June 10, 201114 yr Author "Cleveland and Columbus both performed worse than the Queen City, according to the data." Cincy: April 2005 - $171,413 April 2011 - $143,650 Columbus: April 2005 - $173,143 April 2011 - $154,205 Looks like Cbus did better, based on these data. What the article is focusing on is just the last years worth of declines, which Columbus and Cleveland had bigger numbers than Cincy. You are correct in that Columbus (up to this point) has had smaller price declines than Cincy or Cleveland from the peak.
June 11, 201114 yr The metro numbers matter, but my sense is that the distinctions between neighborhoods is starting to expand. The winners (even to down 5%) are gaining separation from the losers (anything above 30% in my estimation). This has serious long-term consequences. If you look at the aftereffects of the First Great Depression, loser neighborhoods often became the ghettos of the 50s and beyond even if they were solid middle class 'hoods in 1928.
June 11, 201114 yr The metro numbers matter, but my sense is that the distinctions between neighborhoods is starting to expand. The winners (even to down 5%) are gaining separation from the losers (anything above 30% in my estimation). This has serious long-term consequences. If you look at the aftereffects of the First Great Depression, loser neighborhoods often became the ghettos of the 50s and beyond even if they were solid middle class 'hoods in 1928. Great post. I can see how this historic hit happened in Dayton, with places like Drexel never really recovering from the crash. You could see how development had started up, but never really took off after the WWII era build-outs. In a city like this, that saw post WWII build-outs to satisfy wartime housing shortages, and due to mass middle class incomes due to unionized industry...the disappearance of unions and manufacturing, combined with desire to live further out in bigger houses ... are, probably, going to hit areas that used to be blue collar. The upper class---the "winners"---- in a developing two-class society will be the ones living further out, in the outer suburbs, in the Beavercreeks and Springboros, where they can insulate themselves from the enlarged underclass. So these "winner" areas will see housing prices be more stable or even increase, since these areas are gated communities but without the "gates" (or the gates being inaccesibility due to distance, no public transit, and maybe aggressive police presence....like one sees today in close-in Oakwood). ....continuing on our way to suburban dystopia.
June 12, 201114 yr The two classic Cincinnati examples are Evanston and to a lesser extent Northside (or Cumminsville as it was called then). Cincinnati's narrative is complicated a bit by a number of neighborhoods that were hit by the '37 flood that were then systematically disinvested throughout most of the rest of the century.
June 12, 201114 yr These numbers are tainted by foreclosures...... unless they are limited to private to private sales. For instance, we had one foreclosure on our block.... the bank first neglected the house, not winterizing the pipes, etc..... then it sold it for about half of what private sales are going for on our block just so it could dump it without worrying about the violations in need of repair. The guy who bought it has spent the last 3 months worjing on it and will surely flip it for a nice profit. But the initial sale is sure to be used as a 'comparable' in this type of analysis and for other sales, dragging down the general value in the nabe. I imagine other areas around the metro are much more prone to this phenomenon, which we probably are going to have to deal with over the next decade or so as more and more people realize they overextended themselves.
June 12, 201114 yr I'm sure this sounds defensive as a Cleveland guy, but I wouldn't put too much stock in those average sales numbers as measures of broader home value changes. Both because of the foreclosure issue (Hts is right), but also because average sales price (assuming it really is the mean) is way too sensitive both to outliers and year to year changes to the housing stock that actually transacts. There's a reason Case Shiller, Zillow and pretty much everyone else uses repeat-sales based algorithms. Even median sales price would be more meaningful than average sales prices.
June 14, 201114 yr http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gridlocking-the-lives-of-the-jobless/2011/06/12/AGJIIESH_story.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews E. J. Dionne: Republicans have no interest in moving the nation’s debate toward investments in job creation because they gain twice over from keeping Washington mired in discussions on the deficit. It’s a brute fact that Republicans benefit if the economy stays sluggish.
June 14, 201114 yr ^ yeah, & so what? The Dems would do the same if the GOP was in power. Fact is an incumbent president is judged, in part, on the performance of the economy under his 'watch', though the economy is mostly outside of political control. This is a simplistic thing, and economc conditions and variables extend backward in time, so it is unfair. But thats the way the voters see it. The GOP is going to spin the economy against Obama, and thats just accepted politics. Clinton did it with the first Bush. But we are getting beyond the economy and into politics and there are enough politics threads here.
June 14, 201114 yr The Cleveland Fed has a look at the manufacturing sector at their website. It also includes this good chart showing how employment, in general, has been doing: ...showing the weak May in context. For manufacturing....looking at the ISM "Diffusion Index", it seems like the pattern of the recent past is that we are in a recovery...the pattern and level seems like the 2000s. ....and production is recovering.... ...but not jobs...or they are recovering very slowly. source (with commentary at the link, which is mostly analysing the manufacturing sector) So this is is going to get better. We are still around 9%. The lowest monthly rate (from the BLS) was in March, at 8.8%. Its mostly been in the 9% range even during the months of recovery. So we are in a recovery but locking into a relatively high unemployment rate (acknowleging that this undercounts numbers since it misses people who are not looking for work). Could it be that things are so dire that we think 7% unempolyment will now be considered "good"?
June 14, 201114 yr Looking at the BLS numbers. the labor force participation rate has been either flat or dropping , when we should have been in recovery. If we are in recovery we should be seeing the participation rate increasing, seeing more people of working age entering the job market. In fact the labor force participation rate has been stuck at a low, 64.2%, since January, one of the more stable runs for this stat since the mid 2000. Which seems to indicate a bottom, or a steady-state environment.
June 14, 201114 yr So much for the theory of trickle down economics and the notion that giving money to the richest of the rich (i.e. 'job creators' in the Fox News Amurcan dialect) is what is best for the rest. Workers’ share of national income plummets to record low Over the last decade, the share of U.S. national income taken home by workers has plummeted to a record low. * * * * * Opinions differ, but many experts think that the trend has to do with a number of factors, including a decline in the bargaining power of labor, and increased competition from foreign workers. Similarly, over the last year or so, U.S. companies have made record profits, while unemployment has stayed high and wages have barely risen. The chart jibes with other data, which show that since the 1980s, income for the richest 1 percent of Americans has exploded, while hardly budging at all for everyone else. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110614/bs_yblog_thelookout/workers-share-of-national-income-plummets-to-record-low
June 15, 201114 yr No one is buying( lack of credit?). We will not fully recover until we get a new industry and start producing things.
June 15, 201114 yr ^^ Whats interesting in that chart at the link is that the decline started around 1980 and continued to drop to this day. The late 1990s improvements showing up on that chart proved to be an anomaly vs this long-term trend. But is this really a bad thing? The business of America is business, not wealth redistribution or economic equality or stuff like that. In our society when you are a winner you are a big winner....so maybe more incentive to be a winner, and make that big money....
June 15, 201114 yr ^^ Whats interesting in that chart at the link is that the decline started around 1980 and continued to drop to this day. The late 1990s improvements showing up on that chart proved to be an anomaly vs this long-term trend. But is this really a bad thing? The business of America is business, not wealth redistribution or economic equality or stuff like that. In our society when you are a winner you are a big winner....so maybe more incentive to be a winner, and make that big money.... Unless we become a primarily export driven economy, I believe it is. Declining percent of national income means declining purchasing power for a significant percentage of the population. If that wealth is concentrated, the people who benefit aren't going to increase their purchases on a pro-rata share. So you have less money circulating through consumer channels. If I thought that wealth was being utilized to its fullest potential, and not just being shoveled into 'safe' investments (short term liquid assets), I'd feel better about the trend. If that 1% was taking more entrepreneurial risks, there might be that trickle down effect, but I'm not seeing it. And I don't buy that the investment lag is driven purely by regulatory / fiscal concerns.
June 15, 201114 yr ^^ Whats interesting in that chart at the link is that the decline started around 1980 and continued to drop to this day. The late 1990s improvements showing up on that chart proved to be an anomaly vs this long-term trend. But is this really a bad thing? The business of America is business, not wealth redistribution or economic equality or stuff like that. In our society when you are a winner you are a big winner....so maybe more incentive to be a winner, and make that big money.... Tying into this was something I recently read that stated "full employment" used to be 3%. That was a different era however when there were alot of manual labor jobs, more tellers, cashiers, etc. So much has been replaced by technology, perhaps the new "full employment" rate is 5 or 6%. I don't know.
June 15, 201114 yr ^^ Whats interesting in that chart at the link is that the decline started around 1980 and continued to drop to this day. The late 1990s improvements showing up on that chart proved to be an anomaly vs this long-term trend. But is this really a bad thing? The business of America is business, not wealth redistribution or economic equality or stuff like that. In our society when you are a winner you are a big winner....so maybe more incentive to be a winner, and make that big money.... Tying into this was something I recently read that stated "full employment" used to be 3%. That was a different era however when there were alot of manual labor jobs, more tellers, cashiers, etc. So much has been replaced by technology, perhaps the new "full employment" rate is 5 or 6%. I don't know. If full employment is now 6%, what exactly is that 6% supposed to do? 6% of 300 million is 18 millon people. I guess they all need to start a computer company in their garage, every last one of them. What will they eat in the meantime? Bootstraps. Or nothing. If you want actual food, you gotta win big.
June 15, 201114 yr ^^ Whats interesting in that chart at the link is that the decline started around 1980 and continued to drop to this day. The late 1990s improvements showing up on that chart proved to be an anomaly vs this long-term trend. ... The business of America is business, not wealth redistribution or economic equality or stuff like that. In our society when you are a winner you are a big winner....so maybe more incentive to be a winner, and make that big money.... That is a false framing of the issue. Hts121 can cite that only the top 1% has increased their wealth without an inference that somebody wants to take the money of the super-wealthy.
June 15, 201114 yr Some bad news (if you are on a fixed income or havnt got a raise in a while) Core Inflation Sees Biggest Jump in Three Years U.S. core consumer inflation rose more than expected in May to post its largest increase in nearly three years years, lifted by steep rises in motor vehicle and apparel prices. The Labor Department said Wednesday its Consumer Price Index, excluding food and energy, increased 0.3 percent, the largest gain since July 2008 .... in the 12 months to May, consumer prices rose 3.6 percent, the biggest jump since October 2008, and well above expectations for a 3.4 percent increase Ruh Roh
June 15, 201114 yr If full employment is now 6%, what exactly is that 6% supposed to do? This might be before your time, but back in the 1980s, coming out of the early 1980s double dip recession, the assumption was that 6% to 7% range was thought to be the "new full employment". Also, as we know the unemployment number probably undercounts the true numbers out of work. But its still a good proxy for these historical discussions, on changing preceptions of "acceptable" economic performance. The so-called "new normal".
June 15, 201113 yr ^^ Whats interesting in that chart at the link is that the decline started around 1980 and continued to drop to this day. The late 1990s improvements showing up on that chart proved to be an anomaly vs this long-term trend. But is this really a bad thing? The business of America is business, not wealth redistribution or economic equality or stuff like that. In our society when you are a winner you are a big winner....so maybe more incentive to be a winner, and make that big money.... Tying into this was something I recently read that stated "full employment" used to be 3%. That was a different era however when there were alot of manual labor jobs, more tellers, cashiers, etc. So much has been replaced by technology, perhaps the new "full employment" rate is 5 or 6%. I don't know. I don't know that it was ever considered 3%; I had heard 4% used in the mid-90s, and if it's climbed to 5% since then, I don't think it means too much. I think even during the peak of the WWII production effort, unemployment was still around 2%. Also, the denominator isn't the 300 million total population of the country; it's the number of people actively seeking work, as determined by certain econometric measurements that I've never fully understood (but I'm inclined to take it on faith that they're open to manipulation and/or guesswork, at least to a degree). Obviously, far less than ~270 million people are employed in America. Overall unemployment is a statistic that has some value as a trend, but not much as an absolute value. It doesn't measure those who have stopped looking for work entirely (however that is measured). It's also orthogonal to the question of labor force participation rate, which was discussed a page or two ago in this thread, IIRC. It doesn't measure "underemployment" (which is understandable, since the concept is easy to define in broad brushstrokes but hard to define with specificity, and also hard to measure). And, perhaps most importantly, the more important statistic is the portion of the unemployed who are long-term unemployed. The rise in the number of people who have been out of work for a year or more is very concerning. (An economy with an unemployment rate of 8% with an average duration of unemployment of 60 days will look very different than an economy with an unemployment rate of 8% with an average duration of unemployment of one year.)
June 15, 201113 yr Author What is interesting with this index and the Philly index is how quick and large the declines have been. Philly will be out tomorrow, if it shows little or no improvement I think a trend is starting to develop and its not a good one. June Empire State index plunges to negative figure "WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Manufacturing activity deteriorated sharply in the New York region in June, raising concern that the slowdown seen in the factory sector that started in May could have marked the start of a contraction rather than a temporary soft patch. The Empire State index fell below zero to -7.8 in June from 11.9 in May, according to the Empire State manufacturing survey released Wednesday by the New York Federal Reserve. This is the first time the index has been below zero since last November." http://www.marketwatch.com/story/june-empire-state-index-plunges-to-negative-figure-2011-06-15?dist=countdown
June 15, 201113 yr Fifteen years ago, in macroeconomics, we learned that 5.5 % was generally considered the natural rate of unemployment for the U.S.. The fear is that anything lower can trigger a wage spiral and higher reduces economic activity. However, that was a very different economy with very different demographics. A lot of worries are surfacing again about the money market mutual funds as being a serious danger spot if Greece goes kaput.
June 16, 201113 yr Author Fifteen years ago, in macroeconomics, we learned that 5.5 % was generally considered the natural rate of unemployment for the U.S.. The fear is that anything lower can trigger a wage spiral and higher reduces economic activity. However, that was a very different economy with very different demographics. A lot of worries are surfacing again about the money market mutual funds as being a serious danger spot if Greece goes kaput. Not exactly related to the unemployment discussion (more on job growth), but I recently saw some data on Marketwatch that showed that "Even though the baby boomers will be retiring, the labor force will still be growing. The CBO projects labor force growth of about 0.7% per year over the next 10 years. CBO thinks productivity will grow at a 2% rate. If the labor force grows 0.7% and productivity increases 2%, then it would take growth of at least 2.7% to create any net new jobs. We probably need to create about 100,000 a month to keep the unemployment rate steady." http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-boxed-in-as-us-slouches-toward-stagflation-2011-06-15?dist=afterbell
June 16, 201113 yr Author A couple of more months of this type of data from Philly and NY indexes, along with the terrible data coming form the Baltic Dry Index, and another recession is about cooked into the books. If it does happen, I am sure we will see a lot of headfaking going on until after next year's elections. Just like they did last time. The problem with 'another' recession this quickly is the easy money that we have been using to goose the system may not be available this time around. June Philly Fed manufacturing gauge turns negative "WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Exacerbating worries about a slowing U.S. economy, an important regional gauge of manufacturing activity showed contraction in June, according to figures released Thursday. The Philadelphia Fed’s index of current activity fell to -7.7 in June from +3.9 in May — the first negative reading since September and the lowest reading in 31 months." http://www.marketwatch.com/story/june-philly-fed-manufacturing-gauge-turns-negative-2011-06-16
June 16, 201113 yr Those indexes plunging like they did this month, if they stay low for a couple of months, is not good news for the economy (but does not necessarily indicate another recession is on the way) Does anyone recall how corrollated the NY & Philly mfg indexes are with the national manufacturing as a whole? Is the type of manufacturing in these regions indicative of manufacturing across the country? How much of manufacturing in these areas are tied to defense, and what happens if that sector scales back?
June 16, 201113 yr Author Those indexes plunging like they did this month, if they stay low for a couple of months, is not good news for the economy (but does not necessarily indicate another recession is on the way) Does anyone recall how corrollated the NY & Philly mfg indexes are with the national manufacturing as a whole? Is the type of manufacturing in these regions indicative of manufacturing across the country? How much of manufacturing in these areas are tied to defense, and what happens if that sector scales back? From all that I have read, the Baltic Dry Index has never missed a recession and its number is nearing the 2008 low. As far as the other two indexes go, they alone may not signal a recession, but add in the already high unemployment numbers, falling job growth and things are definitely not looking real good.
June 16, 201113 yr Don't forget that the way inflation is measured in the U.S. was changed in the early '90s, making it appear lower than it was before.
June 16, 201113 yr Author What is the Baltic Dry Index? BDI "index tracks worldwide international shipping prices of various dry bulk cargoes." Why it is watch by economist: "Because dry bulk primarily consists of materials that function as raw material inputs to the production of intermediate or finished goods, such as concrete, electricity, steel, and food, the index is also seen as an efficient economic indicator of future economic growth and production. The BDI is termed a leading economic indicator because it predicts future economic activity." It is also a good indicator because it is not manipulated do to speculation. You book cargo when you have cargo to move. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Dry_Index To get a quick feel for the index, back in June 2008 it was near 10,000, it then plunged to 850-900. Then in 2010 it rebounded back to around 4,500-4,800 and its has currently fallen back to about 1,350.
June 16, 201113 yr Author Don't forget that the way inflation is measured in the U.S. was changed in the early '90s, making it appear lower than it was before. The way inflation and unemployment are measured where both significantly altered in the 90s. Shadowstats continues to show these measurements in their pre-90's unaltered form. It clearly shows things are not doing so well. http://www.shadowstats.com/ And this link has charts showing before and after. One chart of interesting is GDP. If we had continued to calculate it the way we had before the mid 90s we would have had negative GDP since about 2006 and official remained in a recession for the last 5 years+. Which is probably what the average Main Street in America has been dealing with. http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
June 17, 201113 yr BDI sounds like the old "railroad boxcar loadings" stats they used to publish in the Louisville Courier-Journal, as sort of an economic inidicator.
June 17, 201113 yr Author BDI sounds like the old "railroad boxcar loadings" stats they used to publish in the Louisville Courier-Journal, as sort of an economic inidicator. Except this indicator is still widely watched and continues to be a strong economic forcasting tool for the future. A quick google search shows this indicator being watched and discussed in the WSJ, Marketwatch, Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, etc... on a frequent bases. With that said it is one of many indicators.
June 21, 201113 yr US Conference of Mayors has a report out on how there wont be a jobs recovery for many years...if ever....for a number of Ohio places. Many Cities Face a Long Wait for Jobs To Return Among the largest metropolitan regions that will have a long road to recovery are manufacturing centers in Ohio and Michigan, where huge waves of layoffs at car plants and other factories affected thousands of workers. “The type of jobs lost are not easily replaced,” said Lucious Plant, work force development manager in Montgomery County, which includes Dayton and surrounding communities. The region was overwhelmed by thousands of job losses at plants operated by General Motors and the parts supplier Delphi Automotive. The report says Dayton metro area may have to wait until after 2020 to return to pre-recession 2000s, "peak"...but has been losing jobs in the 2000s before the recession. From the report: FIGURE 7: LARGE METROS RETURNING TO PEAK IN 2020 OR BEYOND (Thousands of Jobs) Peak Trough Net loss Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor 1,075.4 991.1 84.3 Dayton 404.4 369.0 35.4 Detroit-Warren-Livonia 1,973.7 1,730.7 243.0 Toledo 335.3 294.7 40.6 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman 241.1 218.0 23.1 PDF Source ...an earlier version of this says Dayton will be returning to post recession employment after 2025! Wow.
June 21, 201113 yr Author If sales are this bad in the peak selling season then this fall and winter are going to be really ugly. Side note: After watching and posting on housing and the economy for several years now, I am still amazed how pathetic the chief economist(s) for the National Association of Realtors continue to be. I know they are just salesman's for their organization, but wow. Existing Home Sales Slide to Six-Month Low "Sales of existing homes slumped to a six-month low in May even as prices continued to drop, a new industry report showed on Tuesday, underscoring the deep hole the housing market is stuck in." "The NAR also said April sales dropped by1.8%, more than doubling its original estimate of a loss of 0.8%." "Hurt by the tough economy, home prices have continued to tumble. The national median price for existing homes declined 4.6% last month from the year before to $166,500." Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/06/21/existing-home-sales-slide-to-six-month-low/#ixzz1PvzHl0ig
June 21, 201113 yr I can't figure out why anyone would buy a house in 2011. Maybe for investment purposes to some limited degree, but to actually live in one? I mean, does job security even exist these days? Why plunk down god knows how much money when you can't even be sure your job will be there in a year or two from now. Plus with houses losing value without any pause, what's really the incentive to own property any more?
June 21, 201113 yr Seems to me that Cleveland and possibly the Youngstown area may recover more quickly due this reason: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,22242.msg564514.html#msg564514 And, Cleveland may already be on the rebound.... http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,15104.msg562312.html#msg562312 "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 21, 201113 yr Where are they getting these numbers? I checked Ohio Dept of Jobs and Family Services and got a peak of 1,039,000 in Dec '07, and a trough of 970,000 in Dec. '09. We've since recovered to 999,000. At that rate we're looking at approximately two years to return to peak employment.
June 21, 201113 yr Why buy? Well, we bought in May. Great prices (bought a Fannie Mae owned foreclosure), reasonable job security (college faculty), and a crappy rental market.
June 21, 201113 yr I can't figure out why anyone would buy a house in 2011. Maybe for investment purposes to some limited degree, but to actually live in one? I mean, does job security even exist these days? Why plunk down god knows how much money when you can't even be sure your job will be there in a year or two from now. Plus with houses losing value without any pause, what's really the incentive to own property any more? Investment opportunity. If I had 25k in cash reserves, I'd buy a house in Toledo and convert it into a rental. Rents are rising while median home sale prices are declining.
June 21, 201113 yr My sister bought a new home that is perfect for her family (special needs children) and is renting out her old home. Worst case scenario her husband loses his job and both properties go into foreclosure, they declare bankruptcy and move in with my mother. If you believe most of the stuff in this thread the economy is never getting any better so what's to be afraid of? The veil of obligation to mortgage holders has been broken, people will just keep on living through what ever circumstance comes their way.
June 21, 201113 yr Also, like other assets, they will find a bottom eventually, at which point they can theoretically become more attractive because the appreciation from the trough will help ameliorate some of the ongoing drain of property taxes, maintenance, insurance, association/condo fees, and other recurring costs that don't attend paper wealth. (Unless you get really lucky with where and when you choose to buy, though, I still think that a typical residential homeowner is going to have a hard time actually turning a real profit off of homeownership, once all the costs of holding the investment in the meantime are deducted.) I remain in the renters-by-choice category for the moment, but I admit that the rental market is not getting cheaper, while the ownership market is. I pay a premium to have a professional property management company with pretty good on-site management and maintenance; the services, not the unit itself (aside from the location, which is unbeatable for an urbanist where I live), are why I consider it worth the price per square foot. That could change, if the apartment starts to have maintenance issues that go unresolved for long periods or the management company deteriorates. If so, I may well look at buying now despite all the things I've said in this thread and elsewhere about how financially unsound a decision it is.
June 21, 201113 yr Author A type of QE3 without having to say it. Also, the FEDs are starting to see a noticable slow down in the economy. Keep printing and buying boys, keep printing and buying. Bernanke May Prolong Record Stimulus "Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke will probably delay the central bank’s exit from record stimulus, economists said in a survey, giving the flagging economy a boost without resorting to additional asset purchases." "Bernanke and his fellow policy makers have given no indication they’ll tighten policy anytime soon. With manufacturing slowing and unemployment increasing during May to 9.1 percent, the Fed chief said this month growth is “frustratingly slow,” and Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker said the economy could be “stuck below trend for some time.” “The weak economy continues to present significant challenges for most households,” David Dillon, chief executive officer of Cincinnati-based Kroger Co. (KR), the largest U.S. grocery chain, said on an investor conference call last week. “The promising signs of the improvement we saw earlier this year seems to have stagnated.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-21/bernanke-may-try-to-spur-u-s-economic-growth-by-extending-record-stimulus.html?cmpid=yhoo
June 22, 201113 yr Author Thought some might be interested in the following chart. It shows the retail deliveries for gas in the US and how its at its lowest level in the last 30 years. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=A103600001&f=M
June 22, 201113 yr It shows the real depth of the recession, but also the fact that one of the sparks was the gas price spike in late '08, which pushed a lot of folks over the edge. The decline in construction would shrink quite a bit of demand.
June 22, 201113 yr ^ One wonders if this recent spike was enough to shatter the recovery that was underway. Also interesting to see the highs in delivery either side of the turn of the century...maybe people travelling more and maybe even sprawling sububan development where people were buying further and further out do to the real estate boom? I notice gas prices are down pretty far from what they were earlier in the year...probably subject for another thread
June 22, 201113 yr Author ^Good As a huge supporter of smart growth/sustainability principles I agree. Unfortunately I believe the main reason this number has dropped so low is because of economic contraction, not people truly changing how they live, where they live and how they move from one location to another. Some of that has happened, but no way near enough to explain this type of decline.
June 22, 201113 yr Author Fascinating. Look at the magnitude of the drop vis a vis earlier recessions. As we have discussed many times, this is just one measurement of the economy, but I would agree, this 'recession' was a massive one.
June 22, 201113 yr Repost that chart in the Rising Fuel Prices thread; some people might not be checking this one.
Create an account or sign in to comment