But first, an update: As of February, 2008, 10.3% of all homes are "under water" on their mortgages You can read the gory details about half-way down the page
Silicon Valley is melting down as well
Report: Midwage jobs vanish in Silicon Valley
Tom Abate, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 19, 2008While other companies are downsizing, electrical contractor Dirk Swanepoel is looking to boost his eight-person Morgan Hill staff.
"The biggest problem I have is a lack of quality people," said Swanepoel, who says demand for electrical work never seems to stop growing. Even when the dot-com bust emptied buildings, electricians had to turn out the lights.
"Unfortunately, we had to go into some of the buildings we had built up and take some of the work down," he said.
Swanepoel's experience is in line with a new report that will be released Friday that identified electrical work as one of the few growing, well-paid fields accessible to someone without an advanced degree. Yet most job seekers don't know such opportunities exist, nor do they have any way to get retrained if they need to make a career switch, according to the 2008 Silicon Valley Index.
The index is an annual snapshot of Silicon Valley, which is defined as all of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, plus Scotts Valley in the Santa Cruz area and Fremont, Newark and Union City in the East Bay.
For the first time, this report documents an alarming fact: The middle fell out of the region's payroll between 2002 and 2006.
Federal and state jobs data show that 62,050 midwage jobs - defined as having salaries between $30,000 and $80,000 - vanished during that four-year period, according to the report.
During the same four years, employers added 66,200 jobs that paid less than $30,000. And despite bullish times for the likes of Google and Apple, Silicon Valley employers added just 16,790 jobs during that period that paid more than $80,000.
"We have indeed documented a squeeze on the middle. Now we have to figure out what it means and what to do about it," said Russell Hancock, president of Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network, the public-private partnership group that has been issuing such reports since 1995.
As of this month, 10.3% of all homes in the US are "under water" with respect to their mortgages.
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and LOUIS UCHITELLE, The New York Times Posted: 2008-02-22 10:03:10
Filed Under: Business News, Nation NewsWASHINGTON Prodded in part by some of the nations biggest banks, the Bush administration and Congress are considering costly new proposals for the government to rescue hundreds of thousands of homeowners whose mortgages are higher than the value of their houses.
Not since the Depression has a larger share of Americans owed more on their homes than they are worth. With the collapse of the housing boom, nearly 8.8 million homeowners, or 10.3 percent of the total, are underwater. That is more than double the percentage just a year ago, according to a new estimate of the damage by Moodys Economy.com.
This is only the beginning. 2008 and 2009 are when most of the mortgage resets are expected to occur. Look for 30% of all homes to be "under water".
Some say that this doesn't affect everyone - just the people who HAVE to sell. Of course, just like the rising tide of the bubble lifted up valuations of all homes, not just the ones that were sold, so the bursting of the bubble lowers the valuations of all homes, not just the ones forced to sell.
30% may actually be optimistic. Some bears are saying it'll be 50%. Either way, its a disaster, and one that even 0% interest rates can't "fix". Look for a Japan-style "lost decade".
So, how to survive?
This applies doubly if you're in California, Florida, Nevada, or the cities of Chicago, Cleveland, or Detroit.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2008 SourceForge, Inc.
Under water mortgages (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People who are underwater are already selling or going into voluntary foreclosure - even when they CAN afford the payments. For them, its strictly a financial equation - they're better off at the end of 7 years. They can rent an identical house for less (often less than half their current mortgage payments), and at the end of 7 years, their credit record no longer reflects the foreclosure.
What I'm saying is that people who are not yet under water should also get out while they can, before declining value
Re: (Score:2)
If you're correct, that would be a great move. Bit it's a hell of a gamble, and has some fairly expensive downsides if you're wrong...
The only time it would be bad advice is if houses are expected to hold or increase in value. That's definitely not going to happen this decade
That's your opinion. I happen to disagree with it. Perhaps it's worth remembering that Nort
Re: (Score:2)
Houses in the USA and Britain are the most at risk of future price reductions. The US prediction of 30% of all houses going under water is solid - already, more than 10% are past that point, and we've yet to hit the bulk of the mortgage resets.
Other high-risk areas include Italy and Germany, and to a fair extent, parts of Oz.
Switching to renting makes sense when
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like every rental house around here is owned by someone who is either really greedy or has a bad mortgage.
These are around $150,000 houses renting for $1300 or more a month.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a 30 year fixed mortgage is going to cost you around a grand a month ... assuming you kick in $10k up front. That $10k has a lost "opportunity cost" of around $700.
Then you have to add in your school, local improvement, and municipal taxes, garbage, etc. Average rate is $3.21/$100. (varies from $2.79 to $4.13). That adds between $4,200.00 and $6,200.00
As a tenant, you're only insuring your personal possessions and tenants' liability, so it will probably be a couple of hundred bucks less than the
Re: (Score:2)
Who are these people? If they also happen to not be able to afford their mortgage then of course they are going into
Re: (Score:2)
The experts, as well as a LOT of the public, no longer believe we're anywhere near the bottom. They're projecting further declines over the next 2 years. Not a total of 10% over 7 years, but 35% to 45% over 3 years (We've already had more than a 10% decline in many markets).
Here's a quote from a recent story in business week [businessweek.com] - analysts who are now expecting a FURTHER decline of 25% to 30% ...
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I also bought a house that was good enough for me, and has potential to be expanded upon later if needed. Too many people jump for houses that are,
Re: (Score:2)
Most urban planners want some high-density housing to help carry the tax load. It takes fewer square feet per person for streets, fewer linear feet of piping for sewage and water, etc.
Also, the mix of housing means that you're not stuck with everyone being in the same financial situation - great when everything is rising, but terrible when job loses hit specific sectors.
Also, a lot of people are finding the extra expenses of exurban sprawl to be a waste - too much commuting time, etc. Here's an interes
Universal Truism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree its well past the time to fix the problem. All most people can do now is react.
In many jurisdictions (for example California), if the only loan on the house is a first (all loans used in the initial purchase by the buyer are -recourse loans, even 80/20 loans) mortgage, and you haven't done a refi or HELOC, if you turn in the keys, they have no further claim against your assets.
Couple that with the long (and growing longer) turn-around time for a foreclosure (its up to 15 months now in Cali) and
We bought low & sold high in Cali (Score:2)
Just don't look at our credit card debt.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, you know you want to vote in the credit card debt poll; and now you don't have to scour my journal to vote on on it - its on the front page ;-0
Now THAT was a bit of a shocker!
Re: (Score:2)
I plan on paring our CC debt down quite a large amount this year.
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to slashdot copying my poll and putting it on the front page as a shocker ... not your cc debt (which I don't know the amount :-).
It just surprised me to see it there, totally unexpected (not that I mind - I'm glad people are finding it interesting).