Ka-boom! Baby boomers’ plans for retirement are getting all blown up

Instead of using your home as a bank account, why not just pay it off and live in it until they cart you off to the crematorium? Okay, you sell your house-where you goona go that’s cheaper. Stay put, hire a live-in caretaker and ride the glory train to the bitter end. It has to be at least as affordable as an Assisted Living studio in Blaine.

hemigurl is right. Live within your means, pay off your debts. For some of us looking toward retirement, the housing bust is good news, since it means that our property taxes will finally stop rising 12%+ per year. Rising property values are only useful if you are planning to sell. If you are planning to stay put (and you’re not in debt), then there’s little downside to the decline. Sadly, when it comes to living within your means, a lot of people will learn the hard way.

I’m a retired boomer. I have equity in my home because I have not foolishly lived on credit for things I cannot afford. The housing bubble had to break, or the next generation would not be able to afford to buy a house. The prices of homes in the twin cities and suburbs were ridiculous!!!!!!!! Also, buy what you can afford, then you wouldn’t lose it to a foreclosure. We’ve had lean times, but built a nice home that we could afford on one income. People use some common sense. If your income is $50,000 per year, you CANNOT afford a $5000 per month house payment. Each individual must start taking responsibility for their own actions. If I’m going to take out a loan, I’m going to ask what the payments will be. If you take an “interest only” loan, you can’t afford the place. You can’t borrow money with the expectation that your income is going to go up. There are too many uncertainities. Hasn’t the lost of jobs in this country made people realize that? There is something we can do about it though, DO NOT BUY ANYMORE CRAP MADE IN CHINA!!!!!!!!!!! Not only is it unsafe, but it is taking away our American jobs. Let the big CEO’s with the big income know that you won’t buy their products if they are made in China.

Great thread, guys! In my opinion, there aren’t enough voices from the right posting 800 word treatises from home on thier blogs. I can tell from your posts here that it will be sure to be “fair and balanced.” And by fair and balanced, I mean politically biased, with regurgitated talking-points in a victimized tone. Apologies in advance, if this hurt anyones feelings. Viva O’Reilly.

Thank you. I appreciate this very much.

I will use a bit over 800 word on my blog tonight to describe why this is so important to me. This isn’t the place.

Erik,

I would hardly call it “slander” or “maliciously defaming you.” Your bio, which is on the Realtor site I mention, says that you are a “writer for hire.” It is not a far leap to then assume that you get paid to write for that site. Perhaps you should change it, considering it’s very easy to assume someone is getting paid to write for a site if their bio on said site says they’re “a writer for hire.”

That said, I wasn’t suggesting that you have a financial motive in commenting here; but that perhaps you aren’t exactly unbiased because of your connection to that site and the local real-estate industry. I apologize if that wasn’t clear, and did not mean to suggest you had a financial incentive.

However, I still think you’re arguing an industry line that flies in the face of expert opinion, but that’s a different matter, and I agree it’s time to lay the matter to rest in this thread.

I’m still waiting for an apology.

You maliciously and falsely defamed me in violation of the stated comment policy. All I’m asking for is an apology in the same space. Lacking one, I’ll have to take it up with management.

I still have no idea why you’re so hot about this in the first place. If we’re going to have changes to the regulatory structure, we should do it in a way that doesn’t keep millions of people from buying homes in the future. Your incorrect statement, and incorrect attribution to an authority, only encourages such a policy. Why a supposedly liberal website would do such a thing utterly escapes me. Giving fuel to the Bush Republicans doesn’t make any sense to me at all.

And hey, Molly – while we’re talking about disclosure, you should probably be telling people that the source you’re citing as the irrefutable, nay unquestionable, sole authority on the mortgage bubble is funded by at least one of the same groups that pays your paycheck.

Molly, this is disgusting. I demand an apology for this:

“Second, in the full interest of disclosure, Erik, I think you should note that you get paid to write about St. Paul real estate by a Realtor.”

This is completely untrue. I write, unpaid, for a friend that is a realtor and has a blog about Saint Paul and real estate. Before you slander someone, you should do a little bit of research.

None of this has anything to do with the points that I have raise and which you have refused to answer. At every opportunity you have done nothing more than assert that you are right. Ultimately, you decided to falsely attack me rather than defend yourself.

I think it’s obvious that this conversation is going nowhere. Let’s close it down after your apology.

File under “false appeal to authority”.

And careful about the “political spin” you wanna ascribe to Wab. You don’t know what his politics. are. But I do.

Suffice to say that your assumptions – like pretty much every attempt to write fact or report events you’ve ever attempted – are faulty.

First of all, it is not my theory. Analysts and economists agree that unregulated lending created the abusive lending practices that led to the market crash.

Second, in the full interest of disclosure, Erik, I think you should note that you get paid to write about St. Paul real estate by a Realtor.

You can dress it up to sell something. You can spin it to make it a part of your own political agenda. But you cannot deny the fact that, from the NYT to Consumer Affairs and everything in between, economists and analysts agree that unregulated lenders and unregulated mortgage markets are to blame for the subprime crisis.

It’s not creationism. It’s a fact.

Molly, you are simply wrong. Asserting otherwise only makes you look arrogant.

The bubble was caused by a number of factors, and one of the things that extended it was a relaxation of lending policies. None of this was unregulated – there is and always has been quite a lot of regulation involved with mortgage underwriting.

When the bubble ran its course, those with the lousiest loans were in the worst shape – compounding the problem. But the real problem was the housing price bubble, a phenomenon that was quite global. The collapse of it and subsequent loss of investment money is also global, although the effects were magnified in areas with particularly ridiculous underwriting practices.

In short, the collapse would have happened without subprime loans because it was inevitable. Yes, those loans made it worse, but to blame everything on them is to suggest that housing prices at the height of the bubble were somehow sustainable. They were not. Furthermore, to say that they were unregulated is demonstrably wrong – perhaps you feel they were underregulated, but they were not unregulated by any stretch of the imagination.

Furthermore, the original point is that the excellent paper by CEPR doesn’t mention any of this, which means that you have stuffed your own theories about what happened under their authority. That’s the real issue here, and I think that a retraction is in order. Your theory is not the view of CEPR and this should be made clear.

Yes, still a fact. Analysts STILL agree that subprime, unregulated lending caused the housing-market crash. And last time I checked, the earth is still round, too.

This is a fact that cannot be disputed.

As Wab has shown, it may or may not be a fact (and I do know Wab, and he rarely opens his mouth without good reason) (No, that’s not entirely true – he frequently opens his mouth without good reason, but rarely without a pretty solid factual basis), and the fact that you say “it can not be disputed” is ludicrous. There obviously IS dispute.

I worry that the whole “global warming” thing has tought you leftmymedia “journalists” that all you have to do is declare something to be proven for it to be so.

We’ll see, I guess, won’t we?

“The housing market crashed because of unregulated, subprime lending. This is a fact that cannot be disputed.”

Not only can it be disputed, but I doubt you’ll find many analysts who agree with you.

For one, if this is the fault of the US Government, why is there a housing bubble all around the world?

For another, your argument assumes that demographics, media promotion, and social bias towards home ownership played trivially unimportant roles – an assumption that’s rather ludicrous on the face of it.

Please do your research. Asserting something must be true doesn’t make it so. Wishes aren’t ponies, and your argument ain’t riding.

There is no error. The report says Boomers will have little or no wealth as a result of the housing-market crash. The housing market crashed because of unregulated, subprime lending. This is a fact that cannot be disputed.

“According to a new report (pdf) by the Center for Economic Policy and Research, the vast majority of families headed by people between the ages of 45 and 54 will have little or no housing wealth by next year due to unregulated lending practices and the resulting housing crash.”

This statement is not supported by the text of the report. While the collapse of the housing bubble has severe consequences, and these are carefully described by CEPR, there is no blame put on “unregulated lending practices”. Further, such a claim is generally not supportable since lending practices are highly regulated and the real estate bubble certainly had many causes.

Please correct your error.

“According to a new report (pdf) by the Center for Economic Policy and Research, the vast majority of families headed by people between the ages of 45 and 54 will have little or no housing wealth by next year due to unregulated lending practices and the resulting housing crash.”

This statement is not supported by the text of the report. While the collapse of the housing bubble has severe consequences, and these are carefully described by CEPR, there is no blame put on “unregulated lending practices”. Further, such a claim is generally not supportable since lending practices are highly regulated and the real estate bubble certainly had many causes.

Please correct your error.

There is no error. The report says Boomers will have little or no wealth as a result of the housing-market crash. The housing market crashed because of unregulated, subprime lending. This is a fact that cannot be disputed.

“The housing market crashed because of unregulated, subprime lending. This is a fact that cannot be disputed.”

Not only can it be disputed, but I doubt you'll find many analysts who agree with you.

For one, if this is the fault of the US Government, why is there a housing bubble all around the world?

For another, your argument assumes that demographics, media promotion, and social bias towards home ownership played trivially unimportant roles – an assumption that's rather ludicrous on the face of it.

Please do your research. Asserting something must be true doesn't make it so. Wishes aren't ponies, and your argument ain't riding.

This is a fact that cannot be disputed.

As Wab has shown, it may or may not be a fact (and I do know Wab, and he rarely opens his mouth without good reason) (No, that's not entirely true – he frequently opens his mouth without good reason, but rarely without a pretty solid factual basis), and the fact that you say “it can not be disputed” is ludicrous. There obviously IS dispute.

I worry that the whole “global warming” thing has tought you leftmymedia “journalists” that all you have to do is declare something to be proven for it to be so.

We'll see, I guess, won't we?

Yes, still a fact. Analysts STILL agree that subprime, unregulated lending caused the housing-market crash. And last time I checked, the earth is still round, too.

Molly, you are simply wrong. Asserting otherwise only makes you look arrogant.

The bubble was caused by a number of factors, and one of the things that extended it was a relaxation of lending policies. None of this was unregulated – there is and always has been quite a lot of regulation involved with mortgage underwriting.

When the bubble ran its course, those with the lousiest loans were in the worst shape – compounding the problem. But the real problem was the housing price bubble, a phenomenon that was quite global. The collapse of it and subsequent loss of investment money is also global, although the effects were magnified in areas with particularly ridiculous underwriting practices.

In short, the collapse would have happened without subprime loans because it was inevitable. Yes, those loans made it worse, but to blame everything on them is to suggest that housing prices at the height of the bubble were somehow sustainable. They were not. Furthermore, to say that they were unregulated is demonstrably wrong – perhaps you feel they were underregulated, but they were not unregulated by any stretch of the imagination.

Furthermore, the original point is that the excellent paper by CEPR doesn't mention any of this, which means that you have stuffed your own theories about what happened under their authority. That's the real issue here, and I think that a retraction is in order. Your theory is not the view of CEPR and this should be made clear.

First of all, it is not my theory. Analysts and economists agree that unregulated lending created the abusive lending practices that led to the market crash.

Second, in the full interest of disclosure, Erik, I think you should note that you get paid to write about St. Paul real estate by a Realtor.

You can dress it up to sell something. You can spin it to make it a part of your own political agenda. But you cannot deny the fact that, from the NYT to Consumer Affairs and everything in between, economists and analysts agree that unregulated lenders and unregulated mortgage markets are to blame for the subprime crisis.

It's not creationism. It's a fact.

File under “false appeal to authority”.

And careful about the “political spin” you wanna ascribe to Wab. You don't know what his politics. are. But I do.

Suffice to say that your assumptions – like pretty much every attempt to write fact or report events you've ever attempted – are faulty.

Molly, this is disgusting. I demand an apology for this:

“Second, in the full interest of disclosure, Erik, I think you should note that you get paid to write about St. Paul real estate by a Realtor.”

This is completely untrue. I write, unpaid, for a friend that is a realtor and has a blog about Saint Paul and real estate. Before you slander someone, you should do a little bit of research.

None of this has anything to do with the points that I have raise and which you have refused to answer. At every opportunity you have done nothing more than assert that you are right. Ultimately, you decided to falsely attack me rather than defend yourself.

I think it's obvious that this conversation is going nowhere. Let's close it down after your apology.

And hey, Molly – while we're talking about disclosure, you should probably be telling people that the source you're citing as the irrefutable, nay unquestionable, sole authority on the mortgage bubble is funded by at least one of the same groups that pays your paycheck.

I'm still waiting for an apology.

You maliciously and falsely defamed me in violation of the stated comment policy. All I'm asking for is an apology in the same space. Lacking one, I'll have to take it up with management.

I still have no idea why you're so hot about this in the first place. If we're going to have changes to the regulatory structure, we should do it in a way that doesn't keep millions of people from buying homes in the future. Your incorrect statement, and incorrect attribution to an authority, only encourages such a policy. Why a supposedly liberal website would do such a thing utterly escapes me. Giving fuel to the Bush Republicans doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Erik,

I would hardly call it “slander” or “maliciously defaming you.” Your bio, which is on the Realtor site I mention, says that you are a “writer for hire.” It is not a far leap to then assume that you get paid to write for that site. Perhaps you should change it, considering it's very easy to assume someone is getting paid to write for a site if their bio on said site says they're “a writer for hire.”

That said, I wasn't suggesting that you have a financial motive in commenting here; but that perhaps you aren't exactly unbiased because of your connection to that site and the local real-estate industry. I apologize if that wasn't clear, and did not mean to suggest you had a financial incentive.

However, I still think you're arguing an industry line that flies in the face of expert opinion, but that's a different matter, and I agree it's time to lay the matter to rest in this thread.

Thank you. I appreciate this very much.

I will use a bit over 800 word on my blog tonight to describe why this is so important to me. This isn't the place.

Great thread, guys! In my opinion, there aren't enough voices from the right posting 800 word treatises from home on thier blogs. I can tell from your posts here that it will be sure to be “fair and balanced.” And by fair and balanced, I mean politically biased, with regurgitated talking-points in a victimized tone. Apologies in advance, if this hurt anyones feelings. Viva O'Reilly.

I'm a retired boomer. I have equity in my home because I have not foolishly lived on credit for things I cannot afford. The housing bubble had to break, or the next generation would not be able to afford to buy a house. The prices of homes in the twin cities and suburbs were ridiculous!!!!!!!! Also, buy what you can afford, then you wouldn't lose it to a foreclosure. We've had lean times, but built a nice home that we could afford on one income. People use some common sense. If your income is $50,000 per year, you CANNOT afford a $5000 per month house payment. Each individual must start taking responsibility for their own actions. If I'm going to take out a loan, I'm going to ask what the payments will be. If you take an “interest only” loan, you can't afford the place. You can't borrow money with the expectation that your income is going to go up. There are too many uncertainities. Hasn't the lost of jobs in this country made people realize that? There is something we can do about it though, DO NOT BUY ANYMORE CRAP MADE IN CHINA!!!!!!!!!!! Not only is it unsafe, but it is taking away our American jobs. Let the big CEO's with the big income know that you won't buy their products if they are made in China.

hemigurl is right. Live within your means, pay off your debts. For some of us looking toward retirement, the housing bust is good news, since it means that our property taxes will finally stop rising 12%+ per year. Rising property values are only useful if you are planning to sell. If you are planning to stay put (and you're not in debt), then there's little downside to the decline. Sadly, when it comes to living within your means, a lot of people will learn the hard way.

Instead of using your home as a bank account, why not just pay it off and live in it until they cart you off to the crematorium? Okay, you sell your house-where you goona go that's cheaper. Stay put, hire a live-in caretaker and ride the glory train to the bitter end. It has to be at least as affordable as an Assisted Living studio in Blaine.