The reduced demand I'm feeling now is my reduced demand to read this garbage.
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
The Economy
185,023 Views |
2343 Replies |
Last: 56 min ago by DiabloWags
DiabloWags said:
Highly false, erroneous statements like this . . .oski003 said:
The foreign country pays the tariff.
Which was easily explained twofold:
1) Most import with US subsidiaries; and
2) Pricing pressure should force the exporter to eat some of the tariffs because there should be non-tariffed competition
Thanks Alex A!
cal83dls79 said:
The reduced demand I'm feeling now is my reduced demand to read this garbage.
You have not explained why you think it is garbage, just the conclusion that it is.
How can reducing the number of people competing for a relatively finite resource not reduce the price of that resource?
tequila4kapp said:cal83dls79 said:
The reduced demand I'm feeling now is my reduced demand to read this garbage.
You have not explained why you think it is garbage, just the conclusion that it is.
How can reducing the number of people competing for a relatively finite resource not reduce the price of that resource?
First off, the poster (movielover) is making two highly absurd assumptions - - - assuming that a mortgage can be easily obtained by an undocumented immigrant and that most undocumented immigrants own homes . . . or at least enough to contribute to a meaningful increase in housing supply should they be deported.
It's been my experience here in the Bay Area that the majority of undocumented immigrants are RENTERS.
And the reason being is because they are either priced out of owning a home here or they are unable to obtain financing.
Aside from ITIN mortgages (which are super expensive) Financing is literally non-existent for undocumented immigrants.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
cal83dls79 said:
The reduced demand I'm feeling now is my reduced demand to read this garbage.
To repeatedly see these kinds of posts is an embarrassment to the University that we worked so hard to graduate from. They must not have taken Econ 1 to repeatedly claim that tariffs are paid directly by the foreign country.
Anyone in the business world knows full well that the "Importer of Record" pays the tariff, or import duty, to Customs and Border Patrol. The "Importer of Record" must register with the CBP, and must pay the import duty directly to the CBP, which passes it over to the U.S. Treasury.
This is just basic Econ 1 stuff.
But I guess there are some posters here that are blinded by their political bias for Trump that they have no problem posting highly false and erroneous claims. - - - Sifting through all of these bogus and absurd claims diminishes the quality and value of OT.
Trump's Collecting Record-High Tariffs. Who's Paying Them? | American Enterprise Institute - AEI
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
take the number of "worst of the worst" deported home owners in America now divide that by the number of households in America, factor in current vacancies and a whole bunch of other stuff…that's the start of my premisetequila4kapp said:cal83dls79 said:
The reduced demand I'm feeling now is my reduced demand to read this garbage.
You have not explained why you think it is garbage, just the conclusion that it is.
How can reducing the number of people competing for a relatively finite resource not reduce the price of that resource?
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/mass-deportations-would-worsen-our-housing-crisis
This is one take. But my take is that to think, or promise that masked LE dragging the worst of the worst off of the sreeets will have any detectable impact on housing costs is a fairy tale at best. You can make that bet. I wouldn't
This is one take. But my take is that to think, or promise that masked LE dragging the worst of the worst off of the sreeets will have any detectable impact on housing costs is a fairy tale at best. You can make that bet. I wouldn't
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
Exactly.
If anything, deporting undocumented immigrants will wind up decreasing the amount of new residential homes being built given the labor component. When supply is decreased for a highly sought after asset, the price of that asset goes up.
Again, this is Basic Econ 1 stuff.
If anything, deporting undocumented immigrants will wind up decreasing the amount of new residential homes being built given the labor component. When supply is decreased for a highly sought after asset, the price of that asset goes up.
Again, this is Basic Econ 1 stuff.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
DiabloWags said:tequila4kapp said:cal83dls79 said:
The reduced demand I'm feeling now is my reduced demand to read this garbage.
You have not explained why you think it is garbage, just the conclusion that it is.
How can reducing the number of people competing for a relatively finite resource not reduce the price of that resource?
First off, the poster (movielover) is making two highly absurd assumptions - - - assuming that a mortgage can be easily obtained by an undocumented immigrant and that most undocumented immigrants own homes . . . or at least enough to contribute to a meaningful increase in housing supply should they be deported.
It's been my experience here in the Bay Area that the majority of undocumented immigrants are RENTERS.
And the reason being is because they are either priced out of owning a home here or they are unable to obtain financing.
Aside from ITIN mortgages (which are super expensive) Financing is literally non-existent for undocumented immigrants.
I never said "most". There are a sizeable number of homes that are owned by illegal immigrants, your logic is again faulty.
Renters would also benefit from lower rents (reduced demand).
It's more the promise that kicking out Mexicans will solve yet another of societies ills that gets these folks all hopeful and stuff and living in the Golden Age that they fantasize about. They really don't care about rents. Then they come up with this stuff because they think they know something about supply and demand.
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
cal83dls79 said:
It's more the promise that kicking out Mexicans will solve yet another of societies ills that gets these folks all hopeful and stuff and living in the Golden Age that they fantasize about. They really don't care about rents. Then they come up with this stuff because they think they know something about supply and demand.
There you go again.
how so? I'm waiting for your formula to back your thesis other than "less demand". Tequila was interested in why I was skeptical but wasn't for a minute curious as to how you came to your conclusions. Funny that. You just figured out that low interest rates led to a run up in home prices. So that's a start I guess.movielover said:cal83dls79 said:
It's more the promise that kicking out Mexicans will solve yet another of societies ills that gets these folks all hopeful and stuff and living in the Golden Age that they fantasize about. They really don't care about rents. Then they come up with this stuff because they think they know something about supply and demand.
There you go again.
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
cal83dls79 said:movielover said:
There you go again.
how so? I'm waiting for your formula to back your thesis other than "less demand". Tequila was interested in why I was skeptical but wasn't for a minute curious as to how you came to your conclusions. Funny that. You just figured out that low interest rates led to a run up in home prices. So that's a start I guess.
The reason I didn't ask why he came to his conclusions is implicit in the question I asked you - econ 101 says reduced demand for a resource means its price goes down.
tequila4kapp said:cal83dls79 said:movielover said:
There you go again.
how so? I'm waiting for your formula to back your thesis other than "less demand". Tequila was interested in why I was skeptical but wasn't for a minute curious as to how you came to your conclusions. Funny that. You just figured out that low interest rates led to a run up in home prices. So that's a start I guess.
The reason I didn't ask why he came to his conclusions is implicit in the question I asked you - econ 101 says reduced demand for a resource means its price goes down.
But implicit in such a conclusion is that undocumented immigrants have access to financing to buy a home in the first place. Without that, movielover's narrative is moot and has little or no practical relevance.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
certainly the math here is much more complicated…..but I'm not the one making the claim and making promises I can't keep. Trump and others can do that quite well without any of my or others assistance.tequila4kapp said:cal83dls79 said:movielover said:
There you go again.
how so? I'm waiting for your formula to back your thesis other than "less demand". Tequila was interested in why I was skeptical but wasn't for a minute curious as to how you came to your conclusions. Funny that. You just figured out that low interest rates led to a run up in home prices. So that's a start I guess.
The reason I didn't ask why he came to his conclusions is implicit in the question I asked you - econ 101 says reduced demand for a resource means its price goes down.
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
DiabloWags said:tequila4kapp said:cal83dls79 said:movielover said:
There you go again.
how so? I'm waiting for your formula to back your thesis other than "less demand". Tequila was interested in why I was skeptical but wasn't for a minute curious as to how you came to your conclusions. Funny that. You just figured out that low interest rates led to a run up in home prices. So that's a start I guess.
The reason I didn't ask why he came to his conclusions is implicit in the question I asked you - econ 101 says reduced demand for a resource means its price goes down.
But implicit in such a conclusion is that undocumented immigrants have access to financing to buy a home in the first place. Without that, movielover's narrative is moot and has little or no practical relevance.
The real world proves that gaggles of undocumented immigrants have access to financing, so your logic crumbles.
I do not have an agenda on this. I was literally curious about the answer.
movielover said:DiabloWags said:
But implicit in such a conclusion is that undocumented immigrants have access to financing to buy a home in the first place. Without that, movielover's narrative is moot and has little or no practical relevance.
The real world proves that gaggles of undocumented immigrants have access to financing, so your logic crumbles.
Instead of just throwing out unsubstantiated claims like you usually do, why not prove it with some actual data?
Instead, you make an unbased claim that my "logic crumbles" just because you throw up an unsubstantiated claim.
If someone did that in a meeting at Google, Intel, Microsoft, or Apple they would be laughed out of the room.
Do you even realize that?
"If the real world proves" what you are claiming, then I'm sure its been studied and can be easily documented.
Feel free to substantiate your claim.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
DiabloWags said:movielover said:DiabloWags said:
But implicit in such a conclusion is that undocumented immigrants have access to financing to buy a home in the first place. Without that, movielover's narrative is moot and has little or no practical relevance.
The real world proves that gaggles of undocumented immigrants have access to financing, so your logic crumbles.
Instead of just throwing out unsubstantiated claims like you usually do, why not prove it with some actual data?
Instead, you make an unbased claim that my "logic crumbles" just because you throw up an unsubstantiated claim.
If someone did that in a meeting at Google, Intel, Microsoft, or Apple they would be laughed out of the room.
"If the real world proves" what you are claiming, then I'm sure its been studied and can be easily documented.
Feel free to substantiate your claim.
So my assertions need backing, but your logic doesn't. Gotcha.
ITIN mortgages are one way undocumented immigrants finance homes. Others buy homes with cash
A 2017 study by the Migration Policy Institute analysis of the U.S. census data (2014), "more than 3.4 million undocumented immigrants are homeowners.
So that's 3.4 million based on 12-year-old data.
https://www.marketplace.org/story/2017/09/11/american-dream-how-undocumented-immigrants-buy-homes-us
that's good, because I don't as well. I would have the same thinking here regardless of who was in office.tequila4kapp said:
I do not have an agenda on this. I was literally curious about the answer.
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
so given this what would you predict the impact on housing costs would be if we deported:movielover said:DiabloWags said:movielover said:DiabloWags said:
But implicit in such a conclusion is that undocumented immigrants have access to financing to buy a home in the first place. Without that, movielover's narrative is moot and has little or no practical relevance.
The real world proves that gaggles of undocumented immigrants have access to financing, so your logic crumbles.
Instead of just throwing out unsubstantiated claims like you usually do, why not prove it with some actual data?
Instead, you make an unbased claim that my "logic crumbles" just because you throw up an unsubstantiated claim.
If someone did that in a meeting at Google, Intel, Microsoft, or Apple they would be laughed out of the room.
"If the real world proves" what you are claiming, then I'm sure its been studied and can be easily documented.
Feel free to substantiate your claim.
So my assertions need backing, but your logic doesn't. Gotcha.
ITIN mortgages are one way undocumented immigrants finance homes. Others buy homes with cash
A 2017 study by the Migration Policy Institute analysis of the U.S. census data (2014), "more than 3.4 million undocumented immigrants are homeowners.
So that's 3.4 million based on 12-year-old data.
https://www.marketplace.org/story/2017/09/11/american-dream-how-undocumented-immigrants-buy-homes-us
A - 2X the illegal worst of the worst illegal homeowners
B - 3X the Illegal """
C - All """
Answers don't have to be specific but easy enough for average Americans to understand.
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
There are 2.6 million undocumented immigrants residing in California.
The median cost of a home in California is $755,000
And we are being led to believe that they are buying homes here in CA with cash given jobs in the food service, construction, and landscaping industries.
Sounds like pure fantasy.
Never mind that a higher proportion of undocumented renters and owners spend more than 30% of their income on housing in CA, which makes sense given the jobs that they have. In fact, in 2023 62% of undocumented renters and 39% of undocumented homeowners were burdened by housing costs.
For those that are unaware, any household spending more than 30% of their income on housing is classified as "burdened".
Housing Burden
The median cost of a home in California is $755,000
And we are being led to believe that they are buying homes here in CA with cash given jobs in the food service, construction, and landscaping industries.
Sounds like pure fantasy.
Never mind that a higher proportion of undocumented renters and owners spend more than 30% of their income on housing in CA, which makes sense given the jobs that they have. In fact, in 2023 62% of undocumented renters and 39% of undocumented homeowners were burdened by housing costs.
For those that are unaware, any household spending more than 30% of their income on housing is classified as "burdened".
Housing Burden
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Given that housing affordability is a massive issue with the average monthly cost of home ownership at 25% of one's monthly income in the U.S., I came across this interesting breakdown for the typical "average" U.S. household. - - - Obviously, numbers here in CA would be even higher.
We're talking literally $102,000 of pre-tax income to pay one's household bills.
That's a lot of cheesse.
So when I see people "cheerleading" how real wages increased 1.1% in December YoY, it really doesn't even begin to address the costs of living that are increasing at much greater rates, such as homeowner's insurance in CA and elsewhere.
For example, I'm currently paying $1750 a year for homeowner's insurance.
And given that my community just got its FIRE risk moved to HIGH RISK, I will most likely be paying DOUBLE that $1750 in August when my policy comes up for renewal. This is going on all over the state (and other states like Florida, North Carolina, etc.)
Interestingly enough, the Miscellaneous Spending category in the chart above of $790 barely covers my WSJ subscription. And $504 for Groceries seems insanely low.
lol
We're talking literally $102,000 of pre-tax income to pay one's household bills.
That's a lot of cheesse.
So when I see people "cheerleading" how real wages increased 1.1% in December YoY, it really doesn't even begin to address the costs of living that are increasing at much greater rates, such as homeowner's insurance in CA and elsewhere.
For example, I'm currently paying $1750 a year for homeowner's insurance.
And given that my community just got its FIRE risk moved to HIGH RISK, I will most likely be paying DOUBLE that $1750 in August when my policy comes up for renewal. This is going on all over the state (and other states like Florida, North Carolina, etc.)
Interestingly enough, the Miscellaneous Spending category in the chart above of $790 barely covers my WSJ subscription. And $504 for Groceries seems insanely low.
lol
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
A quick Google leads to an array of articles indicating ITIN borrowing was used to provide these mortgages.
DiabloWags said:
There are 2.6 million undocumented immigrants residing in California.
The median cost of a home in California is $755,000
And we are being led to believe that they are buying homes here in CA with cash given jobs in the food service, construction, and landscaping industries.
Sounds like pure fantasy.
Never mind that a higher proportion of undocumented renters and owners spend more than 30% of their income on housing in CA, which makes sense given the jobs that they have. In fact, in 2023 62% of undocumented renters and 39% of undocumented homeowners were burdened by housing costs.
For those that are unaware, any household spending more than 30% of their income on housing is classified as "burdened".
Housing Burden
You believe our nation only has 10 million illegal immigrants? *eye roll* Likely 5-7 million just in California, or more. (Take the number from UCLA previously estimating that 27% of undocumented immigrants live in California.)
https://latino.ucla.edu/research/lessons-2022-adult-medical-expansion/
Sure, *some* are buying with cash - poor areas, down market, cartel / drug money, etc. During the Bush / Obama real estate implosion, I heard of two General Contractors who bought 100 homes in Sacramento at $25,000 a pop. A friend bought several homes in Oak Park for "ten cents, twenty cents on the dollar". BTW, tons of undocumented drivers in the trucking industry.
Once upon a time homes were cheap in the Central Valley, Siskiyou County, Watsonville, ... In 2010, the average home price in Gonzales, CA, was $126,000.
Also, lots of immigrant families live 3, 4, 5 families to a unit, reducing the average costs to individuals but pushing out seniors and native residents. And a family where the Father, Mother, brother and daughter pool funds allow them to buy homes various ways, including through HUD programs
tequila4kapp said:
A quick Google leads to an array of articles indicating ITIN borrowing was used to provide these mortgages.
Yes, I believe I mentioned ITIN borrowing in my post two hours ago at 8:09 am.
But please note, those loans require larger down payments and higher rates because such loans are "non-conforming" and not backed by Fannie/Freddie or generally FHA.
In fact, in 2025 HUD and other actions changed the eligibility for FHA-insured loans so that aliens without permanent resident status would no longer qualify for FHA mortgages.
As a result, it is a niche financing market.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Fewer illegal immigrants would mean lower rent for low income housing, where they live. These are typically investor owned multi-family buildings. Lower rent means lower prices for this investment group.
Fewer illegal immigrants also means higher cost to build new housing. So while some housing may have lower prices I'd expect most Americans to see sustained high prices.
In addition to the Trump tax cuts which means more money to drive up housing prices for investors like me, Trump's order to purchase mortgage bonds and drive down rates will also increase demand and drive up prices, though monthly payments may be net neutral. Less interest paid on more debt.
Fewer illegal immigrants also means higher cost to build new housing. So while some housing may have lower prices I'd expect most Americans to see sustained high prices.
In addition to the Trump tax cuts which means more money to drive up housing prices for investors like me, Trump's order to purchase mortgage bonds and drive down rates will also increase demand and drive up prices, though monthly payments may be net neutral. Less interest paid on more debt.
If removing the worst of the worst illegal homeowners is a prong on the fork of make America Affordable Again we are in for deep doo doo. Too many concomitant factors and data suggest no or min impact. Maybe look at new supply, rehab, repurposing, zoning, density, permitting, infrastructure etc.
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
cal83dls79 said:
If removing the worst of the worst illegal homeowners is a prong on the fork of make America Affordable Again we are in for deep doo doo. Too many concomitant factors and data suggest no or min impact. Maybe look at new supply, rehab, repurposing, zoning, density, permitting, infrastructure etc.
Agreed.
Blaming the brown skinned guy and his family (who is most likely employed in the construction industry) is not the way to increase the SUPPLY of housing.
Even if it's the "worst of the worst illegal homeowner" . . . the numbers move the needle.
They really doesn't.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
DiabloWags said:
Given that housing affordability is a massive issue with the average monthly cost of home ownership at 25% of one's monthly income in the U.S., I came across this interesting breakdown for the typical "average" U.S. household. - - - Obviously, numbers here in CA would be even higher.
We're talking literally $102,000 of pre-tax income to pay one's household bills.
That's a lot of cheesse.
So when I see people "cheerleading" how real wages increased 1.1% in December YoY, it really doesn't even begin to address the costs of living that are increasing at much greater rates, such as homeowner's insurance in CA and elsewhere.
For example, I'm currently paying $1750 a year for homeowner's insurance.
And given that my community just got its FIRE risk moved to HIGH RISK, I will most likely be paying DOUBLE that $1750 in August when my policy comes up for renewal. This is going on all over the state (and other states like Florida, North Carolina, etc.)
Interestingly enough, the Miscellaneous Spending category in the chart above of $790 barely covers my WSJ subscription. And $504 for Groceries seems insanely low.
lol
So can we assume you would back 100% a plan to aggressively thin forests, cut fire breaks, and conduct spring and fall controlled burns? Triple, quadruple lagging efforts? Open some local lumber mills? Relax home owner hoops to manage their own properties and also solicit voluntary paid prison labor?
In hand, push the Federal government to do the same on Federal lands?
This way we can prevent the next Pacific Palisades, reduce pollution, save animals, draw down risk, produce local products, and hopefully reduce insurance rates.
I don't live near any forest or any lumber mills.
lol
For starters, I don't believe that my neighborhood should have ever been moved to HIGH FIRE RISK in the first place.
That designation makes no sense to me.
I don't live in Paradise or Ben Lomond or Orinda where there is massive vegetation, trees, etc and areas that are difficult to access.
I live in a 25 year old residential area with a ton of infrastructure, undergound powerlines, etc., and very little vegetation.
lol
For starters, I don't believe that my neighborhood should have ever been moved to HIGH FIRE RISK in the first place.
That designation makes no sense to me.
I don't live in Paradise or Ben Lomond or Orinda where there is massive vegetation, trees, etc and areas that are difficult to access.
I live in a 25 year old residential area with a ton of infrastructure, undergound powerlines, etc., and very little vegetation.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
I'm not in insurance, but I bet our overall state situation effects everybody. BTW, last time I drove up to Moraga I saw one of their main feeder roads was substantially thinned. Not sure why that can't be done on a regular basis (easier, incremental).
I'd love a "voluntary paid prisoner" to work on my properties in Maine. Not sure about the tenants.
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
So let's see what happens if you deport illegal immigrants with mortgages. They stop paying the mortgage. The mortgage company eventually starts foreclosure proceedings. This takes time. Maybe a year or more at a minimum if I had to hazard a guess. Then the mortgage company takes possession of the property. They have a glut of homes they don't want. Stuff happens. Houses need maintenance. Lowlifes steal copper wiring and pipes from vacant buildings. Squatters trash the place and set fires. There's few contractors to handle the demand for repairs. Eventually, houses are ready for sale. I suspect this would take at least 2-3 years. I have a home next door to mine that's been vacant since before COVID. Anyway, you'd still have to find people capable of being issued mortgages and it's not like salaries will increase significantly. So any increase in housing supply would likely be years down the road, if at all.DiabloWags said:cal83dls79 said:
If removing the worst of the worst illegal homeowners is a prong on the fork of make America Affordable Again we are in for deep doo doo. Too many concomitant factors and data suggest no or min impact. Maybe look at new supply, rehab, repurposing, zoning, density, permitting, infrastructure etc.
Agreed.
Blaming the brown skinned guy and his family (who is most likely employed in the construction industry) is not the way to increase the SUPPLY of housing.
Even if it's the "worst of the worst illegal homeowner" . . . the numbers move the needle.
They really doesn't.
movielover said:
I'm not in insurance, but I bet our overall state situation effects everybody. BTW, last time I drove up to Moraga I saw one of their main feeder roads was substantially thinned. Not sure why that can't be done on a regular basis (easier, incremental).
Michael Wara a scholar at Stanford's Woods Institute and a commissioner on the state's Catastrophic Wildfire Cost and Recovery Commission had named the Palisades, Los Altos Hills, and Orinda/Moraga as the 3 areas in the state with catastrophic wildfire risk in a white paper he authored in 2019.
That's probably why you saw increased defensible space in Moraga.
This Bay Area city is one of the most at risk of an urban firestorm
Wildfire experts, news and resources | Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Featured Stories
See All
'Great Energy': Inside Cal's Revamped Running Back Room
by Joaquin Ruiz
The Rodcast: Cal vs UIC NIT Preview
by Rod Benson
Bears Take on UIC Flames For Opening NIT Matchup
by Ian Firstenberg