Past Recession trends

waverly - agreed

"I just wish he would be a bit more open to what other people say instead of just clamping down and digging his heels in."

I would - if you showed me where you got your theories and data from, besides just "stick my finger in the...."

"People most certainly do buy because they want to live in a particular location.

Show me your source.

"The cost, while important, is not the overriding factor."

Really? Good. I think I'll buy a $2 million apartment BECAUSE I LOVE IT. Of course I can't even afford the down payment, but F*CK IT. I LOVE IT!

"For example, it might be cheaper to buy something, but I want the freedom to change jobs, move to a different city or not have the responsibility of ownership...therefore I rent."

That part is true.

"Cost is only part of the equation for most people."

That part is also true.

What is NOT true is that the price to purchase can remain very long over historic averages. It's just not true.

I don't read tech_guy because what he says is meaningless - like you, no sources.

There are a whole lot more jobs in NYC than finance, and most of the finance jobs are going to still be here.

Predict whatever you want. We've already established that your data sample of 1 is grossly inadequate and ineffective. Spout off whatever theories you want, but you grasp only a tiny piece of the picture because your big head and big mouth are in the way.

oh, I forgot these gems:

"There are a whole lot more jobs in NYC than finance, and most of the finance jobs are going to still be here."

one-third of all income in New York City - obviously more in Manhattan - come from finance. It's not my figure - it's the city's and the state's.

"Predict whatever you want. We've already established that your data sample of 1 is grossly inadequate and ineffective."

I stand by my 1 data point. If I had more (as sometimes I do) I'd share them. But until recently (and even still) real estate in Manhattan has been an opaque market. Fortunately, that's changing.

"Spout off whatever theories you want, but you grasp only a tiny piece of the picture because your big head and big mouth are in the way."

I've given where I get my data, where I get my "theories," neither of which are mine. If you don't like them - kewl. But I source what I write.

And so you know how "dumb" I am - I have enough 0% credit cards to last me a year, and enough under 10% credit cards to last me 3 years, just paying the minimum payments. I also have enough cash to last me a year without making another penny.

So yeah - I didn't predict the utter ineptitude of this administration, but it seems I placed myself in a situation that I can last until 2011, no problem.

What about you?

>> " I would - if you showed me where you got your theories and data from, besides just "stick my finger in the...."

I believe I did demonstrated that rents have risen approximately 25% since 2000. And yet you claimed rents declined since 2000 when they have increased.

"And yet you claimed rents declined since 2000 when they have increased."

I never claimed that.

"I believe I did demonstrated that rents have risen approximately 25% since 2000."

If you claimed the increase in the past 9 years was an aggregate 25%, then I retract what I said & what I thought you said, and I agree. That is a 2% per annum increase, compounded, approximately. A far cry from the 17% compounded increase in purchase prices.

So I retract.

OK, again using the data link on millersamuel I selected all of Manhattan which does not include Harlem, coops+condos, median sales price, 2000 to 2008, and used the all apts median numbers.

399K to 860K over 8 years gives you 10.08% compounded increase in median sales prices.
I got 8% Compounded increase in rent for a 1BR at 300 East 34th st over 10 years using nybits.com so obviously you cannot and have not disputed those numbers (we are talking nybits after all).

So you compare 2% compounded annual rent increase against 17% compounded annual purchase prices whereas my data points would compare 8% compounded annual rent increase against 10.08%.

If I had selected downtown+eastside+westside the numbers are 487K to 899K = 7.96% compounded annual sales price increase.

Which numbers to believe? What a quandary.

My rental period is from 1998, granted but I stand by my data point. If I had more (as sometimes I do) I'd share them. But until recently (and even still) real estate in Manhattan has been an opaque market. Fortunately, that's changing.

"gives you 10.08% compounded increase in median sales prices.
I got 8% Compounded increase in rent for a 1BR at 300 East 34th st over 10 years using nybits.com so obviously you cannot and have not disputed those numbers (we are talking nybits after all)."

Select the data you want, but if the annual difference is 3%, in a few years you have a HUGE differential.

OK I will select 8% CAGR on rent vs 7.96% CAGR (source stated above) on home sales prices. Looks like we won't have a huge differential after all in a few years. In fact we're at your much sought after equilibrium.

Glad we sorted that one out.

"There are a whole lot more jobs in NYC than finance, and most of the finance jobs are going to still be here."

1/3 of city income, and the city says 2 jobs for every Wall Street job.
Our reliable #2, publishing, is tanking.
Law firms get their money from Wall Street, and they're laying off.
70% of hedge funds have lost money, and now there are record outflows.
Cabs reporting as 1/3 less revenue (Crain's)
Restaurants cutting prices and losing business (also Crain's)
Retail, tanking.

I wouldn't call that a "whole lot more".

just found out... cadwalader taft has laid off about 20% of its staff.

It 'aint just Wall Street...