August 8, 2007


Indy tops Forbes' most-affordable list
Star report
August 8, 2007


We're the envy of Los Angeles.
Forbes said Indianapolis is No. 1 when it comes to housing affordability.

In its annual rankings, the esteemed business publication looked at the ratio of median home price to median household salary, which determines how many years of gross salary the median household would have to spend to buy the median house.

In Indianapolis, where the median household income is $60,383, it would take just under two years of gross salary to buy.
Compare us to L.A., where the median household income is $58,319, but housing is more than five times more expensive than in Indy, Forbes reports.

Almost 90 percent of Indianapolis sales in the first quarter of this year were affordable to the median income-earning household. Our median home price: $112,500.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070808/BUSINESS/70808023

Wow, Indy makes more money than LA and spends 1/5 on housing. I'm guessing Indy folks take a few more vacations than Angelenos......

They didn't ask about property taxes, did they?

The homes may be more affordable, but the foreclosure rates are getting up there. They're building homes faster than new residents can move into the area.

I just turned 40 and am finally looking to buy a home next year. Working for a bank makes this a bit more of a possibility. Most likely outside of Marion county however.

I just turned 40 and am finally looking to buy a home next year. Working for a bank makes this a bit more of a possibility. Most likely outside of Marion county however.

Moby-

At 32 (and my BF is 37) we just bought our first home, so don't feel bad.

Moby-

At 32 (and my BF is 37) we just bought our first home, so don't feel bad.

I'm 22 and I just bought my house. :(

I'm guessing Indy folks take a few more vacations than Angelenos......

I'm guessing Angelenos don't need as many vacations.....:)

I'm 22 and I just bought my house. :(

why the frown, you over-acheiver

FYI:

They aren't allowing persons to comment on this story on the INdyStar message boards. Hmmm...I wonder why that could be? :)

FYI:

They aren't allowing persons to comment on this story on the INdyStar message boards. Hmmm...I wonder why that could be? :)

Obvious. ^^ For the longest time I liked living in my downtown apartments but there is no equity in that.

I'm guessing Angelenos don't need as many vacations.....:)

Because they're always stuck in traffic and give up trying.:lol:

Oh wait this is the one:

They can't take vacations because they have to pay for the luxury cars that they're leasing. California tops the list
as the number one state for leased vehicles in the U.S. I will find article and post it for you'all.

Because they're always stuck in traffic and give up trying.:lol:

Oh wait this is the one:

They can't take vacations because they have to pay for the luxury cars that they're leasing. California tops the list
as the number one state for leased vehicles in the U.S. I will find article and post it for you'all.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, stuck in traffic, can't afford a vacation, etc. etc. :)

Who needs to go somewhere on vacation when this is what you can do on your days off for Thanksgiving in November:

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/9772/p7110012eg8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9480/p7120100ix9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


One way or another, you get what you pay for. :) Why not live somewhere that's "vacation" all the time.

I personally don't consider LA beaches as good vacation beaches. They're dirty, crowded. I understand what you're saying, but I'd rather have something cleaner and more remote.

Hey and with that great pollution from China coming over (20% of L.A.s smog) why not stay a while and breathe in.

This year, the American Lung Association's "State of the Air" report listed both "cleanest air" and "sootiest air." The worst air quality in the United States, as reporting to WebMD, can be found in these cities:

Here is the list of the 26 U.S. cities with the most soot (particle pollution) in their air year-round. Metropolitan areas that tied received the same number.

Sootiest Air In The United States
1. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, Calif.
2.Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pa.
3.Bakersfield, Calif.
7. Visalia-Porterville, Calif.
18.Fresno-Madera, Calif.
20.Hanford-Corcoran, Calif.

Such pollution can contribute to heart disease, lung cancer and asthma attacks, the association said. Those especially vulnerable to polluted air are children, senior citizens, people who work or exercise outdoors and people with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease so enjoy your vacation.

I personally don't consider LA beaches as good vacation beaches. They're dirty, crowded. I understand what you're saying, but I'd rather have something cleaner and more remote.

It isn't just the beaches, it's everything. There's just more to do in LA than in Indy, and that's not a knock on Indy. You don't even have the option to go to the beach in Indy in the winter, you don't have the option of real surfing, or real mountain biking, or real mountain skiiing and snowboarding. LA has San Diego/Santa Barbara/Catalina. In LA, you're actually living in a place that many, many people around the world choose as a vacation destination.

I'm amused whenever someone compares some city in the midwest to LA and then goes on about the housing prices. Well, duh!! Of course LA costs more money, it's a more desireable place to live for more people. The prices wouldn't be so high if there weren't people who are willing to pay them. It all boils down to one thing: Market rules.

It would be great if you could post the whole Forbes list.

1. Indianapolis
2. Cleveland
3. Detroit
4. Pittsburgh
5. Cincinnati
6. Saint Louis
7. Atlanta
8. Greensboro, NC
9. Dallas
10. Austin, TX

How's that?

Thanks

I personally don't consider LA beaches as good vacation beaches. They're dirty, crowded. I understand what you're saying, but I'd rather have something cleaner and more remote.


Clean Beaches Council released its annual list of beaches which have been officially certified for public safety, cleanliness, and environmental quality.

Which beaches made the grade? Located in Alabama, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Virginia, and Wisconsin, many of the beaches are located in National Parks or along National Seashores.



The cleanest beaches in California are not located around L.A. they're near San Francisco.

Drakes Beach, Point Reyes National Seashore
Wildcat Beach, Point Reyes National Seashore
Limantour Beach, Point Reyes National Seashore
Crescent Beach, Redwood National Park
Gold Bluff Beach, Redwood National Park
Enderts Beach, Redwood National Park

It's kind of funny that the topic of beach cleanliness is being raised, since it's been in the news recently.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070808084126.htm

"In addition to compiling data on 3,500 U.S. beaches, the report this year takes an especially close look at the nation’s highest risk beaches – those that are either very popular, very close to pollution sources, or both.

Of those highest risk beaches, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Rhode Island, and Minnesota ranked the worst for failing to meet national health standards."

why the frown, you over-acheiver

I'm the only one, :(

Thanks

lol. nice.

It isn't just the beaches, it's everything. There's just more to do in LA than in Indy, and that's not a knock on Indy. You don't even have the option to go to the beach in Indy in the winter, you don't have the option of real surfing, or real mountain biking, or real mountain skiiing and snowboarding. LA has San Diego/Santa Barbara/Catalina. In LA, you're actually living in a place that many, many people around the world choose as a vacation destination.

I'm amused whenever someone compares some city in the midwest to LA and then goes on about the housing prices. Well, duh!! Of course LA costs more money, it's a more desireable place to live for more people. The prices wouldn't be so high if there weren't people who are willing to pay them. It all boils down to one thing: Market rules.

Yes, there is a lot to do in California but, if you are in debt up to your eyeballs, stressed to the max in traffic, and breathing poor quality air, something tells me you may find it some what difficult to enjoy the surf, the mountains or Disneyland without a lot of medication.

Yes, there is a lot to do in California but, if you are in debt up to your eyeballs, stressed to the max in traffic, and breathing poor quality air, something tells me you may find it some what difficult to enjoy the surf, the mountains or Disneyland without a lot of medication.

That's the typical response. I can't argue, yes, the smog can get bad, as well as the traffic.

However, the only way you will eliminate smog and traffic from your life is to move far away from whatever large city you live in.

Although not as bad as LA, we have bad traffic here too and air quality alerts AND winter.

As far as being in debt, sure, lots of people in California are in debt up to their eyeballs, but there are also lots of people that are in equity up to their eyeballs, even with the housing slump. Equity that could buy two houses in Indy.

There are two sides to the story regarding the housing prices in California. Anyone who purchased in the 90s in one of the three main metros in California is pretty much rich now by midwestern standards.

That's the typical response. I can't argue, yes, the smog can get bad, as well as the traffic.

However, the only way you will eliminate smog and traffic from your life is to move far away from whatever large city you live in.

Although not as bad as LA, we have bad traffic here too and air quality alerts AND winter.

As far as being in debt, sure, lots of people in California are in debt up to their eyeballs, but there are also lots of people that are in equity up to their eyeballs, even with the housing slump. Equity that could buy two houses in Indy.

There are two sides to the story regarding the housing prices in California. Anyone who purchased in the 90s in one of the three main metros in California is pretty much rich now by midwestern standards.

By the time the housing bust has finished millions will be in foreclosure in California. On the topic of equity (if you bought in the 90s), I complete agree that if you sold (or will sell soon) your house during the boom you made a lot of money, but many didn't sell their house during the boom, they only took out the equity (HELOCs) and now find themselves in massive debt with a depreciating asset. California is so full of HELOCs, ARMS, I/Os and just about every other kind of RE mortgage, that the bust is going to be long and hard. (Most of the country is and will feel the RE bust big time, but places like California, Florida, Arizona, Las Vegas are going to crash land.):ohno:

By the time the housing bust has finished millions will be in foreclosure in California. On the topic of equity (if you bought in the 90s), I complete agree that if you sold (or will sell soon) your house during the boom you made a lot of money, but many didn't sell their house during the boom, they only took out the equity (HELOCs) and now find themselves in massive debt with a depreciating asset.

Not everyone who took equity out of their houses is "in massive debt with a depreciating asset". You don't have to cash out all of your equity when you take out an equity loan.

No question, there are lots of people who are in trouble, but the idea that everyone in California is "in debt up their eyeballs" is just not right. There are two sides to this, and it seems you don't want to recognize the other side.

The housing boom made A LOT of regular working class people in California relatively wealthy. Prices would need to drop catisrophically, as in 25% or more, to wipe out the hundreds of thousands of dollars that people who purchased in the 1990s or earlier have in equity in California.

Not everyone who took equity out of their houses is "in massive debt with a depreciating asset". You don't have to cash out all of your equity when you take out an equity loan.

No question, there are lots of people who are in trouble, but the idea that everyone in California is "in debt up their eyeballs" is just not right. There are two sides to this, and it seems you don't want to recognize the other side.

The housing boom made A LOT of regular working class people in California relatively wealthy. Prices would need to drop catisrophically, as in 25% or more, to wipe out the hundreds of thousands of dollars that people who purchased in the 1990s or earlier have in equity in California.

I feel Californian's will revisit the early to mid 1990s when RE values lost as much as 40%. So a 25% haircut is not out of the question. It will not happen over night, but I believe it will happen, just to much easy money, speculation and over building during the last 4 years or so. Already last month the State of California reported that the economy only create about 200 jobs for the month. (That is a huge fall, give it a few more months and jobs numbers will be negative.) The removal of many 'exotic mortgages' over the last few weeks, due to the near credit freeze, will send California real estate into a tail spin. Prices are just way to high compared to income, it will adjust back to more normal levels, it did in the past and it will in the future.

The real difference this time, the RE run up was the biggest in US history. I wonder what the run down will be like?

I feel Californian's will revisit the early to mid 1990s when RE values lost as much as 40%. So a 25% haircut is not out of the question. It will not happen over night, but I believe it will happen, just to much easy money, speculation and over building during the last 4 years or so. Already last month the State of California reported that the economy only create about 200 jobs for the month. (That is a huge fall, give it a few more months and jobs numbers will be negative.) The removal of many 'exotic mortgages' over the last few weeks, due to the near credit freeze, will send California real estate into a tail spin. Prices are just way to high compared to income, it will adjust back to more normal levels, it did in the past and it will in the future.

The real difference this time, the RE run up was the biggest in US history. I wonder what the run down will be like?

Well, I'm not an economist, but I don't see the housing prices dropping 25-40%.

The majority of people who will be in trouble in California are those that bought into the state within the last 5 years or so.

Everyone else should be more than OK.

Houses that sold for $150-$200K in the Bay Area and Los Angeles in the early 1990s are now $600K+. I can't envision any scenario that would wipe out that kind of equity.

Again, I realize that there are many in debt in California, many will be in trouble, but not everyone, not even most.

The idea that everyone who lives in California has to suffer financially to be able to live there is a false generalization. People who are mortgaged to the hilt, in massive debt, are there for the very same reasons that others have massive equity.

Well, I'm not an economist, but I don't see the housing prices dropping 25-40%.

The majority of people who will be in trouble in California are those that bought into the state within the last 5 years or so.

Everyone else should be more than OK.

Houses that sold for $150-$200K in the Bay Area and Los Angeles in the early 1990s are now $600K+. I can't envision any scenario that would wipe out that kind of equity.

Again, I realize that there are many in debt in California, many will be in trouble, but not everyone, not even most.

The idea that everyone who lives in California has to suffer financially to be able to live there is a false generalization. People who are mortgaged to the hilt, in massive debt, are there for the very same reasons that others have massive equity.

I would hope not everyone would be financially damage and I sure they will not. But, the one thing to keep in mind is a 25% drop is much bigger than the 25% gain. So that kind of drop can erase a lot of equity.

Screw LA, unless you are referring to the metro area as a whole. I would rather buy a house on the ocean between LA and SD and enjoy the clean air, beaches, and ladies :) That is if I was going to live in LA area period. However, I would not do that anyways, I prefer SF!

Great for Indy, good income average and cheap housing, keep on keeping on...

I'm the only one, :(

I was 22 when I bought my first home, too (with my ex). I'm 26 now and on my second home.

It isn't just the beaches, it's everything. There's just more to do in LA than in Indy, and that's not a knock on Indy. You don't even have the option to go to the beach in Indy in the winter, you don't have the option of real surfing, or real mountain biking, or real mountain skiiing and snowboarding. LA has San Diego/Santa Barbara/Catalina. In LA, you're actually living in a place that many, many people around the world choose as a vacation destination.

I'm amused whenever someone compares some city in the midwest to LA and then goes on about the housing prices. Well, duh!! Of course LA costs more money, it's a more desireable place to live for more people. The prices wouldn't be so high if there weren't people who are willing to pay them. It all boils down to one thing: Market rules.


The Midwest has tons of developable land which keeps prices down. It's not a lack of demand, more a wealth of supply that keeps the Midwest cheap.

It's only a matter of time before prices begin to come down in California, just look at the default rates

http://patrick.net/housing/contrib/CAForeclosuresQ22007.jpg

The Midwest has tons of developable land which keeps prices down. It's not a lack of demand, more a wealth of supply that keeps the Midwest cheap.


Well, I don't see how you can separate supply and demand. Yeah, the midwest has an abundance of land, most of which people don't want to live on, that's why a lot of it is cheap. Why is North Dakota so cheap? Lots of land that nobody wants to live on. Limited supply and higher demand is the reason why it's more expensive to live in a city as opposed to a rural area. Lack of supply and higher demand is why it's more expensive to live on a lake. Why is Chicago more expensive than Indy? I'm sure Chicago has a higher supply of housing, so it has to be something else. Maybe more demand?

There is all kinds of land in California's central valley, but people want to live in SD, LA, and SF, that's why it's cheaper to live in the central valley. Supply AND demand.

It's only a matter of time before prices begin to come down in California, just look at the default rates


Yeah, and the default rates are excellent in the midwest. :lol:

A foreclosure on a 700,000 dollar home will have a much bigger effect than one on a 70,000 dollar home.

Do the math. If foreclosure rates are roughly equal between the two regions, and homes in California are valued at let's say 6 times those of the Midwest....

That means 6 TIMES the amount of unpaid loans, and the subsequent ripple effects through the regional economy/local housing market.

I was 22 when I bought my first home, too (with my ex). I'm 26 now and on my second home.

yaayy :)

more news from the Golden State

Foreclosures go through the roof

Carolyn Said, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, July 25, 2007



The number of Bay Area homes lost to foreclosure during the second quarter hit the highest level in almost two decades, and the region's homeowners also received a record-high number of mortgage default notices, according to a report to be released today.

California also set a record in the April-to-June quarter for the number of foreclosures, according to DataQuick Information Systems of La Jolla. The foreclosure records date to 1988, when DataQuick began collecting such statistics.

Statewide, homeowners received the most mortgage-default notices since the fourth quarter of 1996.

What's going on?

"A combination of little or no appreciation, and, in some markets, depreciation, and some pretty funky financing that has come back to haunt some borrowers," said Andrew LePage, an analyst with DataQuick. "People used risky financing to stretch beyond their means. Now, in all likelihood, they're either experiencing payment shock because of a reset from a teaser rate, or they see (higher payments) coming and are throwing in the towel early, if they think (home) prices might go down more."

Risky mortgages, especially higher-cost subprime loans to people with poor credit or no money for down payments, became a widespread phenomenon in 2004 and 2005. Many of those loans had lower rates for the first two years that rose substantially after that.

"Folks borrowed beyond their means in larger numbers because of how common creative financing became," LePage said.

In the Bay Area, 7,696 homeowners received notices of default in the quarter, up 164.5 percent from 2,910 in the same period last year. Lenders send default notices when a homeowner is behind on mortgage payments. The notices are the first step in the foreclosure process but do not always result in foreclosure.

Several counties had the highest number of such notices since DataQuick started tracking them in 1992. Contra Costa County, with 2,316 such notices, and Solano County, with 1,065, both set records, LePage said. The Contra Costa cities of Pittsburg, Antioch and Richmond are cropping up as hot spots for foreclosures and defaults, he said. "Folks of more modest means tend to be hit the hardest."

Underscoring that thesis, three affluent Bay Area counties stood out as having the least likelihood of default notices: Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties.

Statewide, homeowners received 53,943 notices of default, up 158 percent from 20,909 during the same period last year. That number represents 50,901 different residences because some homes are financed with multiple loans.

California homeowners were a median five months behind on their primary mortgage before receiving the notices and owed a median $11,126 on a median $342,000 mortgage, DataQuick said. Looking at lines of credit, homeowners were a median eight months behind and owed a median $3,457 on a median $67,121 credit line.

The final step in the foreclosure process, which often comes many months after the initial default notice, is the recording of a trustee deed, meaning that the home has reverted back to the lender. In the second quarter, there were 2,206 trustee deeds recorded in the Bay Area, a 755 percent increase from 258 in the same period last year.

Statewide, the number of trustee deeds rose almost 800 percent to 17,408, compared with 1,936 in the same period a year ago. California's previous peak of foreclosures was 15,418 in the third quarter of 1996. As recently as the second quarter of 2005, the state had a record low number of foreclosures: 637. The Inland Empire and Central Valley are particularly hard hit by foreclosures.

One ominous change is that notices of default increasingly are leading to foreclosure. This year almost half - 45.4 percent - of notices of default resulted in homes being lost to foreclosure. A year ago, only 12 percent of notices of default resulted in foreclosure.

Homeowners can avoid foreclosure by bringing their payments up to date, refinancing, or selling their homes. The softening real estate market means that it is more difficult to sell or refinance. People who bought recently and financed 100 percent of their home's value cannot refinance if the home is now worth less because they don't have any equity. Similarly, if prices have fallen, they cannot sell for enough to pay off their mortgage.

"When prices were going up by double digits, anyone who fell behind on mortgage payments could stick up a 'For Sale' sign in their front yard and get enough to pay off the mortgage," LePage said.

DataQuick predicts that California foreclosures are likely to continue to climb because the conditions that lead to them still exist: rising default notices and flattening home prices.
Big numbers

-- 7,696 The number of Bay Area homeowners who received notices of default in the last quarter, up from 2,910 in the same period last year.

-- 53,943 The number of California homeowners who got notices of default, up from 20,909 from the same period last year.

-- 800 The percent increase of homes in California whose deeds reverted to bank ownership.

more news from the Golden State

Foreclosures go through the roof


I don't understand what your point is.

Are these problems unique to California?

How about some real estate news from Michigan or Ohio? Are there any foreclosure problems in those states? How about home appreciation?

As I said, people defaulting on 700,000 dollar loans are going to impact things much more than those defaulting on a 70,000 dollar loan.

Just sit back and watch what will happen in the next five years.


California is in big big trouble.

As I said, people defaulting on 700,000 dollar loans are going to impact things much more than those defaulting on a 70,000 dollar loan.

And that's based on the assumption that the foreclosure rates are the same in the two regions.

Like I mentioned before, the people who are in a bad situation with a $700K loan are in that situation for the same reasons why others have huge equity in their home and massive purchasing power.

Just sit back and watch what will happen in the next five years.


California is in big big trouble.

Maybe so, but that's not to say that other parts of the country and parts of the midwest aren't in big, big trouble. I'd personally be more worried about the sky falling in a place like Michigan than California.

The midwest has and will feel its share of pain due to the slowing economy, RE Bust and Credit Freeze up. But, some states such as California, Florida, Arizona, etc... have RE Bubbles that make the midwest RE Bubbles look like a spec of dust in the desert.
California has only joined the RE Bust party over the last 6 months or so, yet its acceleration in foreclosures is SHOCKING and we have not even hit the main reset of ARMs which just keep growing until about the first few months of 2008 and then slowly drop off. As foreclosure numbers continue to soar in places like California, the midwest numbers will seem small in comparison, both percentage and shear number wise.

The midwest has and will feel its share of pain due to the slowing economy, RE Bust and Credit Freeze up. But, some states such as California, Florida, Arizona, etc... have RE Bubbles that make the midwest RE Bubbles look like a spec of dust in the desert.
California has only joined the RE Bust party over the last 6 months or so, yet its acceleration in foreclosures is SHOCKING and we have not even hit the main reset of ARMs which just keep growing until about the first few months of 2008 and then slowly drop off. As foreclosure numbers continue to soar in places like California, the midwest numbers will seem small in comparison, both percentage and shear number wise.

We'll see what happens in California. The state has been through troubled times before and came through alright. Remember the dot com bust in the Bay Area? Despite the doom and gloom predicted, it didn't seem to put a huge dent in the housing prices.

California has much more to fall back on than places in the Midwest. I see California pulling through this while places in the Midwest continue their long decline, with some places eventually shriveling up and dying. That ain't gonna happen in California.

We'll see what happens in California. The state has been through troubled times before and came through alright. Remember the dot com bust in the Bay Area? Despite the doom and gloom predicted, it didn't seem to put a huge dent in the housing prices.

California has much more to fall back on than places in the Midwest. I see California pulling through this while places in the Midwest continue their long decline, with some places eventually shriveling up and dying. That ain't gonna happen in California.

I take it from your comment that you clearly don't like the Midwest much. With that said, ask some people who live throught the early 90s bust and recession in California and see how the state faired? The reason the dot.com bust didn't completely dump the bay area housing market is because the FEDs decide to cover the dot.com bust with a housing bubble. The question now is, what will California (and the US) do to cover the housing bubble?

We shall see what parts of the country were living on leveraged home values more than others.

We'll see what happens in California. The state has been through troubled times before and came through alright. Remember the dot com bust in the Bay Area? Despite the doom and gloom predicted, it didn't seem to put a huge dent in the housing prices.

California has much more to fall back on than places in the Midwest. I see California pulling through this while places in the Midwest continue their long decline, with some places eventually shriveling up and dying. That ain't gonna happen in California.

the idea of the midwest declining and evuantally shriviling up and dying is a thing of the past, due to economic progression and revitilization efforts, the midwest will probably soon be a wealthy, active region as it was before.

I take it from your comment that you clearly don't like the Midwest much.

It's not that I don't like the midwest, it's just the I recognize that, unlike California, many parts of the midwest have been in decline for a long, long time, and there is no end in sight. The shriveling up has already started. Too many places in the midwest relied on heavy industry and nothing else. Industry that has gone away, is going away, and is never coming back. Look at a marketshare graph for the US automakers for the past 30 years, it's terrible. That trend isn't going to change and that trend is not good at all for many places in the midwest.

Will the government bail out an automaker again? What happens when/if Ford or Chrycerabus goes under? It'll hurt the whole country, but it will kill parts of the midwest.

The reason the dot.com bust didn't completely dump the bay area housing market is because the FEDs decide to cover the dot.com bust with a housing bubble.

I don't understand, how did the feds cover up the dot.com bust?

the idea of the midwest declining and evuantally shriviling up and dying is a thing of the past, due to economic progression and revitilization efforts, the midwest will probably soon be a wealthy, active region as it was before.

I don't think the whole Midwest is dying, I just think despite a poor housing market, nowhere in California is as economically sick as the worst of the midwest.

I think an over reliance and addiction to the auto industry has turned into a terminal illness for certain communities. I follow the auto industry pretty closely, and I think some people might not realize the severity of the situation the American automakers are in right now, and how that will affect many parts of the midwest. All of them are literally in a fight for their lives. I like cars, I root for the American automakers, I don't want them to go under, but it's not out of the question. Don't think it can happen? It already has happened in the past, Studebaker, AMC, the British Auto Industry, etc. It's sad.

It's not that I don't like the midwest, it's just the I recognize that, unlike California, many parts of the midwest have been in decline for a long, long time, and there is no end in sight. The shriveling up has already started. Too many places in the midwest relied on heavy industry and nothing else. Industry that has gone away, is going away, and is never coming back. Look at a marketshare graph for the US automakers for the past 30 years, it's terrible. That trend isn't going to change and that trend is not good at all for many places in the midwest.

Will the government bail out an automaker again? What happens when/if Ford or Chrycerabus goes under? It'll hurt the whole country, but it will kill parts of the midwest.



I don't understand, how did the feds cover up the dot.com bust?

Housing Bubble - dropped interest rates to near nothing, that is how the FEDs covered the dot.com bust.

I don't think the whole Midwest is dying, I just think despite a poor housing market, nowhere in California is as economically sick as the worst of the midwest.

I think an over reliance and addiction to the auto industry has turned into a terminal illness for certain communities. I follow the auto industry pretty closely, and I think some people might not realize the severity of the situation the American automakers are in right now, and how that will affect many parts of the midwest. All of them are literally in a fight for their lives. I like cars, I root for the American automakers, I don't want them to go under, but it's not out of the question. Don't think it can happen? It already has happened in the past, Studebaker, AMC, the British Auto Industry, etc. It's sad.

The dollar is tanking against most currencies. No region will benefit from this as much as the Midwest, as no region competes with imports as heavily.

And the whole ethanol windpower boom is already having a huge impact on the region. Farmland values have reached record levels. The Midwest has, in fact, much more to fall back on than most of the rest of the country.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm

Check out California's unemployment rate, which at 5.2%, which aside from Ohio and Michigan, is higher than every Midwestern state.

And you really are underestimating the Midwest's ability to reinvent and retool its traditional strengths.......


Commentary: The Myth of Deindustrialization


It's been a quarter-century since author John Naisbitt blithely described manufacturing as a "declining sport" that Americans could easily offshore to Asia. Since then obituaries for U.S. manufacturing, both mournful and enraged, have been written many times.

The reports of death are premature. Many of the most vibrant economic regions in this country -- from the deep South to the Pacific Northwest -- are still making and transporting real goods. The success of America's "material boys" suggests that the old economy and its blue-collar workers -- so often patronized and pitied -- can still more than hold their own in today's global economy.

The area around Dubuque, Iowa, an old industrial region along the Mississippi River with a population of 90,000, was a basket case two decades ago. Manufacturing, agricultural and food processing jobs were vanishing. Unemployment at one point exceeded 20%. Today, Dubuque has the fastest job growth rate of any Midwestern city. Unemployment is below 4%, while average wages have risen steadily over the past five years to over $15.70 from $13.19 per hour. The workforce is up to around 58,000 (it was 36,000 in 1983).

Skilled-labor jobs such as welders, machine-tool operators, plastic and metal patternmakers have been a crucial part of this rebound, according to Rick Dickinson, director of the Greater Dubuque Development Organization. "We've gone with the basics -- we've tried to stay good at things that matter, including things like manufacturing and agriculture," he says.

The workforce of the local, unionized John Deere plant, while down from 8,000 in its heyday, has nevertheless added 600 positions in the past five years and is now at 2,000. There's also a network of industrial suppliers that have sprung up around the Deere facility over the past 20 years. Specializing in forestry and construction equipment, the Deere facility has benefited from expanding markets in Canada, Mexico and overseas, which account for roughly 10% of their sales.

Plant manager James Schrempf gives much of the credit to local educational and political institutions, which have worked hard to train, attract and retain skilled workers in the area. "Every time there's an opening we get lots of applicants," says Mr. Schrempf. The local community colleges and the University of Dubuque offer courses in classic "material boys" skills such as production management, machining and engineering. The city has also reached out on the Web to skilled workers who left for opportunities elsewhere.

Sam McMahon, who left Dubuque 15 years ago, remembers the city as a "tough place to be" where "the future was bleak." Four months ago he returned, leaving Milwaukee to become a production manager at Giese, a local firm that employs 170 and specializes in custom metal fabrication. "I didn't think I'd move back here at 32," he says. "But you get a sense the place is really coming back. There's a sense that we are getting to the next level."

Manufacturing's role in promoting job and income growth is often understated. Although overall industrial jobs have diminished by almost five million since the late 1970s, the loss has been concentrated largely in lower-skilled positions. The number of higher-skilled positions, with a median hourly wage of $24, jumped by more than 36% between 1983 and 2002 to nearly 4.5 million, according to a 2006 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

These skilled workers remain in great demand across much of the country -- 80% of manufacturers in a recent survey conducted by Deloitte consulting expected a shortfall in their numbers over the next three years.

Here is a chart re; foreclosures rates by state
http://realestate.msn.com/Buying/Article2.aspx?cp-documentid=4734608

Notice how California is at number 3, hard hit Michigan is at number 6. BUT, the numbers for Michigan are down from February, and are up 11% from a year ago, compared to a whopping 183% increase in California.

I'd hate to be trying to sell a house in most parts of CA these days.

Housing Bubble - dropped interest rates to near nothing, that is how the FEDs covered the dot.com bust.

The fed dropped interest rates specifically for the bay area?

reinvent and retool its traditional strengths.......


That's exactly what the midwest should have accomplished at least 20 years ago. I'm not really talking about manufacturing in general, just manufacturing related to the auto industry. The rust belt's cash cow, the auto industry as we know it currently, won't be around forever. Something has to give, and it will.

I'd hate to be trying to sell a house in most parts of CA these days.


I'd hate to try to sell a house in most parts of the country these days.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm

Check out California's unemployment rate, which at 5.2%, which aside from Ohio and Michigan, is higher than every Midwestern state.

Ohio and Michigan, that's a pretty large portion of the midwest's population.

California's unemployment rate is not good, and I think some of it might have to do with people flooding in from Mexico and points south.

Ohio and Michigan, that's a pretty large portion of the midwest's population.

California's unemployment rate is not good, and I think some of it might have to do with people flooding in from Mexico and points south.

No, a large percent of those individuals are not calculated in the unemployment rate (in California or the rest of the country).

Nothing against your opinion, but you have given almost no 'data' to support your arguement that California is going to fair better than the midwest through this economic bust. Yet, there has been several post that have shown numbers and data that don't support that California is fairing or will fair well through this compared to midwest states.

Nothing against your opinion, but you have given almost no 'data' to support your arguement that California is going to fair better than the midwest through this economic bust.

The data is the fact that parts of the midwest have been going through an "economic bust" for decades and California hasn't. No wonder the % increases are higher for California. The housing crisis just adds to the decades of economic bust. I know people are going to think I'm an asshole for saying this, but California doesn't have a Detroit or a Cleveland. There is no such thing as urban prairies in California.

California doesn't have a Detroit or a Cleveland. There is no such thing as urban prairies in California.
LOL

No, a large percent of those individuals are not calculated in the unemployment rate (in California or the rest of the country).

Nothing against your opinion, but you have given almost no 'data' to support your arguement that California is going to fair better than the midwest through this economic bust. Yet, there has been several post that have shown numbers and data that don't support that California is fairing or will fair well through this compared to midwest states.

anti has near-nightly nocturnal emissions whereby he magically becomes a Californian and enjoys a near perfect lifestyle of wealth and leisure.

Every morning, when he awakes in the Midwest, his venom for hs homeland becomes ever greater, and intensely more illogical.

As such, we should cut him some Midwestern slack.

There is no such thing as urban prairies in California.

How misinformed. Oakland, Los Angeles, and Long Beach do have "urban prairies" as well. Take a trip down International Drive/14th in Oakland and tell me they don't have "prairies." Or even Richmond and Vallejo. They are just tagged-up dust prairies with various 40's and Keak da Sneak whistleblowers.

How misinformed. Oakland, Los Angeles, and Long Beach do have "urban prairies" as well. Take a trip down International Drive/14th in Oakland and tell me they don't have "prairies." Or even Richmond and Vallejo. They are just tagged-up dust prairies with various 40's and Keak da Sneak whistleblowers.

I stand corrected, I guess they have urban prairies too in California, but they still don't have a Detroit or a Cleveland.

Everyone in here in talking about the current unemployment rates, the current real estate bust, etc.

Look at the past 50 years! You want to talk about a real estate bust? Losing half the people in your city, now that's a real estate bust.

Does anyone honestly think California is going to meltdown like parts of the midwest already have?

I stand corrected, I guess they have urban prairies too in California, but they still don't have a Detroit or a Cleveland.

Sure. I simply entered this thread correcting the idea that California didn't have urban prairies, which it clearly does. That's all.

California will see some painful corrections... but it's too desirable an area to ever fall into the abyss like the Rust Belt.

Look at the past 50 years! You want to talk about a real estate bust? Losing half the people in your city, now that's a real estate bust.


What about losing 29% of your population? Is that healthy or is it a "real estate bust"?

It isn't just the beaches, it's everything. There's just more to do in LA than in Indy, and that's not a knock on Indy. You don't even have the option to go to the beach in Indy in the winter, you don't have the option of real surfing, or real mountain biking, or real mountain skiiing and snowboarding. LA has San Diego/Santa Barbara/Catalina. In LA, you're actually living in a place that many, many people around the world choose as a vacation destination.

I'm amused whenever someone compares some city in the midwest to LA and then goes on about the housing prices. Well, duh!! Of course LA costs more money, it's a more desireable place to live for more people. The prices wouldn't be so high if there weren't people who are willing to pay them. It all boils down to one thing: Market rules.

Well, I would MUCH rather live in Indy than LA.

Indy kicks ass. Highest metro and job growth rates in the Midwest AND the cheapest housing in America.

INDY #1 BABY!!:banana: :cheers:

yes, LA I would really want to live there.
Personally, I like living amongst buildings older than three years, and I also like being able to walk places, whenever America has callapsed into a depression, who brings it back up? The industrial rustbelt,
which is starting to be an old, thing of the past, the name rustbelt, is no longer usable I am afriad in alot of cases.
please excuse us, petty midwesterners and our boring old ways. 0_o

Well, I would MUCH rather live in Indy than LA.

Of course you would, nobody in this forum would want to live in LA, or at least they wouldn't admit it.

I mean, why would you want to live in LA, the housing prices are going to decrease by 50%, everyone is "in debt up their eyeballs", there are no historic buildings, it's all just a big sprawling mess with 18 million fake people, and oh yeah, almost forgot, it's going to fall into the ocean.

No wonder Indianapolis is the "envy of Los Angeles". :lol: That's all I hear when I go to LA, everyone's talking about Indianapolis and how they want to live there.

Of course you would, nobody in this forum would want to live in LA, or at least they wouldn't admit it.

I mean, why would you want to live in LA, the housing prices are going to decrease by 50%, everyone is "in debt up their eyeballs", there are no historic buildings, it's all just a big sprawling mess with 18 million fake people, and oh yeah, almost forgot, it's going to fall into the ocean.

No wonder Indianapolis is the "envy of Los Angeles". :lol: That's all I hear when I go to LA, everyone's talking about Indianapolis and how they want to live there.

NO HISTORIC BUILDINGS?
Whatever,
they have a ten year old taco bell,
how much more historic can you get?
That still has the old logo, I mean seriously, you ignorant fool.:ohno:

Yeah, yeah, yeah, stuck in traffic, can't afford a vacation, etc. etc. :)

Who needs to go somewhere on vacation when this is what you can do on your days off for Thanksgiving in November:

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/9772/p7110012eg8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9480/p7120100ix9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


One way or another, you get what you pay for. :) Why not live somewhere that's "vacation" all the time.

---------------------------


My eyes squint in the sunshine, as it is just too darn bright outside. Southern California does not have the excitement of of a good thunderstorm either.

So indy's affordable?