"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

Also, get it out of your head that most of what I have been responding to
in
this is directly an example of what I am dealing with personally as your
attacks indicate, but observations of what is going on around here.


Never meant to imply that I thought it was something you were dealing with.
If I did so that was an accident. My point, which I didn't make well
apparently, is that it isn't going to do the people you talk about any good
to try to control wages and prices and force the economy. It's got to
correct itself and people have got to take what steps they need to so they
can continue to be productively employed. Well meaning people who try to
control national and international economics cannot change it.

And yes if you are willing to move, there are sufficient jobs for people.
But vast numbers of people won't do that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Not trying to sound like a broken record, but is there any news about the
situation in Virginia with the BPL rollout?

What's the scoop, folks? Anybody hear anything?

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"KØHB" wrote in message nk.net...
"Brian" wrote

They must be buying immodestly priced houses, then, because there are
more homeowners than ever before.


As a percentage of the population there are less homeowners than ever
before, and the percentage is trending downward even in this time of
unusually low mortgage interest rates.

de Hans, K0HB

Disallowed.

The PCTA say there are more Morsemen today than at any time in
history, including the heydays of Morse, when Morse was the about the
only form of long distance communication.

Thusly, we are not allowed to participate in "per capita" discussions.

Your strawman is now chicken litter - poop-poop.

didit.

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Interesting. In comparing between the years that are specified in the
other document, they also show an increase! I wonder what causes the
discrepancy?

Confounding variables?

My link: 1995 ~56% 1894 ~60 %
Your link 1995 ~65% 1984 ~64.8%

Perhaps the difference is that many people are living in houses that
they can't afford?

Perhaps that is what I meant by "immodestly" affordable housing?

There is some data there, but I haven't had time to
check it out.

Nor did you check out my response, which sstated what you just said.

Perhaps we accept more debt today (as a ratio to income) than ever before.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ...


Dee D. Flint wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


As I recall reading a while back, in 1950, it took 14 percent of an
average workers income to put a roof over "his head". That may have
changed a little bit! 8^)

It changed big time. Same for medical and education costs.


However as noted in later in this same post for cars (now snipped),
people
now demand more features in that house and more room in that house that
was
common in 1950. So it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Well if we cant compare houses to houses because houses to houses is
apples to oranges..............

C'mon, Dee - there has to be *some* sort of comparison that can be
made! If my comments about people paying 50 percent or more of their
take home pay to put a roof over their head compared to 14 percent way
back when are irrelevant, and if people doing 30 year mortgages vs 10 or
15 year mortgages are irrelevant, than I guess you are saying that
buying a house in 1950 is the exact equivalent of buying one in 2003?


......but it isn't because it's an apples to oranges comparison?

- Mike KB3EIA -


What I am saying is that it takes a lot more detailed analysis before you
can make a legitimate comparison. It's not as different as a surface
analysis may lead people to believe. People are choosing the 30 year
mortgage. The mortgage companies went this route not to make it easier to
buy a house but to make more money off that loan. By the way, no mortgage
company that I've had contact with would ever allow the payment + insurance
+ taxes to be as high as 50%. They would not approve the loan. Today's
starter house has airconditioning. The 1950s starter house did not. But
today's consumer has chosen the more expensive version of the product and
very, very few will buy a house without it so now it's not comparable
without doing a whole lot deeper analysis. Somehow you've got to add an
allowance for air conditioning to the older house.

Another example, take the cost to drive drive. Cost of gasoline is not the
only element to consider. You must factor in the fact that cars now last
longer not just how far the price has risen. You must also factor in that
the average car today gets far better mileage than the average car then.
You need to somehow factor in the fact that you can't even buy a stripped
down car now although they were the norm in the 1950s. People became more
and more reluctant to buy them and the makers responded. The market (i.e.
consumer) has chosen to have an inherently more expensive vehicle.

Simplistic analyses won't do it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

Also, get it out of your head that most of what I have been responding to

in

this is directly an example of what I am dealing with personally as your
attacks indicate, but observations of what is going on around here.



Never meant to imply that I thought it was something you were dealing with.
If I did so that was an accident. My point, which I didn't make well
apparently, is that it isn't going to do the people you talk about any good
to try to control wages and prices and force the economy. It's got to
correct itself and people have got to take what steps they need to so they
can continue to be productively employed. Well meaning people who try to
control national and international economics cannot change it.

Dee, Capitalism is the best darn economic system to ever hit the earth.
Period. And supply and demand is a better bet than anyone's deity being
the real one.

But, our country's economy is not really what I think you think it is.
Unbridled capitalism tends toward major boom and bust cycles, and can
produce some particulary nasty characters, as the running motive behind
it at times alllows one small group or person to grab all the cookies so
to speak. Capitalism turns a basic human characteristic, greed, into a
pretty good thing. But all by itself, greed turns into something else
than what we might want.

Our economic system has plenty of controls on it to help avoid the
greediest to own it all. And it works pretty darn well IMO.


And yes if you are willing to move, there are sufficient jobs for people.
But vast numbers of people won't do that.

Are you saying that if all the unemployed moved someplace they would
all get jobs? Sounds oversimplified to me.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
And there are so many variables and unknowns! For example, look at the
tax situation. There's federal income tax - and social security tax,
and medicare tax, and state income tax in some places, and local wage
taxes, and sales taxes...And the deduction/withholding rules change so
that what used to be not much of a burden on the average person is now
a big chunk out of the paycheck.


And this is the real killer. When the Federal Income tax was first
initiated, the average person's tax rate was only 3%. The average RATE is
now much higher. So the Feds are getting a bigger percentage of an inflated
wage. So the tax income rises at a rate greater than wages and inflaction.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dennis Ferguson" wrote in message
...
Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
Around here in this county I live in, home ownership is next to
impossible,
except for spending at least $75,000 or better. The average small 3
bedroom
house, no basement or garage (slab built) on a half to full acre runs *at
least* 75 grand or better. Go immediately outside of the county lines of
this county, and the similar/equivalent structure is anywhere from 25-50%
less. I guess it is something about Midland county I guess.

Adjusted for inflation, that's far LESS than I paid for a comparable house
outside of Seattle in 1974 except that it only had a standard size lot not
anything as luxurious as a half an acre.

So 1973/1974:
Engineers fresh out of college starting wage approximately $10,000
House cost approximately $35,000 in Seattle.

Now in 2003:
Engineers fresh out of college starting wage approximately $45,000
House quoted above comparable to the one in Seattle costing $75,000

Wages went up 4.5 times and comparable house just over twice as expensives.
Hmm yup houses cost more today relatively speaking.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...


"Brian" wrote

They must be buying immodestly priced houses, then, because there are
more homeowners than ever before.


As a percentage of the population there are less homeowners than ever
before, and the percentage is trending downward even in this time of
unusually low mortgage interest rates.

de Hans, K0HB

The situation will be self correcting just as in the past. Housing prices
will fall to where more people can afford them and buy them.

Another factor affecting home ownership is that there are today a larger
percentage of people who choose not to own a home for various reasons. If
you can't keep it for several years, you will probably lose money. Seven
years ago, I lost my job in Illinois and had to sell my house at a net loss
since I needed what equity I could get to move to the next job. I'd only
had it a couple of years and the value of the house had not had time to
increase enough to cover the realtor's fee. So although I could have bought
a house when I moved to South Dakota, I chose not to. There was
insufficient information for me to estimate how long I would be there. It
turned out to be a good decision because three years later I moved to
Michigan.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
Around here in this county I live in, home ownership is next to impossible,
except for spending at least $75,000 or better. The average small 3 bedroom
house, no basement or garage (slab built) on a half to full acre runs *at
least* 75 grand or better. Go immediately outside of the county lines of
this county, and the similar/equivalent structure is anywhere from 25-50%
less. I guess it is something about Midland county I guess.

Ryan

Ryan, I went to QRZ and looked up your address, so you get one more
hit at QRZ.com. Apparently you're betw the Baycityrollers and
Saginaw.

Where I live, a 75K home is called a crack-house and a public
nuisance.

Location(cubed).

If you have housing available at 75K, and it is suitable to your
desires, and you have a steady job, go see your mortgage lender today!

Try to locate in a non-restricted neighborhood so that you can play
radio.

Brian