Wal-Mart no matter how cheap I can buy milk or laundry detergent. It receives the most in governmental subsidies and needs them the least.
As for city employees salaries, Davis citizen pay lower per capita in taxes when looking to our comparision cities.
All I hear is complaining when it comes to money and this city. No one wants big-box stores (but they generate the tax money). What exactly is Target anyway? La Mesa RV just closed so we can kiss that revenue bye-bye. Didn’t Genentech look at Davis for its manufacturing plant (the largest biotech manufacturing plant in the world) and we said no way! So just what do we want, our cake and eat it too?
Davis employees provide great service to its townspeople and we need to get over it and understand that cost money. Do you want parks, bike greenbelts, pedestrian overpasses, public pools, city after school programs, public safety and on and on for FREE?? NO! That all cost money (how much for a public pool upgrade at Manor?) and if we like the way our town looks, then pry open your wallets and dust off the cobwebs.
Target is going to suck the life out of the downtown businesses, if the landlords haven’t already beaten them to it. When a new shop opens, expect it to last 2-5 years, the amount of time new businesses can show a financial loss. Many people of this town only care about saving money, not about a company’s impact on the town or the planet. I wouldn’t set foot in a Wal-Mart no matter how cheap I can buy milk or laundry detergent. It receives the most in governmental subsidies and needs them the least.
As for city employees salaries, Davis citizen pay lower per capita in taxes when looking to our comparision cities.
All I hear is complaining when it comes to money and this city. No one wants big-box stores (but they generate the tax money). What exactly is Target anyway? La Mesa RV just closed so we can kiss that revenue bye-bye. Didn’t Genentech look at Davis for its manufacturing plant (the largest biotech manufacturing plant in the world) and we said no way! So just what do we want, our cake and eat it too?
Davis employees provide great service to its townspeople and we need to get over it and understand that cost money. Do you want parks, bike greenbelts, pedestrian overpasses, public pools, city after school programs, public safety and on and on for FREE?? NO! That all cost money (how much for a public pool upgrade at Manor?) and if we like the way our town looks, then pry open your wallets and dust off the cobwebs.
When it comes to public safety salaries: remember it is the total compensation, or salaries plus benefits, that count.
Almost all of our rank and file firefighters are at the top of Step 2, not at step 1, as mentioned in an earlier post. And because much of their compensation has been shifted to retiring near full salary by age 50, the total compensation of a firefighter step 2 as well over $140,000. The ten fire captains earn more, as do division chiefs and fire captain.
When it comes to public safety salaries: remember it is the total compensation, or salaries plus benefits, that count.
Almost all of our rank and file firefighters are at the top of Step 2, not at step 1, as mentioned in an earlier post. And because much of their compensation has been shifted to retiring near full salary by age 50, the total compensation of a firefighter step 2 as well over $140,000. The ten fire captains earn more, as do division chiefs and fire captain.
When it comes to public safety salaries: remember it is the total compensation, or salaries plus benefits, that count.
Almost all of our rank and file firefighters are at the top of Step 2, not at step 1, as mentioned in an earlier post. And because much of their compensation has been shifted to retiring near full salary by age 50, the total compensation of a firefighter step 2 as well over $140,000. The ten fire captains earn more, as do division chiefs and fire captain.
When it comes to public safety salaries: remember it is the total compensation, or salaries plus benefits, that count.
Almost all of our rank and file firefighters are at the top of Step 2, not at step 1, as mentioned in an earlier post. And because much of their compensation has been shifted to retiring near full salary by age 50, the total compensation of a firefighter step 2 as well over $140,000. The ten fire captains earn more, as do division chiefs and fire captain.
Eileen sent out an email suggesting one should link up with this piece…
At least the comments aren’t about parking (and if the auto mall “solution” to tax revenues is now coming a cropper, well Big Boxes can fail too…), this time.
What do the “upper incomes” of city bureaucracy and the “half billion” bucks for the Waterworks have in common?
Clearly- an underlying assumption by whatever is the politburo here (forget the puppet show of the Council, those folks come, sit a few years, then go) that a little (very rapid) housing growth will cover the “nut” in the near future.
After-all, if Davis doubles in size in X years your tripled water bill will only be fifty percent higher than it was in 2007!
Let the bulldozers begin!
Covell village could be 2500 fast “units”…
shepley
little ps hint here: someone should find what the engineer in charge has been drawing up in blueprint for the new WWTP capacity, every 10,000 in more pop. is a million gallons per day in WWTP capacity required, by thumbnail est.
Eileen sent out an email suggesting one should link up with this piece…
At least the comments aren’t about parking (and if the auto mall “solution” to tax revenues is now coming a cropper, well Big Boxes can fail too…), this time.
What do the “upper incomes” of city bureaucracy and the “half billion” bucks for the Waterworks have in common?
Clearly- an underlying assumption by whatever is the politburo here (forget the puppet show of the Council, those folks come, sit a few years, then go) that a little (very rapid) housing growth will cover the “nut” in the near future.
After-all, if Davis doubles in size in X years your tripled water bill will only be fifty percent higher than it was in 2007!
Let the bulldozers begin!
Covell village could be 2500 fast “units”…
shepley
little ps hint here: someone should find what the engineer in charge has been drawing up in blueprint for the new WWTP capacity, every 10,000 in more pop. is a million gallons per day in WWTP capacity required, by thumbnail est.
Eileen sent out an email suggesting one should link up with this piece…
At least the comments aren’t about parking (and if the auto mall “solution” to tax revenues is now coming a cropper, well Big Boxes can fail too…), this time.
What do the “upper incomes” of city bureaucracy and the “half billion” bucks for the Waterworks have in common?
Clearly- an underlying assumption by whatever is the politburo here (forget the puppet show of the Council, those folks come, sit a few years, then go) that a little (very rapid) housing growth will cover the “nut” in the near future.
After-all, if Davis doubles in size in X years your tripled water bill will only be fifty percent higher than it was in 2007!
Let the bulldozers begin!
Covell village could be 2500 fast “units”…
shepley
little ps hint here: someone should find what the engineer in charge has been drawing up in blueprint for the new WWTP capacity, every 10,000 in more pop. is a million gallons per day in WWTP capacity required, by thumbnail est.
Eileen sent out an email suggesting one should link up with this piece…
At least the comments aren’t about parking (and if the auto mall “solution” to tax revenues is now coming a cropper, well Big Boxes can fail too…), this time.
What do the “upper incomes” of city bureaucracy and the “half billion” bucks for the Waterworks have in common?
Clearly- an underlying assumption by whatever is the politburo here (forget the puppet show of the Council, those folks come, sit a few years, then go) that a little (very rapid) housing growth will cover the “nut” in the near future.
After-all, if Davis doubles in size in X years your tripled water bill will only be fifty percent higher than it was in 2007!
Let the bulldozers begin!
Covell village could be 2500 fast “units”…
shepley
little ps hint here: someone should find what the engineer in charge has been drawing up in blueprint for the new WWTP capacity, every 10,000 in more pop. is a million gallons per day in WWTP capacity required, by thumbnail est.
Rich Rifkin said:
“Low income housing generates a lot more need for all government services, particularly police”
Sigh,If only we didn’t have the poor we wouldn’t need the police or lots of other social services either. Maybe we should sterilize them Rich, to keep them from breeding. Over time this will clean up the town. Oh yeah, we will need to build a border fence too.
I have this collegue, we were talking about Covell Village during measure x. He made a similiar argument about the people that would move into affordable housing associated with measure x. Of course I always suspected he is against more housing because he has one, paid lots of money for it, money given to him by his family, and is worried that it will make his home value go down if we build more. However, now that I am writing this I realize that it isn’t the money it really is the type of people that might move in that he is afraid of coming to Davis.
Then there was the lady who went to the city council to try to stop affordable housing from being built in her neighborhood even though it was disclosed that they were building it when she bought her new home. She complained that they would need to start locking up the bicycles.
Rich Rifkin said:
“Low income housing generates a lot more need for all government services, particularly police”
Sigh,If only we didn’t have the poor we wouldn’t need the police or lots of other social services either. Maybe we should sterilize them Rich, to keep them from breeding. Over time this will clean up the town. Oh yeah, we will need to build a border fence too.
I have this collegue, we were talking about Covell Village during measure x. He made a similiar argument about the people that would move into affordable housing associated with measure x. Of course I always suspected he is against more housing because he has one, paid lots of money for it, money given to him by his family, and is worried that it will make his home value go down if we build more. However, now that I am writing this I realize that it isn’t the money it really is the type of people that might move in that he is afraid of coming to Davis.
Then there was the lady who went to the city council to try to stop affordable housing from being built in her neighborhood even though it was disclosed that they were building it when she bought her new home. She complained that they would need to start locking up the bicycles.
Rich Rifkin said:
“Low income housing generates a lot more need for all government services, particularly police”
Sigh,If only we didn’t have the poor we wouldn’t need the police or lots of other social services either. Maybe we should sterilize them Rich, to keep them from breeding. Over time this will clean up the town. Oh yeah, we will need to build a border fence too.
I have this collegue, we were talking about Covell Village during measure x. He made a similiar argument about the people that would move into affordable housing associated with measure x. Of course I always suspected he is against more housing because he has one, paid lots of money for it, money given to him by his family, and is worried that it will make his home value go down if we build more. However, now that I am writing this I realize that it isn’t the money it really is the type of people that might move in that he is afraid of coming to Davis.
Then there was the lady who went to the city council to try to stop affordable housing from being built in her neighborhood even though it was disclosed that they were building it when she bought her new home. She complained that they would need to start locking up the bicycles.
Rich Rifkin said:
“Low income housing generates a lot more need for all government services, particularly police”
Sigh,If only we didn’t have the poor we wouldn’t need the police or lots of other social services either. Maybe we should sterilize them Rich, to keep them from breeding. Over time this will clean up the town. Oh yeah, we will need to build a border fence too.
I have this collegue, we were talking about Covell Village during measure x. He made a similiar argument about the people that would move into affordable housing associated with measure x. Of course I always suspected he is against more housing because he has one, paid lots of money for it, money given to him by his family, and is worried that it will make his home value go down if we build more. However, now that I am writing this I realize that it isn’t the money it really is the type of people that might move in that he is afraid of coming to Davis.
Then there was the lady who went to the city council to try to stop affordable housing from being built in her neighborhood even though it was disclosed that they were building it when she bought her new home. She complained that they would need to start locking up the bicycles.
Black Bart:
It’s an interesting point. I do this at great risk. But how do you explain away someone like Cecilia’s views. She doesn’t own a home, so you can’t claim, she has her home… She’s grew up in poverty, mother was a farm worker, lived in a one bedroom home as a young child with her seven siblings. All her life she has worked for the underprivileged whether it was for low income housing in Sacramento, as union rep for blue collar workers, or in her moment of greatest controversy standing up for the rights of a number of minorities in Davis who complained about mistreatment by the police. Just curious.
Black Bart:
It’s an interesting point. I do this at great risk. But how do you explain away someone like Cecilia’s views. She doesn’t own a home, so you can’t claim, she has her home… She’s grew up in poverty, mother was a farm worker, lived in a one bedroom home as a young child with her seven siblings. All her life she has worked for the underprivileged whether it was for low income housing in Sacramento, as union rep for blue collar workers, or in her moment of greatest controversy standing up for the rights of a number of minorities in Davis who complained about mistreatment by the police. Just curious.
Black Bart:
It’s an interesting point. I do this at great risk. But how do you explain away someone like Cecilia’s views. She doesn’t own a home, so you can’t claim, she has her home… She’s grew up in poverty, mother was a farm worker, lived in a one bedroom home as a young child with her seven siblings. All her life she has worked for the underprivileged whether it was for low income housing in Sacramento, as union rep for blue collar workers, or in her moment of greatest controversy standing up for the rights of a number of minorities in Davis who complained about mistreatment by the police. Just curious.
Black Bart:
It’s an interesting point. I do this at great risk. But how do you explain away someone like Cecilia’s views. She doesn’t own a home, so you can’t claim, she has her home… She’s grew up in poverty, mother was a farm worker, lived in a one bedroom home as a young child with her seven siblings. All her life she has worked for the underprivileged whether it was for low income housing in Sacramento, as union rep for blue collar workers, or in her moment of greatest controversy standing up for the rights of a number of minorities in Davis who complained about mistreatment by the police. Just curious.
BTW, you could just as easily put Lamar in the same category.
BTW, you could just as easily put Lamar in the same category.
BTW, you could just as easily put Lamar in the same category.
BTW, you could just as easily put Lamar in the same category.
Sarcasm DPD, I was pointing out the implications of Rifkin’s statement or at least my inferences from it. Please tell me you get it now.
Sarcasm DPD, I was pointing out the implications of Rifkin’s statement or at least my inferences from it. Please tell me you get it now.
Sarcasm DPD, I was pointing out the implications of Rifkin’s statement or at least my inferences from it. Please tell me you get it now.
Sarcasm DPD, I was pointing out the implications of Rifkin’s statement or at least my inferences from it. Please tell me you get it now.
Now on further reflection are you asking about their opposition to growth or their opposition to affordable housing because of the social costs? I don’t think either are opposed to affordable housing becasue of the social costs so let me address the other.
Lamar got elected on the coat-tails of no on x because he embraced the opposition. I don’t think he is opposed to growth in general but is more circumspect about it than the council majority. I know that he has not voted in lockstep with Sue on growth issues.
I never really understood Cecilia’s position on growth. I thought she was running against her own personal interests and that she was on the wrong side of the issue. I wondered if she was just trying to represent where she thought the votes were at, something everyone does when they run for office.
Having said all this I do believe that there is an element of support in the community for my jaded interpreation of what Rifkin was saying, that the landed people of Davis don’t want those kinds of people here. Even Dunning has alluded to this writing about the no growth opposition to the “Unwashed.” That is why I keep saying that no growth policies are exclusionary.
Now on further reflection are you asking about their opposition to growth or their opposition to affordable housing because of the social costs? I don’t think either are opposed to affordable housing becasue of the social costs so let me address the other.
Lamar got elected on the coat-tails of no on x because he embraced the opposition. I don’t think he is opposed to growth in general but is more circumspect about it than the council majority. I know that he has not voted in lockstep with Sue on growth issues.
I never really understood Cecilia’s position on growth. I thought she was running against her own personal interests and that she was on the wrong side of the issue. I wondered if she was just trying to represent where she thought the votes were at, something everyone does when they run for office.
Having said all this I do believe that there is an element of support in the community for my jaded interpreation of what Rifkin was saying, that the landed people of Davis don’t want those kinds of people here. Even Dunning has alluded to this writing about the no growth opposition to the “Unwashed.” That is why I keep saying that no growth policies are exclusionary.
Now on further reflection are you asking about their opposition to growth or their opposition to affordable housing because of the social costs? I don’t think either are opposed to affordable housing becasue of the social costs so let me address the other.
Lamar got elected on the coat-tails of no on x because he embraced the opposition. I don’t think he is opposed to growth in general but is more circumspect about it than the council majority. I know that he has not voted in lockstep with Sue on growth issues.
I never really understood Cecilia’s position on growth. I thought she was running against her own personal interests and that she was on the wrong side of the issue. I wondered if she was just trying to represent where she thought the votes were at, something everyone does when they run for office.
Having said all this I do believe that there is an element of support in the community for my jaded interpreation of what Rifkin was saying, that the landed people of Davis don’t want those kinds of people here. Even Dunning has alluded to this writing about the no growth opposition to the “Unwashed.” That is why I keep saying that no growth policies are exclusionary.
Now on further reflection are you asking about their opposition to growth or their opposition to affordable housing because of the social costs? I don’t think either are opposed to affordable housing becasue of the social costs so let me address the other.
Lamar got elected on the coat-tails of no on x because he embraced the opposition. I don’t think he is opposed to growth in general but is more circumspect about it than the council majority. I know that he has not voted in lockstep with Sue on growth issues.
I never really understood Cecilia’s position on growth. I thought she was running against her own personal interests and that she was on the wrong side of the issue. I wondered if she was just trying to represent where she thought the votes were at, something everyone does when they run for office.
Having said all this I do believe that there is an element of support in the community for my jaded interpreation of what Rifkin was saying, that the landed people of Davis don’t want those kinds of people here. Even Dunning has alluded to this writing about the no growth opposition to the “Unwashed.” That is why I keep saying that no growth policies are exclusionary.
I stated this, because it is a fact and because that fact has an impact on city finances: “Low-income housing generates a lot more need for all government services, particularly police.”
Black Bart comes back with a sarcastic response: “Sigh, if only we didn’t have the poor we wouldn’t need the police or lots of other social services either. Maybe we should sterilize them Rich, to keep them from breeding.”
Even for you, Black Bart, that “you are a fascist!” retort, is beneath your dignity. If you doubt the truth in my comment, then state it. But don’t attack me for pointing out a material fact.
Further, I later noted how I believe low-income people should be helped with their housing — by way of rental-housing vouchers (which work like food stamps do). That is not only an economically superior method for helping the poor, but it can be geared to avoid a lot of the problems associated with concentrating social problems in Section 8-type housing.
I stated this, because it is a fact and because that fact has an impact on city finances: “Low-income housing generates a lot more need for all government services, particularly police.”
Black Bart comes back with a sarcastic response: “Sigh, if only we didn’t have the poor we wouldn’t need the police or lots of other social services either. Maybe we should sterilize them Rich, to keep them from breeding.”
Even for you, Black Bart, that “you are a fascist!” retort, is beneath your dignity. If you doubt the truth in my comment, then state it. But don’t attack me for pointing out a material fact.
Further, I later noted how I believe low-income people should be helped with their housing — by way of rental-housing vouchers (which work like food stamps do). That is not only an economically superior method for helping the poor, but it can be geared to avoid a lot of the problems associated with concentrating social problems in Section 8-type housing.
I stated this, because it is a fact and because that fact has an impact on city finances: “Low-income housing generates a lot more need for all government services, particularly police.”
Black Bart comes back with a sarcastic response: “Sigh, if only we didn’t have the poor we wouldn’t need the police or lots of other social services either. Maybe we should sterilize them Rich, to keep them from breeding.”
Even for you, Black Bart, that “you are a fascist!” retort, is beneath your dignity. If you doubt the truth in my comment, then state it. But don’t attack me for pointing out a material fact.
Further, I later noted how I believe low-income people should be helped with their housing — by way of rental-housing vouchers (which work like food stamps do). That is not only an economically superior method for helping the poor, but it can be geared to avoid a lot of the problems associated with concentrating social problems in Section 8-type housing.
I stated this, because it is a fact and because that fact has an impact on city finances: “Low-income housing generates a lot more need for all government services, particularly police.”
Black Bart comes back with a sarcastic response: “Sigh, if only we didn’t have the poor we wouldn’t need the police or lots of other social services either. Maybe we should sterilize them Rich, to keep them from breeding.”
Even for you, Black Bart, that “you are a fascist!” retort, is beneath your dignity. If you doubt the truth in my comment, then state it. But don’t attack me for pointing out a material fact.
Further, I later noted how I believe low-income people should be helped with their housing — by way of rental-housing vouchers (which work like food stamps do). That is not only an economically superior method for helping the poor, but it can be geared to avoid a lot of the problems associated with concentrating social problems in Section 8-type housing.
Rich I didn’t mean to play the fascist card and I didn’t mean to deal it from the bottom of the deck but you are on a slippery slope with your material fact about poor people and services. I do wonder about your material fact though, have a reference? By the way, increased police costs associated with the poor can juat as easily be seen as an expense that benefits those with property.
Rich I didn’t mean to play the fascist card and I didn’t mean to deal it from the bottom of the deck but you are on a slippery slope with your material fact about poor people and services. I do wonder about your material fact though, have a reference? By the way, increased police costs associated with the poor can juat as easily be seen as an expense that benefits those with property.
Rich I didn’t mean to play the fascist card and I didn’t mean to deal it from the bottom of the deck but you are on a slippery slope with your material fact about poor people and services. I do wonder about your material fact though, have a reference? By the way, increased police costs associated with the poor can juat as easily be seen as an expense that benefits those with property.
Rich I didn’t mean to play the fascist card and I didn’t mean to deal it from the bottom of the deck but you are on a slippery slope with your material fact about poor people and services. I do wonder about your material fact though, have a reference? By the way, increased police costs associated with the poor can juat as easily be seen as an expense that benefits those with property.
Or you could say protect the Rich.
Or you could say protect the Rich.
Or you could say protect the Rich.
Or you could say protect the Rich.
By the way, increased police costs associated with the poor can juat as easily be seen as an expense that benefits those with property.
8/5/08 11:01 AM
of course, there are all sorts of subsidies for middle income, upper middle income and wealthy people, too (educational 529 plans being one of the most obvious, along with substantially lower rates of taxation on capital gains as compared to the earning of wages), but, rather predictably, they are considered an inherent feature of social status, free from criticism, while any and all directed towards lower income people are fair game, constituting a mark of their social inadequacy
let’s assume that Rich is correct (I don’t know one way or the other)
lower income people require more services of various kinds, including the police, than wealthier people
the flip side is that they don’t have to drive to Davis from somewhere else, resulting in greenhouse gas and air quality problems
indeed, the Davis residential model has the practical consequence of requiring the importation of people to teach, to provide services and to operate business at a significant environmental cost, as well as inefficiencies in the provision of housing and other public services
they also have to spend a lot of money on gas to travel to and from work
all of these things result from exclusionary zoning practices that restrict the construction of housing in Davis to upper middle income people, with the exception of affordable housing allocations
but, of course, they are implicitly acceptable, unlike the costs associated with housing for lower income people, and hence, rarely, if ever mentioned, in polite company
a classic class based double standard
–Richard Estes
By the way, increased police costs associated with the poor can juat as easily be seen as an expense that benefits those with property.
8/5/08 11:01 AM
of course, there are all sorts of subsidies for middle income, upper middle income and wealthy people, too (educational 529 plans being one of the most obvious, along with substantially lower rates of taxation on capital gains as compared to the earning of wages), but, rather predictably, they are considered an inherent feature of social status, free from criticism, while any and all directed towards lower income people are fair game, constituting a mark of their social inadequacy
let’s assume that Rich is correct (I don’t know one way or the other)
lower income people require more services of various kinds, including the police, than wealthier people
the flip side is that they don’t have to drive to Davis from somewhere else, resulting in greenhouse gas and air quality problems
indeed, the Davis residential model has the practical consequence of requiring the importation of people to teach, to provide services and to operate business at a significant environmental cost, as well as inefficiencies in the provision of housing and other public services
they also have to spend a lot of money on gas to travel to and from work
all of these things result from exclusionary zoning practices that restrict the construction of housing in Davis to upper middle income people, with the exception of affordable housing allocations
but, of course, they are implicitly acceptable, unlike the costs associated with housing for lower income people, and hence, rarely, if ever mentioned, in polite company
a classic class based double standard
–Richard Estes
By the way, increased police costs associated with the poor can juat as easily be seen as an expense that benefits those with property.
8/5/08 11:01 AM
of course, there are all sorts of subsidies for middle income, upper middle income and wealthy people, too (educational 529 plans being one of the most obvious, along with substantially lower rates of taxation on capital gains as compared to the earning of wages), but, rather predictably, they are considered an inherent feature of social status, free from criticism, while any and all directed towards lower income people are fair game, constituting a mark of their social inadequacy
let’s assume that Rich is correct (I don’t know one way or the other)
lower income people require more services of various kinds, including the police, than wealthier people
the flip side is that they don’t have to drive to Davis from somewhere else, resulting in greenhouse gas and air quality problems
indeed, the Davis residential model has the practical consequence of requiring the importation of people to teach, to provide services and to operate business at a significant environmental cost, as well as inefficiencies in the provision of housing and other public services
they also have to spend a lot of money on gas to travel to and from work
all of these things result from exclusionary zoning practices that restrict the construction of housing in Davis to upper middle income people, with the exception of affordable housing allocations
but, of course, they are implicitly acceptable, unlike the costs associated with housing for lower income people, and hence, rarely, if ever mentioned, in polite company
a classic class based double standard
–Richard Estes
By the way, increased police costs associated with the poor can juat as easily be seen as an expense that benefits those with property.
8/5/08 11:01 AM
of course, there are all sorts of subsidies for middle income, upper middle income and wealthy people, too (educational 529 plans being one of the most obvious, along with substantially lower rates of taxation on capital gains as compared to the earning of wages), but, rather predictably, they are considered an inherent feature of social status, free from criticism, while any and all directed towards lower income people are fair game, constituting a mark of their social inadequacy
let’s assume that Rich is correct (I don’t know one way or the other)
lower income people require more services of various kinds, including the police, than wealthier people
the flip side is that they don’t have to drive to Davis from somewhere else, resulting in greenhouse gas and air quality problems
indeed, the Davis residential model has the practical consequence of requiring the importation of people to teach, to provide services and to operate business at a significant environmental cost, as well as inefficiencies in the provision of housing and other public services
they also have to spend a lot of money on gas to travel to and from work
all of these things result from exclusionary zoning practices that restrict the construction of housing in Davis to upper middle income people, with the exception of affordable housing allocations
but, of course, they are implicitly acceptable, unlike the costs associated with housing for lower income people, and hence, rarely, if ever mentioned, in polite company
a classic class based double standard
–Richard Estes
Don Shor said: “It is hard to imagine where all the customers for the Davis Target are going to come from. Why would anyone drive to Davis from Woodland, Vacaville, or West Sacramento to shop at a Target store?”
The city of Davis needs to get creative. Make it attractive to catch a shuttle from Target to downtown Davis – make Davis a true shopping experience with interesting restaurants to dine at. Davis has much better restaurants than Woodland. It is time for downtown realtors to stop whining and get with the program. Target is coming – use it to advantage.
Don Shor said: “It is hard to imagine where all the customers for the Davis Target are going to come from. Why would anyone drive to Davis from Woodland, Vacaville, or West Sacramento to shop at a Target store?”
The city of Davis needs to get creative. Make it attractive to catch a shuttle from Target to downtown Davis – make Davis a true shopping experience with interesting restaurants to dine at. Davis has much better restaurants than Woodland. It is time for downtown realtors to stop whining and get with the program. Target is coming – use it to advantage.
Don Shor said: “It is hard to imagine where all the customers for the Davis Target are going to come from. Why would anyone drive to Davis from Woodland, Vacaville, or West Sacramento to shop at a Target store?”
The city of Davis needs to get creative. Make it attractive to catch a shuttle from Target to downtown Davis – make Davis a true shopping experience with interesting restaurants to dine at. Davis has much better restaurants than Woodland. It is time for downtown realtors to stop whining and get with the program. Target is coming – use it to advantage.
Don Shor said: “It is hard to imagine where all the customers for the Davis Target are going to come from. Why would anyone drive to Davis from Woodland, Vacaville, or West Sacramento to shop at a Target store?”
The city of Davis needs to get creative. Make it attractive to catch a shuttle from Target to downtown Davis – make Davis a true shopping experience with interesting restaurants to dine at. Davis has much better restaurants than Woodland. It is time for downtown realtors to stop whining and get with the program. Target is coming – use it to advantage.
“The key person in this will be Ruth Asmundson who has at times expressed concern about spending and was also more critical than her counterparts on the issue of the Grand Jury report.”
Problem is Ruth does what she is told by Don Saylor.
“The key person in this will be Ruth Asmundson who has at times expressed concern about spending and was also more critical than her counterparts on the issue of the Grand Jury report.”
Problem is Ruth does what she is told by Don Saylor.
“The key person in this will be Ruth Asmundson who has at times expressed concern about spending and was also more critical than her counterparts on the issue of the Grand Jury report.”
Problem is Ruth does what she is told by Don Saylor.
“The key person in this will be Ruth Asmundson who has at times expressed concern about spending and was also more critical than her counterparts on the issue of the Grand Jury report.”
Problem is Ruth does what she is told by Don Saylor.
“I am all for giving housing stamps — just like we give food stamps — to people who on their own cannot afford to pay a market rent for a decent place to live.”
Yes, and they are called housing projects, and breed all sorts of crime.
“I am all for giving housing stamps — just like we give food stamps — to people who on their own cannot afford to pay a market rent for a decent place to live.”
Yes, and they are called housing projects, and breed all sorts of crime.
“I am all for giving housing stamps — just like we give food stamps — to people who on their own cannot afford to pay a market rent for a decent place to live.”
Yes, and they are called housing projects, and breed all sorts of crime.
“I am all for giving housing stamps — just like we give food stamps — to people who on their own cannot afford to pay a market rent for a decent place to live.”
Yes, and they are called housing projects, and breed all sorts of crime.
"In other words, an investor in the stock market will outperform an investor in his homestead. And because a house in most markets will sell at a significant premium to its rental value, a smart investor will be better off* paying rent and taking his savings (mortage less rent) and investing them in the S&P 500."
Did you forget that when living in a house, you are not making rent payments?
Many, many investors have lost their entire life savings in the stock market, which can be very volatile and capricious. Even the smartest investors have at times done poorly. They'll tell you how well they have done, but can't quantify it on paper. I've seen this happen many times.
Don't always believe the business news commentators – they are not allowed to invest in the stock market, so the proof is not in the pudding for them, so to speak.
"In other words, an investor in the stock market will outperform an investor in his homestead. And because a house in most markets will sell at a significant premium to its rental value, a smart investor will be better off* paying rent and taking his savings (mortage less rent) and investing them in the S&P 500."
Did you forget that when living in a house, you are not making rent payments?
Many, many investors have lost their entire life savings in the stock market, which can be very volatile and capricious. Even the smartest investors have at times done poorly. They'll tell you how well they have done, but can't quantify it on paper. I've seen this happen many times.
Don't always believe the business news commentators – they are not allowed to invest in the stock market, so the proof is not in the pudding for them, so to speak.
"In other words, an investor in the stock market will outperform an investor in his homestead. And because a house in most markets will sell at a significant premium to its rental value, a smart investor will be better off* paying rent and taking his savings (mortage less rent) and investing them in the S&P 500."
Did you forget that when living in a house, you are not making rent payments?
Many, many investors have lost their entire life savings in the stock market, which can be very volatile and capricious. Even the smartest investors have at times done poorly. They'll tell you how well they have done, but can't quantify it on paper. I've seen this happen many times.
Don't always believe the business news commentators – they are not allowed to invest in the stock market, so the proof is not in the pudding for them, so to speak.
"In other words, an investor in the stock market will outperform an investor in his homestead. And because a house in most markets will sell at a significant premium to its rental value, a smart investor will be better off* paying rent and taking his savings (mortage less rent) and investing them in the S&P 500."
Did you forget that when living in a house, you are not making rent payments?
Many, many investors have lost their entire life savings in the stock market, which can be very volatile and capricious. Even the smartest investors have at times done poorly. They'll tell you how well they have done, but can't quantify it on paper. I've seen this happen many times.
Don't always believe the business news commentators – they are not allowed to invest in the stock market, so the proof is not in the pudding for them, so to speak.
“I wouldn’t set foot in a Wal-Mart no matter how cheap I can buy milk or laundry detergent.”
That’s because you can afford it. How nice for you, but some of us are not in your enviable financial situation.
“I wouldn’t set foot in a Wal-Mart no matter how cheap I can buy milk or laundry detergent.”
That’s because you can afford it. How nice for you, but some of us are not in your enviable financial situation.
“I wouldn’t set foot in a Wal-Mart no matter how cheap I can buy milk or laundry detergent.”
That’s because you can afford it. How nice for you, but some of us are not in your enviable financial situation.
“I wouldn’t set foot in a Wal-Mart no matter how cheap I can buy milk or laundry detergent.”
That’s because you can afford it. How nice for you, but some of us are not in your enviable financial situation.
I need a price check here: how much does a gallon of milk cost at Wal Mart?
I need a price check here: how much does a gallon of milk cost at Wal Mart?
I need a price check here: how much does a gallon of milk cost at Wal Mart?
I need a price check here: how much does a gallon of milk cost at Wal Mart?
“Yes and they are called housing projects and breed all sorts of crime.”
Here we go again (see my remarks above). So what should we do with people who can’t afford housing, let them be homeless or put them in jail because you know that is where they belong? No problem we can always aford jail. Oh I know why don’t we get them to move elsewhere.
As for the differential between return on investment between stocks and real estate in both cases it depends on what and when you buy and sell, timing is everything. Two years ago housing would have been a much greater 10 year return compared to stocks. There are other advantages to both; for stocks low capital gains and dividend taxes and limited liability are advantages while for houses mortgage interest deductions are key. These parameters need to factored in as well.
“Yes and they are called housing projects and breed all sorts of crime.”
Here we go again (see my remarks above). So what should we do with people who can’t afford housing, let them be homeless or put them in jail because you know that is where they belong? No problem we can always aford jail. Oh I know why don’t we get them to move elsewhere.
As for the differential between return on investment between stocks and real estate in both cases it depends on what and when you buy and sell, timing is everything. Two years ago housing would have been a much greater 10 year return compared to stocks. There are other advantages to both; for stocks low capital gains and dividend taxes and limited liability are advantages while for houses mortgage interest deductions are key. These parameters need to factored in as well.
“Yes and they are called housing projects and breed all sorts of crime.”
Here we go again (see my remarks above). So what should we do with people who can’t afford housing, let them be homeless or put them in jail because you know that is where they belong? No problem we can always aford jail. Oh I know why don’t we get them to move elsewhere.
As for the differential between return on investment between stocks and real estate in both cases it depends on what and when you buy and sell, timing is everything. Two years ago housing would have been a much greater 10 year return compared to stocks. There are other advantages to both; for stocks low capital gains and dividend taxes and limited liability are advantages while for houses mortgage interest deductions are key. These parameters need to factored in as well.
“Yes and they are called housing projects and breed all sorts of crime.”
Here we go again (see my remarks above). So what should we do with people who can’t afford housing, let them be homeless or put them in jail because you know that is where they belong? No problem we can always aford jail. Oh I know why don’t we get them to move elsewhere.
As for the differential between return on investment between stocks and real estate in both cases it depends on what and when you buy and sell, timing is everything. Two years ago housing would have been a much greater 10 year return compared to stocks. There are other advantages to both; for stocks low capital gains and dividend taxes and limited liability are advantages while for houses mortgage interest deductions are key. These parameters need to factored in as well.
“Did you forget that when living in a house, you are not making rent payments?”
I addressed that vis-a-vis property tax and other tax payments associated with ownership. As you know (if you are a homeowner), owning a house is very expensive, in terms of upkeep. Not only is a house a constantly depreciating physical asset (need for paint, roof, gutters, flooring, plumbing fixtures, etc.), but exterior maintenance is an ongoing expense, including major items like cracked driveways and garage floors and so on. All of that might not be equal to rent, but there are many expenses a renter avoids that an owner incurs.
“Many, many investors have lost their entire life savings in the stock market, which can be very volatile and capricious.”
You would do well to read, “A Random Walk Down Wall Street.” Your belief in the long-term instability of the major indexes is unfounded. That classic book will show you why.
“Even the smartest investors have at times done poorly. They’ll tell you how well they have done, but can’t quantify it on paper.”
I am not talking about “smartest investors.” I am talking about the large indexes, which any dope can and should buy.
“Did you forget that when living in a house, you are not making rent payments?”
I addressed that vis-a-vis property tax and other tax payments associated with ownership. As you know (if you are a homeowner), owning a house is very expensive, in terms of upkeep. Not only is a house a constantly depreciating physical asset (need for paint, roof, gutters, flooring, plumbing fixtures, etc.), but exterior maintenance is an ongoing expense, including major items like cracked driveways and garage floors and so on. All of that might not be equal to rent, but there are many expenses a renter avoids that an owner incurs.
“Many, many investors have lost their entire life savings in the stock market, which can be very volatile and capricious.”
You would do well to read, “A Random Walk Down Wall Street.” Your belief in the long-term instability of the major indexes is unfounded. That classic book will show you why.
“Even the smartest investors have at times done poorly. They’ll tell you how well they have done, but can’t quantify it on paper.”
I am not talking about “smartest investors.” I am talking about the large indexes, which any dope can and should buy.
“Did you forget that when living in a house, you are not making rent payments?”
I addressed that vis-a-vis property tax and other tax payments associated with ownership. As you know (if you are a homeowner), owning a house is very expensive, in terms of upkeep. Not only is a house a constantly depreciating physical asset (need for paint, roof, gutters, flooring, plumbing fixtures, etc.), but exterior maintenance is an ongoing expense, including major items like cracked driveways and garage floors and so on. All of that might not be equal to rent, but there are many expenses a renter avoids that an owner incurs.
“Many, many investors have lost their entire life savings in the stock market, which can be very volatile and capricious.”
You would do well to read, “A Random Walk Down Wall Street.” Your belief in the long-term instability of the major indexes is unfounded. That classic book will show you why.
“Even the smartest investors have at times done poorly. They’ll tell you how well they have done, but can’t quantify it on paper.”
I am not talking about “smartest investors.” I am talking about the large indexes, which any dope can and should buy.
“Did you forget that when living in a house, you are not making rent payments?”
I addressed that vis-a-vis property tax and other tax payments associated with ownership. As you know (if you are a homeowner), owning a house is very expensive, in terms of upkeep. Not only is a house a constantly depreciating physical asset (need for paint, roof, gutters, flooring, plumbing fixtures, etc.), but exterior maintenance is an ongoing expense, including major items like cracked driveways and garage floors and so on. All of that might not be equal to rent, but there are many expenses a renter avoids that an owner incurs.
“Many, many investors have lost their entire life savings in the stock market, which can be very volatile and capricious.”
You would do well to read, “A Random Walk Down Wall Street.” Your belief in the long-term instability of the major indexes is unfounded. That classic book will show you why.
“Even the smartest investors have at times done poorly. They’ll tell you how well they have done, but can’t quantify it on paper.”
I am not talking about “smartest investors.” I am talking about the large indexes, which any dope can and should buy.
You would do well to read, “A Random Walk Down Wall Street.” Your belief in the long-term instability of the major indexes is unfounded. That classic book will show you why.
“Even the smartest investors have at times done poorly. They’ll tell you how well they have done, but can’t quantify it on paper.”
I am not talking about “smartest investors.” I am talking about the large indexes, which any dope can and should buy.
Rich, go back and read what BB said. He never said anything about the long term instability of major indexes. Indeed, his comment indicates that he was taking about short to medium range time horizons, ones that many investors utilize (in other words, there are a lot of investors who invest outside of the indexes, in particular stocks, funds and ETFs, for variable periods of time).
Which ignores the larger question, the extent to which data concerning the performance of equity markets and bond markets is data mining. Your comment suggests that US equity markets will always go up, with the instability smoothed out, over long periods of time, say 15-20 years or longer. If US market data, and its evaluation, is nothing more than data mining, then there is no reason why US equity markets could not suffer a dramatic correction to long term values of less than 25% of the ones today, or even go to zero.
Unlikely? Yes, extremely unlikely. And, even if one discounts data mining, it is still not mathematically impossible. Consider, for example, the increasing prevalence of “black swan” events, events that, accordingly to financial modeling, were only supposed to happen every 100 years, but are actually happening about every 10 years or less, with dire consequences (1998Long Term Capital Management; 2001: 9/11; 2007/2008: the housing bubble and ensuing credit crunch)
The notion that US equity markets will always rise over the long term is based upon the dubious notion that the US will continue to remain economically and militarily preemiment. If either or both of these preconditions change, so could the long term values of US equities.
You would do well to read, “A Random Walk Down Wall Street.” Your belief in the long-term instability of the major indexes is unfounded. That classic book will show you why.
“Even the smartest investors have at times done poorly. They’ll tell you how well they have done, but can’t quantify it on paper.”
I am not talking about “smartest investors.” I am talking about the large indexes, which any dope can and should buy.
Rich, go back and read what BB said. He never said anything about the long term instability of major indexes. Indeed, his comment indicates that he was taking about short to medium range time horizons, ones that many investors utilize (in other words, there are a lot of investors who invest outside of the indexes, in particular stocks, funds and ETFs, for variable periods of time).
Which ignores the larger question, the extent to which data concerning the performance of equity markets and bond markets is data mining. Your comment suggests that US equity markets will always go up, with the instability smoothed out, over long periods of time, say 15-20 years or longer. If US market data, and its evaluation, is nothing more than data mining, then there is no reason why US equity markets could not suffer a dramatic correction to long term values of less than 25% of the ones today, or even go to zero.
Unlikely? Yes, extremely unlikely. And, even if one discounts data mining, it is still not mathematically impossible. Consider, for example, the increasing prevalence of “black swan” events, events that, accordingly to financial modeling, were only supposed to happen every 100 years, but are actually happening about every 10 years or less, with dire consequences (1998Long Term Capital Management; 2001: 9/11; 2007/2008: the housing bubble and ensuing credit crunch)
The notion that US equity markets will always rise over the long term is based upon the dubious notion that the US will continue to remain economically and militarily preemiment. If either or both of these preconditions change, so could the long term values of US equities.
You would do well to read, “A Random Walk Down Wall Street.” Your belief in the long-term instability of the major indexes is unfounded. That classic book will show you why.
“Even the smartest investors have at times done poorly. They’ll tell you how well they have done, but can’t quantify it on paper.”
I am not talking about “smartest investors.” I am talking about the large indexes, which any dope can and should buy.
Rich, go back and read what BB said. He never said anything about the long term instability of major indexes. Indeed, his comment indicates that he was taking about short to medium range time horizons, ones that many investors utilize (in other words, there are a lot of investors who invest outside of the indexes, in particular stocks, funds and ETFs, for variable periods of time).
Which ignores the larger question, the extent to which data concerning the performance of equity markets and bond markets is data mining. Your comment suggests that US equity markets will always go up, with the instability smoothed out, over long periods of time, say 15-20 years or longer. If US market data, and its evaluation, is nothing more than data mining, then there is no reason why US equity markets could not suffer a dramatic correction to long term values of less than 25% of the ones today, or even go to zero.
Unlikely? Yes, extremely unlikely. And, even if one discounts data mining, it is still not mathematically impossible. Consider, for example, the increasing prevalence of “black swan” events, events that, accordingly to financial modeling, were only supposed to happen every 100 years, but are actually happening about every 10 years or less, with dire consequences (1998Long Term Capital Management; 2001: 9/11; 2007/2008: the housing bubble and ensuing credit crunch)
The notion that US equity markets will always rise over the long term is based upon the dubious notion that the US will continue to remain economically and militarily preemiment. If either or both of these preconditions change, so could the long term values of US equities.
You would do well to read, “A Random Walk Down Wall Street.” Your belief in the long-term instability of the major indexes is unfounded. That classic book will show you why.
“Even the smartest investors have at times done poorly. They’ll tell you how well they have done, but can’t quantify it on paper.”
I am not talking about “smartest investors.” I am talking about the large indexes, which any dope can and should buy.
Rich, go back and read what BB said. He never said anything about the long term instability of major indexes. Indeed, his comment indicates that he was taking about short to medium range time horizons, ones that many investors utilize (in other words, there are a lot of investors who invest outside of the indexes, in particular stocks, funds and ETFs, for variable periods of time).
Which ignores the larger question, the extent to which data concerning the performance of equity markets and bond markets is data mining. Your comment suggests that US equity markets will always go up, with the instability smoothed out, over long periods of time, say 15-20 years or longer. If US market data, and its evaluation, is nothing more than data mining, then there is no reason why US equity markets could not suffer a dramatic correction to long term values of less than 25% of the ones today, or even go to zero.
Unlikely? Yes, extremely unlikely. And, even if one discounts data mining, it is still not mathematically impossible. Consider, for example, the increasing prevalence of “black swan” events, events that, accordingly to financial modeling, were only supposed to happen every 100 years, but are actually happening about every 10 years or less, with dire consequences (1998Long Term Capital Management; 2001: 9/11; 2007/2008: the housing bubble and ensuing credit crunch)
The notion that US equity markets will always rise over the long term is based upon the dubious notion that the US will continue to remain economically and militarily preemiment. If either or both of these preconditions change, so could the long term values of US equities.
“Your comment suggests that US equity markets will always go up, with the instability smoothed out, over long periods of time, say 15-20 years or longer.”
They always have, and they’ve always increased at a steady rate over those longer periods. Interestingly, if you had invested 20 years and a day before the crash of 1929, pulling out all of your money just on time, you would have had an ROI barely higher per year than if you had invested in the NYSE 20 years minus a day and then sold the day after the 1929 crash.
“If US market data, and its valuation, is nothing more than data mining, then there is no reason why US equity markets could not suffer a dramatic correction to long term values of less than 25% of the ones today, or even go to zero.”
I have no idea what this means.
“The notion that US equity markets will always rise over the long term is based upon the dubious notion that the US will continue to remain economically and militarily preemiment.”
If you had bought a broad market average of Western European funds and held them for any 20 year period since about the 1890s (when public accounting was sufficient to assure reasonable accuracy in earnings), you would have done about as well as with the U.S. funds. The key is to diversify across industries, which is just what large index fund investing does.
The reason I bring up Europe is because for most of the 20th Century, it was not the preeminent economy, yet investing there (in the open economies) did very well.
You would have done even better had you invested in Japan or in Canada and about the same as in the U.S. if you had invested in Australia/New Zealand. (With Japan, of course, you have to discount the period from the mid-1930s to the end of the war, because their public accounting system was not open.)
“If either or both of these preconditions change, so could the long term values of US equities.”
One thing you are forgetting is that as the preeminence of the US in the world economy declines (assuming that is a long-term trend), so-called US companies are making more and more of their profits overseas. It really doesn't matter if Exxon or Microsoft or Intel or Cisco or Merck makes a dollar in California or in Chile. The idea is to make a buck…. Of course, you shouldn't buy any of these stocks. You would do best as an investor to buy the S&P 500 (or a similar vehicle), where all of these top companies are represented as a small portion of the whole….
Further, if you really want to lower your investment beta (i.e., volatility), you should have a share of your holdings in international funds, which take in companies like Michelin, Toyota, Lenovo, Glaxxo-Smith-Kline, Nestle, Braun, etc. That probably will not increase your long-run ROI, but it will reduce your U.S. specific risk.
“Your comment suggests that US equity markets will always go up, with the instability smoothed out, over long periods of time, say 15-20 years or longer.”
They always have, and they’ve always increased at a steady rate over those longer periods. Interestingly, if you had invested 20 years and a day before the crash of 1929, pulling out all of your money just on time, you would have had an ROI barely higher per year than if you had invested in the NYSE 20 years minus a day and then sold the day after the 1929 crash.
“If US market data, and its valuation, is nothing more than data mining, then there is no reason why US equity markets could not suffer a dramatic correction to long term values of less than 25% of the ones today, or even go to zero.”
I have no idea what this means.
“The notion that US equity markets will always rise over the long term is based upon the dubious notion that the US will continue to remain economically and militarily preemiment.”
If you had bought a broad market average of Western European funds and held them for any 20 year period since about the 1890s (when public accounting was sufficient to assure reasonable accuracy in earnings), you would have done about as well as with the U.S. funds. The key is to diversify across industries, which is just what large index fund investing does.
The reason I bring up Europe is because for most of the 20th Century, it was not the preeminent economy, yet investing there (in the open economies) did very well.
You would have done even better had you invested in Japan or in Canada and about the same as in the U.S. if you had invested in Australia/New Zealand. (With Japan, of course, you have to discount the period from the mid-1930s to the end of the war, because their public accounting system was not open.)
“If either or both of these preconditions change, so could the long term values of US equities.”
One thing you are forgetting is that as the preeminence of the US in the world economy declines (assuming that is a long-term trend), so-called US companies are making more and more of their profits overseas. It really doesn't matter if Exxon or Microsoft or Intel or Cisco or Merck makes a dollar in California or in Chile. The idea is to make a buck…. Of course, you shouldn't buy any of these stocks. You would do best as an investor to buy the S&P 500 (or a similar vehicle), where all of these top companies are represented as a small portion of the whole….
Further, if you really want to lower your investment beta (i.e., volatility), you should have a share of your holdings in international funds, which take in companies like Michelin, Toyota, Lenovo, Glaxxo-Smith-Kline, Nestle, Braun, etc. That probably will not increase your long-run ROI, but it will reduce your U.S. specific risk.
“Your comment suggests that US equity markets will always go up, with the instability smoothed out, over long periods of time, say 15-20 years or longer.”
They always have, and they’ve always increased at a steady rate over those longer periods. Interestingly, if you had invested 20 years and a day before the crash of 1929, pulling out all of your money just on time, you would have had an ROI barely higher per year than if you had invested in the NYSE 20 years minus a day and then sold the day after the 1929 crash.
“If US market data, and its valuation, is nothing more than data mining, then there is no reason why US equity markets could not suffer a dramatic correction to long term values of less than 25% of the ones today, or even go to zero.”
I have no idea what this means.
“The notion that US equity markets will always rise over the long term is based upon the dubious notion that the US will continue to remain economically and militarily preemiment.”
If you had bought a broad market average of Western European funds and held them for any 20 year period since about the 1890s (when public accounting was sufficient to assure reasonable accuracy in earnings), you would have done about as well as with the U.S. funds. The key is to diversify across industries, which is just what large index fund investing does.
The reason I bring up Europe is because for most of the 20th Century, it was not the preeminent economy, yet investing there (in the open economies) did very well.
You would have done even better had you invested in Japan or in Canada and about the same as in the U.S. if you had invested in Australia/New Zealand. (With Japan, of course, you have to discount the period from the mid-1930s to the end of the war, because their public accounting system was not open.)
“If either or both of these preconditions change, so could the long term values of US equities.”
One thing you are forgetting is that as the preeminence of the US in the world economy declines (assuming that is a long-term trend), so-called US companies are making more and more of their profits overseas. It really doesn't matter if Exxon or Microsoft or Intel or Cisco or Merck makes a dollar in California or in Chile. The idea is to make a buck…. Of course, you shouldn't buy any of these stocks. You would do best as an investor to buy the S&P 500 (or a similar vehicle), where all of these top companies are represented as a small portion of the whole….
Further, if you really want to lower your investment beta (i.e., volatility), you should have a share of your holdings in international funds, which take in companies like Michelin, Toyota, Lenovo, Glaxxo-Smith-Kline, Nestle, Braun, etc. That probably will not increase your long-run ROI, but it will reduce your U.S. specific risk.
“Your comment suggests that US equity markets will always go up, with the instability smoothed out, over long periods of time, say 15-20 years or longer.”
They always have, and they’ve always increased at a steady rate over those longer periods. Interestingly, if you had invested 20 years and a day before the crash of 1929, pulling out all of your money just on time, you would have had an ROI barely higher per year than if you had invested in the NYSE 20 years minus a day and then sold the day after the 1929 crash.
“If US market data, and its valuation, is nothing more than data mining, then there is no reason why US equity markets could not suffer a dramatic correction to long term values of less than 25% of the ones today, or even go to zero.”
I have no idea what this means.
“The notion that US equity markets will always rise over the long term is based upon the dubious notion that the US will continue to remain economically and militarily preemiment.”
If you had bought a broad market average of Western European funds and held them for any 20 year period since about the 1890s (when public accounting was sufficient to assure reasonable accuracy in earnings), you would have done about as well as with the U.S. funds. The key is to diversify across industries, which is just what large index fund investing does.
The reason I bring up Europe is because for most of the 20th Century, it was not the preeminent economy, yet investing there (in the open economies) did very well.
You would have done even better had you invested in Japan or in Canada and about the same as in the U.S. if you had invested in Australia/New Zealand. (With Japan, of course, you have to discount the period from the mid-1930s to the end of the war, because their public accounting system was not open.)
“If either or both of these preconditions change, so could the long term values of US equities.”
One thing you are forgetting is that as the preeminence of the US in the world economy declines (assuming that is a long-term trend), so-called US companies are making more and more of their profits overseas. It really doesn't matter if Exxon or Microsoft or Intel or Cisco or Merck makes a dollar in California or in Chile. The idea is to make a buck…. Of course, you shouldn't buy any of these stocks. You would do best as an investor to buy the S&P 500 (or a similar vehicle), where all of these top companies are represented as a small portion of the whole….
Further, if you really want to lower your investment beta (i.e., volatility), you should have a share of your holdings in international funds, which take in companies like Michelin, Toyota, Lenovo, Glaxxo-Smith-Kline, Nestle, Braun, etc. That probably will not increase your long-run ROI, but it will reduce your U.S. specific risk.
Rich, your investment advice is sound, but you are not comprehending what data mining is, or dismissing it
it is exactly what you have done here
US equity markets haven’t *always* gone up, because they haven’t *always* been here, that’s what data mining is all about, how long of a history of data do you need for something to provide a reliable basis for analysis, or does such a thing even exist?
the past does not necessarily predict the future, no matter how good it was, unless you believe that the future will possess the same characteristics that generated the results of the past
that’s where black swan events come into the picture, they are unanticipated, partially because they are inherently unpredictable, partially because people excessively discount the probability of them occuring by excessively discounting known risks
examples: 9/11, the Bolshevik Revolution, the 1907 stock market crisis, the assassination of Crown Prince Ferdinand, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, one can quite easily create your own list, a list that establishes the unpredictability of human experience, an unpredictability that invariably infects financial activity, sometimes marginally, sometimes seriously
check out Nicholas Taleb on these subjects
–Richard Estes
Rich, your investment advice is sound, but you are not comprehending what data mining is, or dismissing it
it is exactly what you have done here
US equity markets haven’t *always* gone up, because they haven’t *always* been here, that’s what data mining is all about, how long of a history of data do you need for something to provide a reliable basis for analysis, or does such a thing even exist?
the past does not necessarily predict the future, no matter how good it was, unless you believe that the future will possess the same characteristics that generated the results of the past
that’s where black swan events come into the picture, they are unanticipated, partially because they are inherently unpredictable, partially because people excessively discount the probability of them occuring by excessively discounting known risks
examples: 9/11, the Bolshevik Revolution, the 1907 stock market crisis, the assassination of Crown Prince Ferdinand, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, one can quite easily create your own list, a list that establishes the unpredictability of human experience, an unpredictability that invariably infects financial activity, sometimes marginally, sometimes seriously
check out Nicholas Taleb on these subjects
–Richard Estes
Rich, your investment advice is sound, but you are not comprehending what data mining is, or dismissing it
it is exactly what you have done here
US equity markets haven’t *always* gone up, because they haven’t *always* been here, that’s what data mining is all about, how long of a history of data do you need for something to provide a reliable basis for analysis, or does such a thing even exist?
the past does not necessarily predict the future, no matter how good it was, unless you believe that the future will possess the same characteristics that generated the results of the past
that’s where black swan events come into the picture, they are unanticipated, partially because they are inherently unpredictable, partially because people excessively discount the probability of them occuring by excessively discounting known risks
examples: 9/11, the Bolshevik Revolution, the 1907 stock market crisis, the assassination of Crown Prince Ferdinand, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, one can quite easily create your own list, a list that establishes the unpredictability of human experience, an unpredictability that invariably infects financial activity, sometimes marginally, sometimes seriously
check out Nicholas Taleb on these subjects
–Richard Estes
Rich, your investment advice is sound, but you are not comprehending what data mining is, or dismissing it
it is exactly what you have done here
US equity markets haven’t *always* gone up, because they haven’t *always* been here, that’s what data mining is all about, how long of a history of data do you need for something to provide a reliable basis for analysis, or does such a thing even exist?
the past does not necessarily predict the future, no matter how good it was, unless you believe that the future will possess the same characteristics that generated the results of the past
that’s where black swan events come into the picture, they are unanticipated, partially because they are inherently unpredictable, partially because people excessively discount the probability of them occuring by excessively discounting known risks
examples: 9/11, the Bolshevik Revolution, the 1907 stock market crisis, the assassination of Crown Prince Ferdinand, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, one can quite easily create your own list, a list that establishes the unpredictability of human experience, an unpredictability that invariably infects financial activity, sometimes marginally, sometimes seriously
check out Nicholas Taleb on these subjects
–Richard Estes
“examples: 9/11, the Bolshevik Revolution, the 1907 stock market crisis, the assassination of Crown Prince Ferdinand, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, one can quite easily create your own list, a list that establishes the unpredictability of human experience, an unpredictability that invariably infects financial activity, sometimes marginally, sometimes seriously”
There is a serious empirical flaw with your argument: every one of these events you list occurred, yet over the 20 year periods that contained them (including the Great Depression) the markets still performed as expected.
A good question is why are broad markets such low-risk investments over time?
The answer is competition and the desire for profits, which always drive market players (existing or brand new) to innovate and grow. As long as competition exists (there is more today than ever) and as long as humans desire to profit (which will never change), broad markets will always perform over the long haul.
However, as I noted above, a key for an outside investor to make money from that growth is forthright public accounting, as we have (mostly) had in the U.S. Not every major economy has this (notably Japan’s system is far less open and was part of the reason for the poor performance of its capital markets from 1990-2000); and every capital market can be defrauded, as happened here with Enron. But in the main, most advanced economies have quality public accounting and fraud is pursued vigorously, which serves the interest of the broad market investor over time.
“examples: 9/11, the Bolshevik Revolution, the 1907 stock market crisis, the assassination of Crown Prince Ferdinand, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, one can quite easily create your own list, a list that establishes the unpredictability of human experience, an unpredictability that invariably infects financial activity, sometimes marginally, sometimes seriously”
There is a serious empirical flaw with your argument: every one of these events you list occurred, yet over the 20 year periods that contained them (including the Great Depression) the markets still performed as expected.
A good question is why are broad markets such low-risk investments over time?
The answer is competition and the desire for profits, which always drive market players (existing or brand new) to innovate and grow. As long as competition exists (there is more today than ever) and as long as humans desire to profit (which will never change), broad markets will always perform over the long haul.
However, as I noted above, a key for an outside investor to make money from that growth is forthright public accounting, as we have (mostly) had in the U.S. Not every major economy has this (notably Japan’s system is far less open and was part of the reason for the poor performance of its capital markets from 1990-2000); and every capital market can be defrauded, as happened here with Enron. But in the main, most advanced economies have quality public accounting and fraud is pursued vigorously, which serves the interest of the broad market investor over time.
“examples: 9/11, the Bolshevik Revolution, the 1907 stock market crisis, the assassination of Crown Prince Ferdinand, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, one can quite easily create your own list, a list that establishes the unpredictability of human experience, an unpredictability that invariably infects financial activity, sometimes marginally, sometimes seriously”
There is a serious empirical flaw with your argument: every one of these events you list occurred, yet over the 20 year periods that contained them (including the Great Depression) the markets still performed as expected.
A good question is why are broad markets such low-risk investments over time?
The answer is competition and the desire for profits, which always drive market players (existing or brand new) to innovate and grow. As long as competition exists (there is more today than ever) and as long as humans desire to profit (which will never change), broad markets will always perform over the long haul.
However, as I noted above, a key for an outside investor to make money from that growth is forthright public accounting, as we have (mostly) had in the U.S. Not every major economy has this (notably Japan’s system is far less open and was part of the reason for the poor performance of its capital markets from 1990-2000); and every capital market can be defrauded, as happened here with Enron. But in the main, most advanced economies have quality public accounting and fraud is pursued vigorously, which serves the interest of the broad market investor over time.
“examples: 9/11, the Bolshevik Revolution, the 1907 stock market crisis, the assassination of Crown Prince Ferdinand, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, one can quite easily create your own list, a list that establishes the unpredictability of human experience, an unpredictability that invariably infects financial activity, sometimes marginally, sometimes seriously”
There is a serious empirical flaw with your argument: every one of these events you list occurred, yet over the 20 year periods that contained them (including the Great Depression) the markets still performed as expected.
A good question is why are broad markets such low-risk investments over time?
The answer is competition and the desire for profits, which always drive market players (existing or brand new) to innovate and grow. As long as competition exists (there is more today than ever) and as long as humans desire to profit (which will never change), broad markets will always perform over the long haul.
However, as I noted above, a key for an outside investor to make money from that growth is forthright public accounting, as we have (mostly) had in the U.S. Not every major economy has this (notably Japan’s system is far less open and was part of the reason for the poor performance of its capital markets from 1990-2000); and every capital market can be defrauded, as happened here with Enron. But in the main, most advanced economies have quality public accounting and fraud is pursued vigorously, which serves the interest of the broad market investor over time.
By the way, contrary to common perception, equity investing is lower-risk and higher in reward over the long haul than bond investing. Yet, some investors who don’t understand the numbers will buy bonds thinking they are safer than stocks.
By the way, contrary to common perception, equity investing is lower-risk and higher in reward over the long haul than bond investing. Yet, some investors who don’t understand the numbers will buy bonds thinking they are safer than stocks.
By the way, contrary to common perception, equity investing is lower-risk and higher in reward over the long haul than bond investing. Yet, some investors who don’t understand the numbers will buy bonds thinking they are safer than stocks.
By the way, contrary to common perception, equity investing is lower-risk and higher in reward over the long haul than bond investing. Yet, some investors who don’t understand the numbers will buy bonds thinking they are safer than stocks.
“I need a price check here: how much does a gallon of milk cost at Wal Mart?”
A bottle of Konsyl costs about $33 at Long’s (this may not be quite right), but it only costs about $13 at WalMart for the exact same amount. My medical condition requires me to use this awful stuff twice a day, so it gets very costly.
Check out the difference in price of other items, and you will find that on some things, you can save quite a bit of money, but you have to know what you are doing.
“I need a price check here: how much does a gallon of milk cost at Wal Mart?”
A bottle of Konsyl costs about $33 at Long’s (this may not be quite right), but it only costs about $13 at WalMart for the exact same amount. My medical condition requires me to use this awful stuff twice a day, so it gets very costly.
Check out the difference in price of other items, and you will find that on some things, you can save quite a bit of money, but you have to know what you are doing.
“I need a price check here: how much does a gallon of milk cost at Wal Mart?”
A bottle of Konsyl costs about $33 at Long’s (this may not be quite right), but it only costs about $13 at WalMart for the exact same amount. My medical condition requires me to use this awful stuff twice a day, so it gets very costly.
Check out the difference in price of other items, and you will find that on some things, you can save quite a bit of money, but you have to know what you are doing.
“I need a price check here: how much does a gallon of milk cost at Wal Mart?”
A bottle of Konsyl costs about $33 at Long’s (this may not be quite right), but it only costs about $13 at WalMart for the exact same amount. My medical condition requires me to use this awful stuff twice a day, so it gets very costly.
Check out the difference in price of other items, and you will find that on some things, you can save quite a bit of money, but you have to know what you are doing.
“Here we go again (see my remarks above). So what should we do with people who can’t afford housing, let them be homeless or put them in jail because you know that is where they belong? No problem we can always aford jail. Oh I know why don’t we get them to move elsewhere.”
This is such a typical knee-jerk liberal reaction. There are different schools of though in how to arrange affordable housing. Put it all in one place, which has tended to breed crime and give too many opportunities for the criminal element to pray on vulnerable children. Or spread low income housing throughout the community instead of centralizing it, thereby cutting down on crime.
I, for one, ascribe to the notion that a person takes better care of their property if they OWN IT. And I think most would prefer to live in a small house standing alone if they could afford it, even if only a cottage. This in-fill junk is tenement living – yuck!
“Here we go again (see my remarks above). So what should we do with people who can’t afford housing, let them be homeless or put them in jail because you know that is where they belong? No problem we can always aford jail. Oh I know why don’t we get them to move elsewhere.”
This is such a typical knee-jerk liberal reaction. There are different schools of though in how to arrange affordable housing. Put it all in one place, which has tended to breed crime and give too many opportunities for the criminal element to pray on vulnerable children. Or spread low income housing throughout the community instead of centralizing it, thereby cutting down on crime.
I, for one, ascribe to the notion that a person takes better care of their property if they OWN IT. And I think most would prefer to live in a small house standing alone if they could afford it, even if only a cottage. This in-fill junk is tenement living – yuck!
“Here we go again (see my remarks above). So what should we do with people who can’t afford housing, let them be homeless or put them in jail because you know that is where they belong? No problem we can always aford jail. Oh I know why don’t we get them to move elsewhere.”
This is such a typical knee-jerk liberal reaction. There are different schools of though in how to arrange affordable housing. Put it all in one place, which has tended to breed crime and give too many opportunities for the criminal element to pray on vulnerable children. Or spread low income housing throughout the community instead of centralizing it, thereby cutting down on crime.
I, for one, ascribe to the notion that a person takes better care of their property if they OWN IT. And I think most would prefer to live in a small house standing alone if they could afford it, even if only a cottage. This in-fill junk is tenement living – yuck!
“Here we go again (see my remarks above). So what should we do with people who can’t afford housing, let them be homeless or put them in jail because you know that is where they belong? No problem we can always aford jail. Oh I know why don’t we get them to move elsewhere.”
This is such a typical knee-jerk liberal reaction. There are different schools of though in how to arrange affordable housing. Put it all in one place, which has tended to breed crime and give too many opportunities for the criminal element to pray on vulnerable children. Or spread low income housing throughout the community instead of centralizing it, thereby cutting down on crime.
I, for one, ascribe to the notion that a person takes better care of their property if they OWN IT. And I think most would prefer to live in a small house standing alone if they could afford it, even if only a cottage. This in-fill junk is tenement living – yuck!
“I am not talking about “smartest investors.” I am talking about the large indexes, which any dope can and should buy.”
This dope saw a school teacher lose her entire life savings because an investment adviser talked her into a risky portfolio – she sued and the bank settled. An elderly couple invested in oil wells, which they found out 20 years later was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. Same thing with yet another school teacher. How many investors, through 401Ks, lost big in the housing slump? I challenge you to read the book “Serpent on the Rock” by Kurt Eichenwald. Once you read it, you will never look at the stock market the same way again.
The housing slump we are in right now was caused by investment houses bundling mortgages together, including sub-prime loans (ones that were very risky for default) and selling them to hedge funds. I could go on and on, but I wouldn’t want to bore our blog folks.
Investing in the stock market is a very risky proposition. There are a lot of con artists out there, including banks. Don’t even get me started on some of the tactics they use to swindle customers out of their hard earned money. The average person would do far better to carefully invest in a house. Even if the value of the house goes to zero, they still have someplace to live. If the value of a stock goes to zero, all you’ve got is a piece of paper.
“I am not talking about “smartest investors.” I am talking about the large indexes, which any dope can and should buy.”
This dope saw a school teacher lose her entire life savings because an investment adviser talked her into a risky portfolio – she sued and the bank settled. An elderly couple invested in oil wells, which they found out 20 years later was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. Same thing with yet another school teacher. How many investors, through 401Ks, lost big in the housing slump? I challenge you to read the book “Serpent on the Rock” by Kurt Eichenwald. Once you read it, you will never look at the stock market the same way again.
The housing slump we are in right now was caused by investment houses bundling mortgages together, including sub-prime loans (ones that were very risky for default) and selling them to hedge funds. I could go on and on, but I wouldn’t want to bore our blog folks.
Investing in the stock market is a very risky proposition. There are a lot of con artists out there, including banks. Don’t even get me started on some of the tactics they use to swindle customers out of their hard earned money. The average person would do far better to carefully invest in a house. Even if the value of the house goes to zero, they still have someplace to live. If the value of a stock goes to zero, all you’ve got is a piece of paper.
“I am not talking about “smartest investors.” I am talking about the large indexes, which any dope can and should buy.”
This dope saw a school teacher lose her entire life savings because an investment adviser talked her into a risky portfolio – she sued and the bank settled. An elderly couple invested in oil wells, which they found out 20 years later was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. Same thing with yet another school teacher. How many investors, through 401Ks, lost big in the housing slump? I challenge you to read the book “Serpent on the Rock” by Kurt Eichenwald. Once you read it, you will never look at the stock market the same way again.
The housing slump we are in right now was caused by investment houses bundling mortgages together, including sub-prime loans (ones that were very risky for default) and selling them to hedge funds. I could go on and on, but I wouldn’t want to bore our blog folks.
Investing in the stock market is a very risky proposition. There are a lot of con artists out there, including banks. Don’t even get me started on some of the tactics they use to swindle customers out of their hard earned money. The average person would do far better to carefully invest in a house. Even if the value of the house goes to zero, they still have someplace to live. If the value of a stock goes to zero, all you’ve got is a piece of paper.
“I am not talking about “smartest investors.” I am talking about the large indexes, which any dope can and should buy.”
This dope saw a school teacher lose her entire life savings because an investment adviser talked her into a risky portfolio – she sued and the bank settled. An elderly couple invested in oil wells, which they found out 20 years later was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. Same thing with yet another school teacher. How many investors, through 401Ks, lost big in the housing slump? I challenge you to read the book “Serpent on the Rock” by Kurt Eichenwald. Once you read it, you will never look at the stock market the same way again.
The housing slump we are in right now was caused by investment houses bundling mortgages together, including sub-prime loans (ones that were very risky for default) and selling them to hedge funds. I could go on and on, but I wouldn’t want to bore our blog folks.
Investing in the stock market is a very risky proposition. There are a lot of con artists out there, including banks. Don’t even get me started on some of the tactics they use to swindle customers out of their hard earned money. The average person would do far better to carefully invest in a house. Even if the value of the house goes to zero, they still have someplace to live. If the value of a stock goes to zero, all you’ve got is a piece of paper.
Rich: you are mistaking probability for certainty, and no responsible investment advisor would guarantee that their client will make signficant profits, or even any profits at all, through stock investing, even in an index fund, over a long time frame
they already do probability studies on this sort of thing
the fact that an index fund is one of the best, if not the best, long term investment vehicles in terms of probable return does not make it a guaranteed one, and for another obvious reason, return is related to risk, eliminate risk and you necessarily reduce the prospect of larger returns
or, to put it in more mundane fashion: there is no free lunch
but, anyway, check out Nicholas Taleb or is it Teleb? He was a trader who did quite well for himself and has explored the relationship of probabilitites and randomness to financial transactions
–Richard Estes
Rich: you are mistaking probability for certainty, and no responsible investment advisor would guarantee that their client will make signficant profits, or even any profits at all, through stock investing, even in an index fund, over a long time frame
they already do probability studies on this sort of thing
the fact that an index fund is one of the best, if not the best, long term investment vehicles in terms of probable return does not make it a guaranteed one, and for another obvious reason, return is related to risk, eliminate risk and you necessarily reduce the prospect of larger returns
or, to put it in more mundane fashion: there is no free lunch
but, anyway, check out Nicholas Taleb or is it Teleb? He was a trader who did quite well for himself and has explored the relationship of probabilitites and randomness to financial transactions
–Richard Estes
Rich: you are mistaking probability for certainty, and no responsible investment advisor would guarantee that their client will make signficant profits, or even any profits at all, through stock investing, even in an index fund, over a long time frame
they already do probability studies on this sort of thing
the fact that an index fund is one of the best, if not the best, long term investment vehicles in terms of probable return does not make it a guaranteed one, and for another obvious reason, return is related to risk, eliminate risk and you necessarily reduce the prospect of larger returns
or, to put it in more mundane fashion: there is no free lunch
but, anyway, check out Nicholas Taleb or is it Teleb? He was a trader who did quite well for himself and has explored the relationship of probabilitites and randomness to financial transactions
–Richard Estes
Rich: you are mistaking probability for certainty, and no responsible investment advisor would guarantee that their client will make signficant profits, or even any profits at all, through stock investing, even in an index fund, over a long time frame
they already do probability studies on this sort of thing
the fact that an index fund is one of the best, if not the best, long term investment vehicles in terms of probable return does not make it a guaranteed one, and for another obvious reason, return is related to risk, eliminate risk and you necessarily reduce the prospect of larger returns
or, to put it in more mundane fashion: there is no free lunch
but, anyway, check out Nicholas Taleb or is it Teleb? He was a trader who did quite well for himself and has explored the relationship of probabilitites and randomness to financial transactions
–Richard Estes
“This dope saw a school teacher lose her entire life savings because an investment adviser talked her into a risky portfolio..”
Dope,
The portfolio you are speaking of is precisely what I said above that an outside investor should avoid. You seem to not understand what a large index is: the S&P 500, for example, or the NYSE index, includes the biggest, largest, safest* and broadest companies. An index is not "a ponzi scheme."
We have literally 150 years of experience with large index funds in the United States. They are very safe investments over the long haul (20 years plus). There are thousands of salesmen who pitch narrow funds or funds of funds. But over time, an outside investor always does best, on average, avoiding the fees and loads of those funds and simply buying something like the S&P, which is the safest investment you can make.
* Note, of course, that within a large index, there may be a bad company or two. Enron was on the S&P 500. But by buying the index, you lower your risk with the breadth. Hence, Enron collapsed and the S&P performed as usual.
“I challenge you to read the book “Serpent on the Rock” by Kurt Eichenwald. Once you read it, you will never look at the stock market the same way again.”
I read Serpent on the Rock a couple of years ago. Good book, but it’s far from the be-all about Wall Street. It focuses on the Prudential-Bache scandals of 20 years ago. The lesson to be learned is that an outside investor should avoid buying stock issues from single companies or even single sectors, like finance and insurance. The outside investor should instead buy a broad market index, which protects him from losses of any one company or sector.
I also read Conspiracy of Fools, about the Enron fiasco, which is by Kurt Eichenwald. That book explains just what happened in that corrupt company. But don’t confuse the fraud of any one company with the larger market.
“This dope saw a school teacher lose her entire life savings because an investment adviser talked her into a risky portfolio..”
Dope,
The portfolio you are speaking of is precisely what I said above that an outside investor should avoid. You seem to not understand what a large index is: the S&P 500, for example, or the NYSE index, includes the biggest, largest, safest* and broadest companies. An index is not "a ponzi scheme."
We have literally 150 years of experience with large index funds in the United States. They are very safe investments over the long haul (20 years plus). There are thousands of salesmen who pitch narrow funds or funds of funds. But over time, an outside investor always does best, on average, avoiding the fees and loads of those funds and simply buying something like the S&P, which is the safest investment you can make.
* Note, of course, that within a large index, there may be a bad company or two. Enron was on the S&P 500. But by buying the index, you lower your risk with the breadth. Hence, Enron collapsed and the S&P performed as usual.
“I challenge you to read the book “Serpent on the Rock” by Kurt Eichenwald. Once you read it, you will never look at the stock market the same way again.”
I read Serpent on the Rock a couple of years ago. Good book, but it’s far from the be-all about Wall Street. It focuses on the Prudential-Bache scandals of 20 years ago. The lesson to be learned is that an outside investor should avoid buying stock issues from single companies or even single sectors, like finance and insurance. The outside investor should instead buy a broad market index, which protects him from losses of any one company or sector.
I also read Conspiracy of Fools, about the Enron fiasco, which is by Kurt Eichenwald. That book explains just what happened in that corrupt company. But don’t confuse the fraud of any one company with the larger market.
“This dope saw a school teacher lose her entire life savings because an investment adviser talked her into a risky portfolio..”
Dope,
The portfolio you are speaking of is precisely what I said above that an outside investor should avoid. You seem to not understand what a large index is: the S&P 500, for example, or the NYSE index, includes the biggest, largest, safest* and broadest companies. An index is not "a ponzi scheme."
We have literally 150 years of experience with large index funds in the United States. They are very safe investments over the long haul (20 years plus). There are thousands of salesmen who pitch narrow funds or funds of funds. But over time, an outside investor always does best, on average, avoiding the fees and loads of those funds and simply buying something like the S&P, which is the safest investment you can make.
* Note, of course, that within a large index, there may be a bad company or two. Enron was on the S&P 500. But by buying the index, you lower your risk with the breadth. Hence, Enron collapsed and the S&P performed as usual.
“I challenge you to read the book “Serpent on the Rock” by Kurt Eichenwald. Once you read it, you will never look at the stock market the same way again.”
I read Serpent on the Rock a couple of years ago. Good book, but it’s far from the be-all about Wall Street. It focuses on the Prudential-Bache scandals of 20 years ago. The lesson to be learned is that an outside investor should avoid buying stock issues from single companies or even single sectors, like finance and insurance. The outside investor should instead buy a broad market index, which protects him from losses of any one company or sector.
I also read Conspiracy of Fools, about the Enron fiasco, which is by Kurt Eichenwald. That book explains just what happened in that corrupt company. But don’t confuse the fraud of any one company with the larger market.
“This dope saw a school teacher lose her entire life savings because an investment adviser talked her into a risky portfolio..”
Dope,
The portfolio you are speaking of is precisely what I said above that an outside investor should avoid. You seem to not understand what a large index is: the S&P 500, for example, or the NYSE index, includes the biggest, largest, safest* and broadest companies. An index is not "a ponzi scheme."
We have literally 150 years of experience with large index funds in the United States. They are very safe investments over the long haul (20 years plus). There are thousands of salesmen who pitch narrow funds or funds of funds. But over time, an outside investor always does best, on average, avoiding the fees and loads of those funds and simply buying something like the S&P, which is the safest investment you can make.
* Note, of course, that within a large index, there may be a bad company or two. Enron was on the S&P 500. But by buying the index, you lower your risk with the breadth. Hence, Enron collapsed and the S&P performed as usual.
“I challenge you to read the book “Serpent on the Rock” by Kurt Eichenwald. Once you read it, you will never look at the stock market the same way again.”
I read Serpent on the Rock a couple of years ago. Good book, but it’s far from the be-all about Wall Street. It focuses on the Prudential-Bache scandals of 20 years ago. The lesson to be learned is that an outside investor should avoid buying stock issues from single companies or even single sectors, like finance and insurance. The outside investor should instead buy a broad market index, which protects him from losses of any one company or sector.
I also read Conspiracy of Fools, about the Enron fiasco, which is by Kurt Eichenwald. That book explains just what happened in that corrupt company. But don’t confuse the fraud of any one company with the larger market.
“you are mistaking probability for certainty, and no responsible investment advisor would guarantee that their client will make signficant profits, or even any profits at all, through stock investing, even in an index fund, over a long time frame.”
If I said ‘it is 100% certain’ that an investor will get a specific annualized ROI by holding a large market index over 20 years, then I take that back. I re-read my posts and could not find such language, but if you think it is there, then fine.
“another obvious reason, return is related to risk, eliminate risk and you necessarily reduce the prospect of larger returns”
There is no way to "eliminate risk." If you stuff your cash under your mattress in a fortress, you take on the serious risk of currency devaluation. If you buy only US treasury bonds and T-bills, you take the risk that other avenues of investment would have paid far more.
What you can and should do, however, is to lower your risk as much as possible for the given return you are hoping for. And if you would like a substantial rate of return by investing in stocks, but don't want the risks associated with any single company or sector of the market, you can do that by buying a broad market index.
By the way, many people buy the DJIA, which includes only 30 stocks. That is not a terribly risky index. However, even though its companies are very large, there are only 30. And if 2 or 3 of them go bad, then the Dow itself can experience a setback. As such, you face less risk buying the S&P or the NYSE or the Russell 5000, etc.
“you are mistaking probability for certainty, and no responsible investment advisor would guarantee that their client will make signficant profits, or even any profits at all, through stock investing, even in an index fund, over a long time frame.”
If I said ‘it is 100% certain’ that an investor will get a specific annualized ROI by holding a large market index over 20 years, then I take that back. I re-read my posts and could not find such language, but if you think it is there, then fine.
“another obvious reason, return is related to risk, eliminate risk and you necessarily reduce the prospect of larger returns”
There is no way to "eliminate risk." If you stuff your cash under your mattress in a fortress, you take on the serious risk of currency devaluation. If you buy only US treasury bonds and T-bills, you take the risk that other avenues of investment would have paid far more.
What you can and should do, however, is to lower your risk as much as possible for the given return you are hoping for. And if you would like a substantial rate of return by investing in stocks, but don't want the risks associated with any single company or sector of the market, you can do that by buying a broad market index.
By the way, many people buy the DJIA, which includes only 30 stocks. That is not a terribly risky index. However, even though its companies are very large, there are only 30. And if 2 or 3 of them go bad, then the Dow itself can experience a setback. As such, you face less risk buying the S&P or the NYSE or the Russell 5000, etc.
“you are mistaking probability for certainty, and no responsible investment advisor would guarantee that their client will make signficant profits, or even any profits at all, through stock investing, even in an index fund, over a long time frame.”
If I said ‘it is 100% certain’ that an investor will get a specific annualized ROI by holding a large market index over 20 years, then I take that back. I re-read my posts and could not find such language, but if you think it is there, then fine.
“another obvious reason, return is related to risk, eliminate risk and you necessarily reduce the prospect of larger returns”
There is no way to "eliminate risk." If you stuff your cash under your mattress in a fortress, you take on the serious risk of currency devaluation. If you buy only US treasury bonds and T-bills, you take the risk that other avenues of investment would have paid far more.
What you can and should do, however, is to lower your risk as much as possible for the given return you are hoping for. And if you would like a substantial rate of return by investing in stocks, but don't want the risks associated with any single company or sector of the market, you can do that by buying a broad market index.
By the way, many people buy the DJIA, which includes only 30 stocks. That is not a terribly risky index. However, even though its companies are very large, there are only 30. And if 2 or 3 of them go bad, then the Dow itself can experience a setback. As such, you face less risk buying the S&P or the NYSE or the Russell 5000, etc.
“you are mistaking probability for certainty, and no responsible investment advisor would guarantee that their client will make signficant profits, or even any profits at all, through stock investing, even in an index fund, over a long time frame.”
If I said ‘it is 100% certain’ that an investor will get a specific annualized ROI by holding a large market index over 20 years, then I take that back. I re-read my posts and could not find such language, but if you think it is there, then fine.
“another obvious reason, return is related to risk, eliminate risk and you necessarily reduce the prospect of larger returns”
There is no way to "eliminate risk." If you stuff your cash under your mattress in a fortress, you take on the serious risk of currency devaluation. If you buy only US treasury bonds and T-bills, you take the risk that other avenues of investment would have paid far more.
What you can and should do, however, is to lower your risk as much as possible for the given return you are hoping for. And if you would like a substantial rate of return by investing in stocks, but don't want the risks associated with any single company or sector of the market, you can do that by buying a broad market index.
By the way, many people buy the DJIA, which includes only 30 stocks. That is not a terribly risky index. However, even though its companies are very large, there are only 30. And if 2 or 3 of them go bad, then the Dow itself can experience a setback. As such, you face less risk buying the S&P or the NYSE or the Russell 5000, etc.
There is no way to “eliminate risk.
Egads! You mean Treasuries aren’t risk free????
On a more serious note, your investment advice is sound, as I said, but the problem is that people usually lack the discipline to follow through with this sort of thing.
–Richard
There is no way to “eliminate risk.
Egads! You mean Treasuries aren’t risk free????
On a more serious note, your investment advice is sound, as I said, but the problem is that people usually lack the discipline to follow through with this sort of thing.
–Richard
There is no way to “eliminate risk.
Egads! You mean Treasuries aren’t risk free????
On a more serious note, your investment advice is sound, as I said, but the problem is that people usually lack the discipline to follow through with this sort of thing.
–Richard
There is no way to “eliminate risk.
Egads! You mean Treasuries aren’t risk free????
On a more serious note, your investment advice is sound, as I said, but the problem is that people usually lack the discipline to follow through with this sort of thing.
–Richard
Yes, investment discipline isn’t common.
Folks hear about great investors — the Warren Buffets and so on — and they want to be like that. What they are missing is that insiders, like Buffet, have information an outsider will always get too late to buy cheap and sell high and so on.
As such, they need to 1) accept the fact that they are outsiders; 2) realize they are not smarter than the market itself; 3) pray that they public accounting standards* are reasonably good; and 4) save a fixed percentage of their paycheck and put that savings in a broad index and hold it until they really need the money.
* I am not unaware of the fact that public accounting is always less than ideal, sometimes far less than others. Periodically, the auditing firms are corrupted and the “income” of major public companies is overstated. But that usually doesn’t last too long, and those accountants get routed out** and the government cleans up the mess.
** Even so-called great companies, like Arthur Anderson, have disappeared in these periodic scandals. Power tends to corrupt…
Yes, investment discipline isn’t common.
Folks hear about great investors — the Warren Buffets and so on — and they want to be like that. What they are missing is that insiders, like Buffet, have information an outsider will always get too late to buy cheap and sell high and so on.
As such, they need to 1) accept the fact that they are outsiders; 2) realize they are not smarter than the market itself; 3) pray that they public accounting standards* are reasonably good; and 4) save a fixed percentage of their paycheck and put that savings in a broad index and hold it until they really need the money.
* I am not unaware of the fact that public accounting is always less than ideal, sometimes far less than others. Periodically, the auditing firms are corrupted and the “income” of major public companies is overstated. But that usually doesn’t last too long, and those accountants get routed out** and the government cleans up the mess.
** Even so-called great companies, like Arthur Anderson, have disappeared in these periodic scandals. Power tends to corrupt…
Yes, investment discipline isn’t common.
Folks hear about great investors — the Warren Buffets and so on — and they want to be like that. What they are missing is that insiders, like Buffet, have information an outsider will always get too late to buy cheap and sell high and so on.
As such, they need to 1) accept the fact that they are outsiders; 2) realize they are not smarter than the market itself; 3) pray that they public accounting standards* are reasonably good; and 4) save a fixed percentage of their paycheck and put that savings in a broad index and hold it until they really need the money.
* I am not unaware of the fact that public accounting is always less than ideal, sometimes far less than others. Periodically, the auditing firms are corrupted and the “income” of major public companies is overstated. But that usually doesn’t last too long, and those accountants get routed out** and the government cleans up the mess.
** Even so-called great companies, like Arthur Anderson, have disappeared in these periodic scandals. Power tends to corrupt…
Yes, investment discipline isn’t common.
Folks hear about great investors — the Warren Buffets and so on — and they want to be like that. What they are missing is that insiders, like Buffet, have information an outsider will always get too late to buy cheap and sell high and so on.
As such, they need to 1) accept the fact that they are outsiders; 2) realize they are not smarter than the market itself; 3) pray that they public accounting standards* are reasonably good; and 4) save a fixed percentage of their paycheck and put that savings in a broad index and hold it until they really need the money.
* I am not unaware of the fact that public accounting is always less than ideal, sometimes far less than others. Periodically, the auditing firms are corrupted and the “income” of major public companies is overstated. But that usually doesn’t last too long, and those accountants get routed out** and the government cleans up the mess.
** Even so-called great companies, like Arthur Anderson, have disappeared in these periodic scandals. Power tends to corrupt…
Rich Rifkin said: “Yes, investment discipline isn’t common.”
Exactly my point. Most folks are not investment savvy, and wouldn’t know a good investment from a bad one. By the way, the client I assisted legally who lost her money through a trusted bank did diversify – but in a fund the bank recommended as reasonable. “Now if you can’t trust your bank, who can you trust” was her question to me??? The average person has no idea.
Furthermore, the mortgage meltdown was all about bad investments. And look at the damage that caused to the country.
By the way, since you are touting investments, I assume you are filthy rich from all that investing you have done?
Rich Rifkin said: “Yes, investment discipline isn’t common.”
Exactly my point. Most folks are not investment savvy, and wouldn’t know a good investment from a bad one. By the way, the client I assisted legally who lost her money through a trusted bank did diversify – but in a fund the bank recommended as reasonable. “Now if you can’t trust your bank, who can you trust” was her question to me??? The average person has no idea.
Furthermore, the mortgage meltdown was all about bad investments. And look at the damage that caused to the country.
By the way, since you are touting investments, I assume you are filthy rich from all that investing you have done?
Rich Rifkin said: “Yes, investment discipline isn’t common.”
Exactly my point. Most folks are not investment savvy, and wouldn’t know a good investment from a bad one. By the way, the client I assisted legally who lost her money through a trusted bank did diversify – but in a fund the bank recommended as reasonable. “Now if you can’t trust your bank, who can you trust” was her question to me??? The average person has no idea.
Furthermore, the mortgage meltdown was all about bad investments. And look at the damage that caused to the country.
By the way, since you are touting investments, I assume you are filthy rich from all that investing you have done?
Rich Rifkin said: “Yes, investment discipline isn’t common.”
Exactly my point. Most folks are not investment savvy, and wouldn’t know a good investment from a bad one. By the way, the client I assisted legally who lost her money through a trusted bank did diversify – but in a fund the bank recommended as reasonable. “Now if you can’t trust your bank, who can you trust” was her question to me??? The average person has no idea.
Furthermore, the mortgage meltdown was all about bad investments. And look at the damage that caused to the country.
By the way, since you are touting investments, I assume you are filthy rich from all that investing you have done?
“By the way, since you are touting investments, I assume you are filthy rich from all that investing you have done?”
I am filthy Rich, yes.
“By the way, since you are touting investments, I assume you are filthy rich from all that investing you have done?”
I am filthy Rich, yes.
“By the way, since you are touting investments, I assume you are filthy rich from all that investing you have done?”
I am filthy Rich, yes.
“By the way, since you are touting investments, I assume you are filthy rich from all that investing you have done?”
I am filthy Rich, yes.
For what it’s worth, I am not “touting” investments, in the sense that selling investments is my business. In fact, if my advice means anything, it is to avoid people who sell investments, or who sell investment advice, or who tout some sort of managed fund. While many of those vehicles can be good investments, my experience is that most of the time they are better financially for the people selling them than the people buying.
My advice, now repeated ad nauseum, is you probably don’t need an investment counselor or advisor or salesman or manager. Any dope can simply buy an unmanaged, very broad index, putting in his money on a regular basis regardless of price, and he will do better than most (though not all) investors who try to beat the market. What ends up happening in the latter cases, assuming no one gets defrauded, is that the fees eat away so much of the profits that such investments are only profitable to those collecting the fees.
For what it’s worth, I am not “touting” investments, in the sense that selling investments is my business. In fact, if my advice means anything, it is to avoid people who sell investments, or who sell investment advice, or who tout some sort of managed fund. While many of those vehicles can be good investments, my experience is that most of the time they are better financially for the people selling them than the people buying.
My advice, now repeated ad nauseum, is you probably don’t need an investment counselor or advisor or salesman or manager. Any dope can simply buy an unmanaged, very broad index, putting in his money on a regular basis regardless of price, and he will do better than most (though not all) investors who try to beat the market. What ends up happening in the latter cases, assuming no one gets defrauded, is that the fees eat away so much of the profits that such investments are only profitable to those collecting the fees.
For what it’s worth, I am not “touting” investments, in the sense that selling investments is my business. In fact, if my advice means anything, it is to avoid people who sell investments, or who sell investment advice, or who tout some sort of managed fund. While many of those vehicles can be good investments, my experience is that most of the time they are better financially for the people selling them than the people buying.
My advice, now repeated ad nauseum, is you probably don’t need an investment counselor or advisor or salesman or manager. Any dope can simply buy an unmanaged, very broad index, putting in his money on a regular basis regardless of price, and he will do better than most (though not all) investors who try to beat the market. What ends up happening in the latter cases, assuming no one gets defrauded, is that the fees eat away so much of the profits that such investments are only profitable to those collecting the fees.
For what it’s worth, I am not “touting” investments, in the sense that selling investments is my business. In fact, if my advice means anything, it is to avoid people who sell investments, or who sell investment advice, or who tout some sort of managed fund. While many of those vehicles can be good investments, my experience is that most of the time they are better financially for the people selling them than the people buying.
My advice, now repeated ad nauseum, is you probably don’t need an investment counselor or advisor or salesman or manager. Any dope can simply buy an unmanaged, very broad index, putting in his money on a regular basis regardless of price, and he will do better than most (though not all) investors who try to beat the market. What ends up happening in the latter cases, assuming no one gets defrauded, is that the fees eat away so much of the profits that such investments are only profitable to those collecting the fees.