A Decade with No Income Gains

Dollar tanks and foreigners buy up prime Manhattan Real estate, driving up prices.

Dollar ain't tanking anytime soon despite a certain segment's fervent desire for it to do so, but I do think the possibility that Manhattan continues its trend towards a wealthy island of prosperity is possible.

Although, my question was more macro-level.

EVNYC Since Feb/Mar the Euro & Gold charts prove otherwise. I don't want the dollar to tank, just believe gov't policies will make this an inevitable outcome.

Income down..........................check
enployment down......................check
available credit down................check
Re inventory up......................check

Manhattan RE prepare for decent......

Foreign buyes flood the island to save the day!
or, just as likely, a giant lizard biped and a giant moth battle for Manhattan supremacy.

Since Feb and March the charts prove nothing, Riversider. I see little compelling evidence to be such a goldbug, and this thread is about macro real estate prices, not your weird conspiracy theories.

and no private employment net job creation. this could wind up being a decade of zero job growth, despite population increases.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/09/total-10-year-job-gains-negative-203k/

Sorry to intrude into this bear den, but I don't think the average HHI matters when it comes to NYC real estate, either way. What matters is the top 10%, in fact this clearly was demonstrated in the last 10 years. The top 10% of the market saw the largest gains, just as the top 10% of the US families saw a real income gain. The average really doesn't tell the story at all, on the contrary. What happened wasn't stasis, but an ever growing divergence between the richest and the poorest. Just because the pie didn't grow doesn't mean everyone's share remained the same.

That's why studios and cookie cutter aota in white brick buildings appreciated so much? I never realized the wealthy had such tastes.

nothing like an elimination of mortgage deduction to pay for healthcare wouldn't solve.... ; )

Actually, with the AMT hitting the coasts pretty hard, it wouldn't have the impact of a complete overhaul of income taxes reversing the Bush tax cuts. Increase the top rate for people making more than 250k, eliminate the capital gains tax advantage, now you're talking.

AR, the richest drove the market up for everyone. As the billionaires scooped the penthouses, the merely very rich had the settle for classic 6, the DINKs fought for white brick shit boxes, and relatively (by NY standard) middle-class families rented in Tribeca, Chelsea or PCV. The fastest way to puncture that soufflé would be to rearrange our fiscal policy so that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett pay as much of their income percentage-wise as their secretaries.

Or cut the payroll tax so small business hire more people, eliminate the mortgage deduction and other housing credits and eliminate agriculture subsidies.

Unfortunately the mortgage interest deduction elimination will never happen, at least not in the mid-term. Maly, I think you're overstating the case that the rich drove up prices in Manhattan a wee touch. The top 10% were not buying eensy studios and 1-bedrooms, and if you observe recent contract signing and closing info, Aboutready's right: the vast majority of the action has been at the low end, where the $8k tax credit and mortgage interest deduction really do make a difference. The top end, however, has been getting hammered.

maly, i'm a fan of increasing the capital gains tax rates. the richest didn't drive up the market for everyone, they drove it up for themselves. yum yum, wealth redistribution.

but you miss my point. going forward, without the credit bubble and with wage deflation, you can only have housing deflation, even on this island of ours.

the less than truly wealthy who have stretched, and many did AFTER buying due to huge increases in costs, fixed and otherwise, are in a pickle.

Love those entitlement programs! yum yum. give me their money!

http://www.heritage.org/research/Taxes/wm1891.cfm

i agree. the people who save our children from fires deserve NOTHING. I TELL YOU NOTHING.

and the 19% of children who live in poverty? let them rot (or burn). because that's the kind of people we are.

damn it, i want to keep every cent that bush the idiot granted me. actually, sadly, now i kind of do, because the earning potential is lower and the costs are so much higher. and why?

http://www.accf.org/publications/103/capital-gains-taxes-and-us-economic-growth-a-retrospective-look

Capital gains tax rates are important in rewarding entrepreneurs and early-stage investors for the risk they bear when starting a new venture. Dr. Wyss states that there are two primary reasons for encouraging venture investment: First, it is critical to the economy, since innovation and job creation come disproportionately from new start-ups; and second, the private market will tend to under-invest. Thus, start-ups need to be encouraged. Innovation and new company formation is inherently risky; only about one in three new start-ups succeed; individual investors are risk averse, and since they cannot invest in every start-up, must balance the high risk by the hope of high returns. Society should not be risk averse, since on an actuarial basis it knows start-ups will be winners; the success of the one will more than offset the failure of the two losers. Since society effectively "invests" in every start-up, it should not be averse to the risks. Every stop should be pulled out to encourage more new business, because these new ventures are so high-risk, and return such a high reward, they need to be pushed even harder by society, Dr. Wyss concludes.

You're quoting the american council for capital formation? i'd call you a partisan hack, but you're not, because you have no party.

find a soul. maybe someone has a good one for sale, cheap. ah, capitalism.

Seriously the problem with the last several years, was a mis-allocation of our nations economic resources toward financial instruments and housing. The causes were several

1) Greenspan fed speculation by keeping short term rates too low
2) Government policy favored housing as opposed to other economic endevours
3) Excessive leverage was allowed in our financial system

Contrary to what housing advocates have been saying, we do not have a housing shortage, not in NY we don't and certainly not in luxury housing.

"Dollar tanks and foreigners buy up prime Manhattan Real estate, driving up prices."

Although this is way out of my area of expertise: When the mortgage crisis first hit, the Europeans said "It's purely an American problem, won't effect us". then, when it did, they blamed the worldwide problems on the US. I'm not so sure they would rush in to buy US RE if economic conditions worsened here. The Brits are already deriding the "American Peso".

If we want to help our children, how about free education , so they can compete in the world economy. Now that's a good message. Get good grades and compete!

European banks are in worse shape than the u.s. banks. Brittish pound should do worse than the u.s. dollar considering they have the same or worse housing situation, same or worse financial system and their oil reserves are running out.

evnyc - The rich are buying eensy studios and 1-bedrooms. They use them for servants and guests or closet space.

And for their kids going to school.

RS, of course you won't find me objecting to high-quality public education. the space race? we need a new NASA, a new Bell Labs.

but getting out of this mess isn't free. and as much as i deride the current administration's efforts to goose numbers and inflate mood via short-term measures, i do understand it. i don't want the world to collapse, and i understand political capital, but my ire is that there has been so little effort at financial regulation. the g-20 seems to be moving forward. maybe we'll be swept along.

30yrs, there was this huge desire to buy extra properties. why have two homes when you can have four? that's fine when you have plenty of cash, and your investments are doing well, but i can't think that is the case these days. those poor russians. rich yesterday, many in the gutter today. 15 CPW, Plaza, price reductions here we come. and confidence grows and recedes often at the top and the bottom.

30 YRs - totally agree on the take with the Europeans. Still, I thought I read somewhere that the Chinese sovereign wealth fund was considering investing in US RE (still in exploratory stages as there may be some hurdles for them to do this). Could make it interesting in NYC if they wind up trading all those dollars for big chunks of NYCRE on the cheap (what I am saying, if they didn't already buy last quarter, they are gonna be priced out FOREVER! giggle... sorry for that indulgence)

Also - Falco - you are on a roll today! Great posts!

lecker, i suspect falco will only continue to improve as listings increase.

the chinese sovereign wealth fund is considering investing in anything. anything. absofuckinglutely anything other than domestic consumption, although they may even be considering that these days.

A.R.
Financial Regulation has been lacking. In addition free market is a farce when access to information is restricted (which is what happened with CDS.. the dealers had the advantage over municipalities and industrial America).
Space exploration YES! This is an area where the U.S. should commit more resources.

My take on the financial crisis is that everyone always works to game the system. Maybe the reason why people took out home equity loans and mortgaged the house is because we took away the deduction on auto loans and credit card loans. The sooner gov't stops trying to direct capital to one endeavor or another the better. Besides mortgage deduction helps people in higher brackets more than lower brackets and even applies to what SECOND HOMES? Stop the insanity.

We need a Flat tax with as few tax credits and deductions as possible. Exceptions can be for poor who need health insurance, etc. But these refrigerator ,house and car incentives have to stop. They distort our economy.

China is stimulating domestically, but with mixed results...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/6168603/China-recovery-is-unstable-premier-Wen-tells-Summer-Davos-delegates.html

China is expected to achieve 8pc GDP growth this year. However, 90pc of that growth is attributable to massive fiscal stimulus and a surge in bank lending that has raised the risk of inflation and a fresh round of asset bubbles.

A senior Chinese banker also warned yesterday of the danger of unsustainable rises in asset prices worldwide caused by too much easy stimulus credit.

"The potential risk is that a lot of liquidity goes to the asset market. So you see asset bubbles in commodities, stocks and real estate, not only in China, but everywhere," said Zhu Min, vice-president of the Bank of China on the fringes of the meeting of 1,300 senior business leaders and policy-makers.

Of course many believe Chinese GDP numbers are fake since they measure GDP differently than the rest of the world(production vs consumption)

rs, acrimony aside, how do you explain the '90s? higher taxes, higher real incomes, greater business expansion, etc.?

yes, we do need not a space program per se, but the equivalent. a food and energy production program? etc.

but to blame the people that are sinking lower and lower, which is what you seem to be doing, is counterintuitive. the numbers won't be final for a year or so, but i think you'll be absolutely stunned at how many fiscally responsible people get killed financially in this recession. and people who were borderline but would have done fine but for the disaster caused by our financial industry.

you have no clue, truly. do you really think that the 3 or so million people losing their homes this year were all greedy flippers? really? and that's 3 million homes, probably 10 or so million people. over the 3-5 year period it may well top 40 million people. just think of it. families on relative's couches. families living in cars. families in shelters. individuals doing something similar.

i recall you once told me to quit looking at the trees, and look at the forest. that's easy. it allows you to ignore the pain.

A.R.
I hate acrimony, but do like an intelligent debate. Economic performance lags economic policies, keep that in mind. and by several years. Clinton benefited From the George Bush senior recovery. Also keep in mind that Bush jr got a number of things wrong. While he kept taxes low, he forgot to reduce spending , which is a bad combination. True "fiscal" conservatives including myself faulted Bush in this regard. And welfare doesn't have to be directed at people, it can be directed at corporations. A farm subsidy to produce sugar in Florida is still a subsidy and a transfer paymnent that benefits nobody except a politically connected family..
The last few years were terrible, a great deal of the blame goes to the Fed(Greenspan) who read too much Ayn Rand and forgot the fed is a regulator(see William Black), along with Clinton policies that overly promoted home ownership(but in all fairness George W continued this policy at least in the begining) . Greenspan took no positive action with regards to mortgages, leverage and kept rates super low which fed even more speculation.
My only point with regards to borrowers is that it was irresponsible when they used their house as piggy banks borrowing to go on vacations, buy cars, lease cars, etc. And yes many did this, the loan docs of sub prime and alt-a loans are very clear they list equity take out quite prominently. It's also the case that the vast majority of borrowers of subprime, alt-a and prime mortgage(the terms are meaningless today) knew they could not pay back their fully indexed rate. These borrowers thought they were clever, and gaming the system too not realizing htey were the suckers in the ponzi scheme, but their motives were not pure.
Oh and many flippers were not the RICH but middle and upper-middle class people who thought they found easy money. Shame on them, and shame on regulators for not seeing the excessive risk in our system, and shame on lenders for not considering how they would be paid back.
I do believe that someone who borrowed 90% never really owned their home, the bank did. Renting is probably a cheaper and more affordable solution. Owning a home should not be public policy, an affordable roof over people's heads should be... For many rent makes more sense. And as I read Easy Street posts, I see a great deal of posters are advising people to rent and not own.

riversider, we agree on some points and disagree on others, quite vehemently.

but i would argue that the bubble increased cost of living prices significantly, including those oh so important ones of housing, energy, health care and eduation. and many people simply didn't know how to deal with it when faced with the cheerleading that was going on, prices increased so much faster than wages for certain things (cpi, not so great in some ways). you can't impose your thinking process upon others.

be kind. karma will reward you.

sorry for the broken record...
Our physical future has been robbed from us by our parents and grandparents. They made entitlement deal for themselves and pinned the bill on us without ever considering our wishes. What started off as a safty net has been transformed into a crime, a robbery, a theft of my tax dollars to pay for the health care needs of those who lived and profited in this ONCE great country. My folks like many of yours spend their winter in g-ds great waiting room...south florida. My folks, life long New Yorkers, both worked very hard at professional jobs. They both worked into their mid sixties. They retired with an undisclosed amount of money. Estimates put it at a significant number. My dad's dream is to bounce the 'last' check. All that being said, they live in a super high end country club in a 5 beadroom home. Between club dues and their travels they live a higher life style then they ever did during their work life. Should these people be collecting social security? Should my government be picking up the tab for al their health care bills? How long? they look pretty (than g-d) healthy! So like many they enjoyed the benifits of being American. They enjoyed the economic benifits of being an American which allowed them via hard work to prosper. They played it by the book and they won! What the hell do they need a safty net for? Why is my income being depleted to pay for their care??? These oldsters are feedind at the teet of entitlement and they simply don't give a shit about America or our future. On top of all this back when these programs were initiated old people agreed to die at 72!!! They have reneged on the deal. I tell you every time Willard Scott introduces another 100 yr old I want to grab a pillow and fix the problem myself.

Here's my plan. Medicare...I'll cover as is until 78. After that you best have some kind of private medical insurance or your on your own. This way families can decide for themselves if they want to deplete all their fiscal resorces to keep grandpa alive for one more month. The way we have it now, why pull the plug on grandpa...health care is ON THE HOUSE!!!!

but falco, every other major country manages this.

we suck. really.

and i just read again. falco, i'd love to meet you.

We've had too many bubbles for society and the Fed to not ask some questions. When the Financial component of the S&P goes up by leaps and bounds you know something is wrong. Housing, health care & education are important issues, but disagree with some of the solutions.

and as far as
you can't impose your thinking process upon others.
"back at ya"!

I'm fine if you challenge me back, especially with an intellectual argument, but the cursing.. to be honest not so much.

Feel free to ping back with any intellectual argument you have, if you cannot just hit ignore. That's ok too!
Fine with passionate discourse, but otherwise just hit "ignore"

riversider,fuck you.

a joke, kind of.

i have no problems with discourse, but could you at least read the shit you post? really? you were seemingly at a race to do something but the stuff you were putting up was so awfully not on point i found everything you had to offer suspect.

Falcon,
Society has the best product for your parents a "Reverse Mortgage". Afraid there's will be the last rich generation. Guns & Butter might be a cliche, but our Government really needs to come up with a balanced budget and then come up with a list of priorities. Everything cannot be.

Ready,
What offends you is far different from what you profess.
And my posts are only 1/2. Case in point the Goldman posts.

Ready,
What offends you is far different from what you profess.
And my posts are only 1/2 SERIOUS. Case in point the Goldman posts.

"Here's my plan. Medicare...I'll cover as is until 78. After that you best have some kind of private medical insurance or your on your own. This way families can decide for themselves if they want to deplete all their fiscal resorces to keep grandpa alive for one more month. The way we have it now, why pull the plug on grandpa...health care is ON THE HOUSE!!!! "

I've been having this conversation with several doc friends for about ?3 years? now, and i think I've posted about it on here before: While I don't have a citation to back this up, I've posited to many docs and no one has denied it's probability: in this country ON AVERAGE 80% of the health care dollars spent over a person's entire life are spent in their last 2 weeks of life. this is because the families of terminal patients want extraordinary measures taken (even if the patient themselves have put in writing that they don't wan it done). While everyone is afraid of the "death panels", what this does say if SOMEHOW **all** that got done was to cut out THIS spending, by definition it means that health care costs would be brought down by 80% nationwide. but it's a political 3rd rail, so no one wants to touch it.

If we had some litmus test(s) and told people just one "end of life" issues that if they wanted extraordinary measures taken, they would be on their own dime, I believe that this alone would "fix" health care in the US. But we are now a country of entitlements (of all kinds), and one of the biggest entitlements is that every one believes that they are entitled to the newest, most expensive, however unproven, medical procedures if there is even the slightest hope they will work, no matter what the cost/benefit analysis would yield.

RS, you don't have a clue.

actually, 30yrs, i think your numbers are off. but they are still high.

but when i had to do cobra 1998ish, less than $100 a month.

30 years, no politician would touch that one! But sadly there's some truth there. Doctors routinely turn down organ transplants because the recipients are too old or close to death.

Interesting that no part of the Democratic health initiative talks about banning or restricting certain treatments. This would not go over well, but is the way society allocates capital.

I spoke to a Doctor who feels that a database advising Doctors what the treatments were used and how often would go along way toward controlling costs. Just providing Doctors with information on what standard treatments are and the percentage of cases treated that way might help doctors make better treatment choices. Of course Tort reform would further help with costs. Unfortunately for some a mis-treatment is like a lottery ticket to sue their doctor.

oh, and by the way, when did the health insurance cos get absorbed generally by other business? can you say alan greenspan? really, truly, fucked.

No idea what you just said. Only word I understood was fuck. Maybe we can talk about finance and not sex.

Here's a health care solution
1) Yes everyone must have it..
2) No exclusion to pre-exsting condition
3) Remove link to work-place
4) Tax credit (yea no choice here) for those who cannot afford
5) Tort Reform
6) Expedite electronic records and database of common medical solutions

And you could lower income tax and remove tax benefit to companies offering health care where the net effect to the worker is neutral. Don't make workers hostage to their employers for coverage.

but no public program. Gov't does a terrible job of running businesses.

'actually, 30yrs, i think your numbers are off. but they are still high."

They may be. The only answer I've gotten from the oodles of docs I've posited it to is the extremely uniform "I've never seen any such numbers, but I can't deny it and it certainly is very high". I wish I could actually find the real numbers somewhere.

Removing the link between the workplace and health insurance should go a long way toward goosing innovation, new business, and competition. Government does a perfectly decent job of running businesses no one else would get into. They couldn't possibly do a worse job running health insurance than my present health insurance company does. I opened a near-$1k bill just today for pre-approved and supposedly covered medical expenses.

Falco, you're definitely on a roll with great posts, but I think your analysis is insufficiently nuanced. The entitlements the "Greatest generation" came out of a reduced labor force resulting from the great depression. Labor shortage and technological innovation led to a surge in wages and a population boom - the current boomers. The idea that these policies were sustainable were based upon the excellent wage growth enjoyed by the previous generation. I don't know how much we as a society can do about demographic trends, other than to acknowledge them as a powerful force and design sensible policies around them. The boomers failed to produce enough offspring to keep the Ponzi scheme going, and now it's falling apart. So Falco, I often feel the same way, being of Generation Screwed myself. But in my more rational moments I do recognize that it was well-intentioned and grounded in a reality far different from today's.

"but no public program. Gov't does a terrible job of running businesses."

So then I assume your going to turn down Medicare when you turn 65 right? RIGHT? Or are you just another "No government run health care, leave Medicare alone" fool?

Like anyone else, I won't turn down a freebie. But I hope to not have to rely on it.

Did I mention my fat tax?
How about my don't exersive tax?
I'm not telling you how to live but, when you show up in my office over weight by 50lbs. and I've been telling you (for 10 years) that given your family Hx, weight, lack of exersize and dietary habits that diabetes is in your future and you failed to heed my repeated warnings why the hell should my health care cost go towards your health care needs??? You had fair warning and multiple chances to turn it around but, chose not to. SO, fu and you corn syrup guzzeling ways!!! FU and your fried chicken and carbohydrate driven diet. I'd treat your diabeties the way we treat mental health disorders in this country...first, I'd blame you then I'd proscribe some ineffectual medication and dump you as a patient. When your lying on the ground begging for just a sip of insulin I'll look you directly in the eye and say, "you had your chance...".

Sounds harsh you say?
Spend a little time in the shoes of your physican. People take greater interest in their black berry then they do in their health. Then they get old and give their doctor shit. They blame you for not making the complex multifaceted diagnosis from the waiting room door. they drop dead and the family blames the doc because he's an idiot. Mean while...Pops has been chain smoking, drinking, eating fatty fried foods since he got back from the Korean war. FU and your whold delusional family!!!

The president is the next jackass on my list.
I heard the speech last night. What I did not hear is a call for the lazy Americans to get off their transfat lard asses and take responsibility for their own health. He never said that everyone of you bastards that's not exersizing and eating right NOW is going to be left by the side of the road to fend for themselves. We live in a world of little resonsibility or copablity. My advice to anyone under 60 is that if your not living the HEALTHY LIFE, you best start right now. There's not going to be a dime left when your time comes. Best defence is a good offence.

that's don't exersize tax

There should be no denial because of pre-existing condition. But if someone decides to be 50 pounds over weight and/or smoke, They should pay a tax.

I guess I don't feel strongly on this, but generally smokers tend to die before incurring all of those pricey end-of-life emergency interventions. So I sort of think taxing cigarettes as heavily as we already do is enough. Ending agricultural subsidies would take care of problem 2.

I hate to nag, but I really did attempt to initiate a discussion about national real estate and wage trends and don't much appreciate the trotting out of unrelated political agendas.

"I guess I don't feel strongly on this, but generally smokers tend to die before incurring all of those pricey end-of-life emergency interventions."

Boy are you wrong on this. The memories of what went on with my business partner of close to 2 decades about a year and a half ago are still blindingly clear.

sorry evnyc, i'll put rs on ignore.

Woot!

30yrs, bingo on the pointless end-of-life spending. Good summary at http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/atlases/2008_Atlas_Exec_Summ.pdf.

Actually, 30-years, there's decent (though not conclusive) evidence on that. What happened with your business partner 2 decades ago sounds terrible, but it isn't necessarily representative of what happens broad-scale. And I totally agree that the wasteful end-of-life intervention expenses are often absurd.

No worries, AR, it's his problem/fault. He's really been on a tear lately.

To follow up on Maly's original point about the top 10%-I agree.

And look what's happening on Wall Street this year...
Banks are making money again -- and lots of it
Banks are hiring again
Banks are setting up prop desks again
Financial markets are up -- a lot

Overall employment levels are still down from the top. Of course that is true. But Bear Stearns collapse happened March 2008. Even Lehman collapse is over a year old now. The tragic events are squarely in the past.

Point being -- the overall situation, while still bad, is clearly getting better. It is not still getting worse. This will inevitably take time to feed its way through...but we are not still in a downward spiral for Wall St. and most other types of professionals.

Urgan diggs did a nice column on house prices today. He discussed the dollar and inflation as well. For the record, I don't think a weak dollar is sufficient to offset a decline in home prices, but might be an interesting positive force that slows down the descent. He's correct in saying too many factors are now missing for a reflation in home prices to where it was.

AVM, that's why related is giving over 20% discounts to people closing in the Harrison?

Right. And the husband reports that there are widespread rumors of another large round of layoffs at the law firms. Wall Street is being bottle-fed by the masses. Lucky them, creating parasitic institutions that have been deemed too important to feel the pain. But why would you buy right now if you are young and on Wall Street? you can have the same apartment for 50% less a month, and you certainly don't have to announce that you are renting. if you're not so young, you're probably trapped in your overpriced classic something or horribly overpriced new something already. i know quite a few of those people.

OK, that's mostly fair. Nonetheless:

apartment prices are still on the way down

wall street employment are profitability are on the way up.

At some point, something's got to give. You tell me when. just saying...

what gives is when all the new inventory is absorbed. and you have to include parts of brooklyn in that calculation as well because as much as we like to deny it, it's where many of the young people WANT to be now. when we priced them out they created their alternative.

and of course you have demographics. estate sales happen regularly. baby boomers retire. not that many highly paid individuals are entering the city now, wall street notwithstanding. will that change? probably. when? who knows. but you also have the element of caution, that has been so sorely lacking.

right now you are seeing young people buy, largely. they have been saving and looking for a certain number of years, and the prices actually seem ok to them. the higher-end market, not looking so good. so it's kind of ironic, the wall street argument. their obvious market is doing the worst.

aboutready--where did you find out about the 20% discounts at the Harrison? Just curious because (don't know if you remember) we lost our 10% because they would not negotiate with us.

a parent at my daughter's school works for a financial publication. his boss was fired tuesday, along with a co-worker. the good news? they hired a new person. the bad news? that person is now doing both jobs.

this parent owns a large soho loft, bought in the early '90s. could/would they buy now? of course not. when people such as these retire (and they are not that far off), there aren't even close to enough highly paid people to fill the space.

fleurdelys, here you go, wide range of discounts. sorry for your monetary loss, but it might have been best in the end.

08/21/2009 #7J $1,245,000 -8.1% $1,355,000 Sold 1 bed 2 baths 839 ft²
08/21/2009 #7G $1,580,000 -17.9% $1,925,000 ↑ Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,047 ft²
08/20/2009 #5L $1,265,000 -16.5% $1,515,000 ↑ Sold 1 bed 2 baths 1,011 ft²
08/20/2009 #701 $2,025,000 -9.0% $2,225,000 ↑ Sold 2 beds 2 baths
08/17/2009 #5F - $3,000,000 Sold 3 beds 3 baths 1,572 ft²
08/17/2009 #1202 - $2,250,000 ↑ Off-Market 2 beds 2 baths 1,226 ft²
08/17/2009 #1101 - $2,650,000 Off-Market 2 beds 2 baths 1,307 ft²
08/14/2009 #5E $1,800,000 -21.4% $2,290,000 ↑ Sold 2 beds 2.5 baths 1,191 ft²
08/14/2009 #8C $786,050 -34.0% $1,190,000 Sold 1 bed 1 bath 716 ft²
08/13/2009 #5G $1,420,000 -22.6% $1,835,000 ↑ Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,047 ft²
08/12/2009 #4C $925,000 -19.6% $1,150,000 Sold 1 bed 1 bath 716 ft²
08/10/2009 #6G - $1,865,000 ↑ Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,047 ft²
08/10/2009 #4AB - $2,995,000 Sold 3 beds 3 baths 1,927 ft²
08/10/2009 #6F $2,875,000 -5.7% $3,050,000 Sold 3 beds 3 baths 1,572 ft²
08/07/2009 #6H $1,670,000 -18.3% $2,045,000 Sold 2 beds 2.5 baths 1,340 ft²
08/05/2009 #602 $1,485,000 -3.3% $1,535,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,226 ft²
07/21/2009 #302 $1,552,000 -3.0% $1,600,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,226 ft²
07/21/2009 #4D $975,000 -11.4% $1,100,000 Sold 1 bed 1 bath 706 ft²

thanks ar--we agree we are better off but have to admit--it still stings sometimes especially when I think of what I could be doing with all that $$$$--appreciate the info--

From my perspective, it's been 3 decades + with no real income gain once you take away the effect of 2-working parent households.

Nyc10023, you're absolutely correct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/business/economy/13excerpt.html?scp=3&sq=wages&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/us/02wage.html?scp=8&sq=wages&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/us/11poverty.html?scp=16&sq=wages&st=cse

So we have a decade of wage gains wiped out, people taking money out of their homes to compensate for falling wages, and homelessness and abuse if you fall into the lower-wage rung. We are in a decided pickle. Demographically speaking, I think the 30-and under crowd are going to wind up being a dip generation. Standards of living are going to fall for the majority of people. It's already happening.

Evnyc: I see the whole issue in a more global way. Our standard of living for many years was based on post-WWII fallout. I don't think it's a big deal if our standard of living falls because it was unsustainable.

10023, not sure i agree with you there. depends on where the fall occurs. it's a huge deal if the fall falls (pun) on the lower levels.

It's a huge deal for us (in the west) because it's a precipitous decline in what we're used to, but on a global level, it's a blip. Almost as many people or more (I haven't googled) live in Sub-Saharan Africa as in the U.S. in truly devastating conditions.

10023, have to agree with aboutready. I understand your point that American consumer society is unsustainable and could use a dose of reality, but the rich are still getting richer and the current recession is hitting hardest on the middle/working and lower class (those that need the most right now). I was sickened to see the Times article about financial employees on Wall St. estimated to make near 700k this year...if the "blip" of which you speak were hitting their Gucci wallets (and not the empty pockets of my community college student) I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

I guess I think a big part of the problem is that many of the entitlements we have - as basic as they are, and as poorly managed as they have been - were based upon this notion of perpetual growth. Not just population growth, but income growth and productivity growth. That concept is under serious strain, but none of the entitlements are being renegotiated in a way that will reduce the burden on the younger present generation and next future generation. It seems to me that there's a lot of potential for significant social disruption, sort of like what happened in the 1960s when there were so many people competing for well-paying jobs that there was virtually no way to get ahead in the system, so the big movement was to break that system down.

So you're right, 10023, it is demographically driven and global in context, but it's hitting such a broad base of people so hard right now. What happens if this stratification process continues? I just see this social contract of undermining wages and disappearing jobs and enormous debt burdens leading nowhere good - for anyone.

It's absolutely true that it's a blip 10023, but US culture was founded on this idea of working hard and getting ahead - constant growth. What's going to happen when opportunity is severely curtailed, when we stop winning the game of competition?

I think the U.S. is moving away from a (fairly) egalitarian, socially mobile model to a model not too far from the developing (whatever that means) world. Middle-class, lower-middle class, working-class utterly screwed except for your occasional outlier, the upper-class becoming part of a global elite that is well-educated, mobile, and multilingual.

Now that I agree with, 10023. I've been traveling the "developing" world for years (mainly because I haven't been able to afford traveling in 'first world' countries), and the US is trending in that direction.

But its still depressing that the US is sliding in that direction as opposed to lifting other nations toward the more egalitarian model.

I lived in the developing world as a child, went to international schools with some of the "global elite" . The U.S. always seemed very different in terms of ethos but things are converging very rapidly.

nyc10023 I agree with u.

From a historical perspective, jury is still out as to whether the egalitarian model is more stable.

And yet, multilingual, and mobile are also characteristics of the poor and transient. And if education can't be relied upon to help you obtain and keep a decent job, which increasingly it cannot, a lot of social mobility will be erased.

Great points, all.

Multilingual as in complete fluency, and mobility as in carrying multiple passports, financial eggs in >1 country.

Not to get personal 10023, but it might be easier to look more globally when you are in the position to start a thread on this site asking for advice on finding your beach home.
- From a 30 year old that, growing up, thought that having a decent amount of savings by my age would mean having already bought an apartment rather than my rent-concession 1 bedroom in the heights.

nyc10023, how was your experience as a child with International elite schools? Sorry to digress...

Ynotie: it's a mindset, not a function of how many dollars I have in the bank. I have never felt rooted in any one country, feel very much stateless.

Mimi: fantastic. It would be wrong to say that it was truly diverse (no Africans) but of all the many prejudices I have, race isn't one of them and I don't mean that in a culturally relativistic way. Because of the student population, being around people of different nationalities (as opposed to immigrants here) - subjects like history and geography are learned not in a vacuum but with real nuance. On the other hand, I went to school with some rich dopes upon which this was UTTERLY wasted. Most of us have gone on to lead very "international" lives.

Great to know. Thanks.