goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: 0.42 on January 10, 2014, 10:05:39 AM
-
74,000 jobs added, less than half of what was forecasted. Unemployment "dropped" to 6.7% but most of it was people leaving the labor force. Many of the jobs that were created were crappy retail jobs.
Everyone start blaming everyone else and go
-
thoughts on potential to drop mortgage rates in the near term? :love:
-
thoughts on potential to drop mortgage rates in the near term? :love:
define near term... 18 months? :crossfingers:
-
thoughts on potential to drop mortgage rates in the near term? :love:
being able to afford a house sounds pretty fun imo
-
thoughts on potential to drop mortgage rates in the near term? :love:
define near term... 18 months? :crossfingers:
I'm talking (and only caring about) like 3 months from now :crossfingers:
-
meh
-
thoughts on potential to drop mortgage rates in the near term? :love:
If this doesn't do it, nothing will.
-
thoughts on potential to drop mortgage rates in the near term? :love:
define near term... 18 months? :crossfingers:
I'm talking (and only caring about) like 3 months from now :crossfingers:
How soon can you lock in your rate? That is always a fun game to play when getting a mortgage. I really never have screwed it up too badly, but lost 3/8 once, which was kind of bad. Have also nailed it a couple of times when it took a 1/4 pt dip for one day and then went right back up and never got that low again during the opportunity to buy.
-
thoughts on potential to drop mortgage rates in the near term? :love:
define near term... 18 months? :crossfingers:
I'm talking (and only caring about) like 3 months from now :crossfingers:
How soon can you lock in your rate? That is always a fun game to play when getting a mortgage. I really never have screwed it up too badly, but lost 3/8 once, which was kind of bad. Have also nailed it a couple of times when it took a 1/4 pt dip for one day and then went right back up and never got that low again during the opportunity to buy.
Won't some places allow a one-time 1/8th or quarter point drop?
-
thoughts on potential to drop mortgage rates in the near term? :love:
define near term... 18 months? :crossfingers:
I'm talking (and only caring about) like 3 months from now :crossfingers:
How soon can you lock in your rate? That is always a fun game to play when getting a mortgage. I really never have screwed it up too badly, but lost 3/8 once, which was kind of bad. Have also nailed it a couple of times when it took a 1/4 pt dip for one day and then went right back up and never got that low again during the opportunity to buy.
Won't some places allow a one-time 1/8th or quarter point drop?
Yes, this is true. Some will allow a change for a certain amount of time, and I think some allow a one time change throughout the life of the mortgage. In my experience, it is not always the case, and I have went with a lender that wouldn't allow it on at least one occasion. It wouldn't have mattered in the above bad case, as it hit a low, I didn't lock it in, and then it went back up and I kept on waiting for it to go back down, but it never did.
-
thoughts on potential to drop mortgage rates in the near term? :love:
not likely to drop or rise much near term.
-
Back on track here.
Curious why despite the huge miss in payrolls the unemployment rate tumbled from 7.0% to 6.7%? The reason is because in December the civilian labor force did what it usually does in the New Normal: it dropped from 155.3 million to 154.9 million, which means the labor participation rate just dropped to a fresh 35 year low, hitting levels not seen since 1978, at 62.8% down from 63.0%.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser5%2Fimageroot%2F2014%2F01%2FLFP%2520Participation.jpg&hash=c3b84c5c1d9d414fc9517bca3b326a0c01bef798)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser5%2Fimageroot%2F2014%2F01%2FNot%2520in%2520Labor%2520Force%2520Dec.jpg&hash=6588d1b66da27845817afbff614187dfe5fbe496)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-10/people-not-labor-force-soar-record-918-million-participation-rate-plunges-1978-level (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-10/people-not-labor-force-soar-record-918-million-participation-rate-plunges-1978-level)
-
The U3 Unemployment Index is a joke. It has no further relevance in the New Economy as more and more people abandon the workforce. At this point, the U3 is simply propaganda for the liberals and their media mouthpieces. Even some of the MSM are now leaving the reservation.
-
Back on track here.
Not a very moderate move by you here.
-
thoughts on potential to drop mortgage rates in the near term? :love:
not likely to drop or rise much near term.
SO FAR SO GOOD SYS IN YOUR FACE BY ABOUT 15/100ths! DROP! DROP! DROP! DROP! :Woot:
-
seems like the 10 year has been going up and down 25 bp since the summer. 3.5 top, 2.5 bottom, 3.25-2.75 range most likely.
-
thoughts on potential to drop mortgage rates in the near term? :love:
not likely to drop or rise much near term.
SO FAR SO GOOD SYS IN YOUR FACE BY ABOUT 15/100ths! DROP! DROP! DROP! DROP! :Woot:
I'm really happy with the direction this thread has taken
-
DROP! DROP! DROP! DROP! DROP! :Woot:
-
:party:
-
Our pain is your pleasure!
-
DROP! DROP! DROP! DROP! DROP! :Woot:
:Woot:
-
One of the main reasons why the labor force is shrinking - the public sector has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs since 2009:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmediamatters.org%2Fstatic%2Fimages%2Fitem%2Fbushobamapublicjobs.jpg&hash=eb2825b6e99efc99260bfaab01668fdf735bf517)
Also, baby boomers are starting to retire.
-
One of the main reasons why the labor force is shrinking - the public sector has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs since 2009:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmediamatters.org%2Fstatic%2Fimages%2Fitem%2Fbushobamapublicjobs.jpg&hash=eb2825b6e99efc99260bfaab01668fdf735bf517)
Also, baby boomers are starting to retire.
Why in the hell would they only show GW's first term?
Edit: Nevermind, I can totally see why it is totally relevant to compare 2001-2004 to 2009-2011
:rolleyes:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffloatingpath.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2FChange-In-Public-Sector-Employment-Since-The-Start-Of-Last-Four-Recoveries.png&hash=8bae9f94cfe8711237c0b327215ebc7fe12ea93a)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffloatingpath.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2FChange-In-Public-Sector-Employment-Since-The-Start-Of-Last-Four-Recoveries.png&hash=8bae9f94cfe8711237c0b327215ebc7fe12ea93a)
Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.
-
Wait a minute... I'm starting to think there are people on this board who actually think Obama is HELPING!?!?!?!
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffloatingpath.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2FChange-In-Public-Sector-Employment-Since-The-Start-Of-Last-Four-Recoveries.png&hash=8bae9f94cfe8711237c0b327215ebc7fe12ea93a)
Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fbusiness%2FPrivateSectorPayrolls3.png&hash=fe59132877ea33ef6cdb418c55804f98da5a6347)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffloatingpath.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2FChange-In-Public-Sector-Employment-Since-The-Start-Of-Last-Four-Recoveries.png&hash=8bae9f94cfe8711237c0b327215ebc7fe12ea93a)
Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.
Those are just public sector jobs. It's showing that the government hired more people during previous recessions, while it layed them off during the 2007 recession.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffloatingpath.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2FChange-In-Public-Sector-Employment-Since-The-Start-Of-Last-Four-Recoveries.png&hash=8bae9f94cfe8711237c0b327215ebc7fe12ea93a)
Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.
Those are just public sector jobs. It's showing that the government hired more people during previous recessions, while it layed them off during the 2007 recession.
It does say "share of total jobs" which I believe is misleading. With the huge number of full time jobs going to part time, there may be more jobs, making the increased in government jobs a smaller percentage of total jobs. The sequester has definitely decreased the number of contract gov jobs, so that probably plays into it, but to say there are fewer people working for the government is probably not true.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffloatingpath.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2FChange-In-Public-Sector-Employment-Since-The-Start-Of-Last-Four-Recoveries.png&hash=8bae9f94cfe8711237c0b327215ebc7fe12ea93a)
Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.
Those are just public sector jobs. It's showing that the government hired more people during previous recessions, while it layed them off during the 2007 recession.
It does say "share of total jobs" which I believe is misleading. With the huge number of full time jobs going to part time, there may be more jobs, making the increased in government jobs a smaller percentage of total jobs. The sequester has definitely decreased the number of contract gov jobs, so that probably plays into it, but to say there are fewer people working for the government is probably not true.
It says "share of total jobs", but it only is talking about government jobs. The dashed line is where each of those recessions ended, and the chart is displaying the total percentage of government jobs in relation to the number of government jobs at the end of the recession. That is why every line is at 100% at the dashed line.
It looks like Reagan cut jobs, then started hiring workers back to get out of his recession. Bush Sr. just kept hiring workers, sort of a "business as usual" approach. It looks like we hired a bunch of government workers for W's 2001 recession, and chose to freeze hiring for the 2007 recession. Obama has made massive cuts, but that probably has more to do with his inability to work with Congress on getting a budget passed than it does his strategy to revive the economy.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffloatingpath.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2FChange-In-Public-Sector-Employment-Since-The-Start-Of-Last-Four-Recoveries.png&hash=8bae9f94cfe8711237c0b327215ebc7fe12ea93a)
Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.
Those are just public sector jobs. It's showing that the government hired more people during previous recessions, while it layed them off during the 2007 recession.
It does say "share of total jobs" which I believe is misleading. With the huge number of full time jobs going to part time, there may be more jobs, making the increased in government jobs a smaller percentage of total jobs. The sequester has definitely decreased the number of contract gov jobs, so that probably plays into it, but to say there are fewer people working for the government is probably not true.
It says "share of total jobs", but it only is talking about government jobs. The dashed line is where each of those recessions ended, and the chart is displaying the total percentage of government jobs in relation to the number of government jobs at the end of the recession. That is why every line is at 100% at the dashed line.
It looks like Reagan cut jobs, then started hiring workers back to get out of his recession. Bush Sr. just kept hiring workers, sort of a "business as usual" approach. It looks like we hired a bunch of government workers for W's 2001 recession, and chose to freeze hiring for the 2007 recession. Obama has made massive cuts, but that probably has more to do with his inability to work with Congress on getting a budget passed than it does his strategy to revive the economy.
Ok, you're right. But, the graph is still a bit misleading. The last column below is the total number of federal employees (thousands).
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/ (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/)
Year
2000 2,639 1,426 63 4,129
2001 2,640 1,428 64 4,132
2002 2,630 1,456 66 4,152
2003 2,666 1,478 65 4,210
2004 2,650 1,473 64 4,187
2005 2,636 1,436 65 4,138
2006 2,637 1,432 63 4,133
2007 2,636 1,427 63 4,127
2008 2,692 1,450 64 4,206
2009 2,774 1,591 66 4,430
2010 2,776 1,602 64 4,443
2011 2,756 1,583 64 4,403
2012 2,697 1,551 64 4,312
-
Labor participation has been at or lower than 63% for the last 3 months, currently at all time lows.
-
Does BMW know he's posting evidence of how terrible B.O. is? Like the worst ever based on even his own skewed metrics?
What a dolt.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffloatingpath.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2FChange-In-Public-Sector-Employment-Since-The-Start-Of-Last-Four-Recoveries.png&hash=8bae9f94cfe8711237c0b327215ebc7fe12ea93a)
Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.
Those are just public sector jobs. It's showing that the government hired more people during previous recessions, while it layed them off during the 2007 recession.
It does say "share of total jobs" which I believe is misleading. With the huge number of full time jobs going to part time, there may be more jobs, making the increased in government jobs a smaller percentage of total jobs. The sequester has definitely decreased the number of contract gov jobs, so that probably plays into it, but to say there are fewer people working for the government is probably not true.
It says "share of total jobs", but it only is talking about government jobs. The dashed line is where each of those recessions ended, and the chart is displaying the total percentage of government jobs in relation to the number of government jobs at the end of the recession. That is why every line is at 100% at the dashed line.
It looks like Reagan cut jobs, then started hiring workers back to get out of his recession. Bush Sr. just kept hiring workers, sort of a "business as usual" approach. It looks like we hired a bunch of government workers for W's 2001 recession, and chose to freeze hiring for the 2007 recession. Obama has made massive cuts, but that probably has more to do with his inability to work with Congress on getting a budget passed than it does his strategy to revive the economy.
Ok, you're right. But, the graph is still a bit misleading. The last column below is the total number of federal employees (thousands).
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/ (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/)
Year
2000 2,639 1,426 63 4,129
2001 2,640 1,428 64 4,132
2002 2,630 1,456 66 4,152
2003 2,666 1,478 65 4,210
2004 2,650 1,473 64 4,187
2005 2,636 1,436 65 4,138
2006 2,637 1,432 63 4,133
2007 2,636 1,427 63 4,127
2008 2,692 1,450 64 4,206
2009 2,774 1,591 66 4,430
2010 2,776 1,602 64 4,443
2011 2,756 1,583 64 4,403
2012 2,697 1,551 64 4,312
The public sector includes more than just federal employees. The public sector includes state and local government workers as well. Your inability to comprehend a simple chart is both sad and hilarious.
:rolleyes: :lol:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffloatingpath.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2FChange-In-Public-Sector-Employment-Since-The-Start-Of-Last-Four-Recoveries.png&hash=8bae9f94cfe8711237c0b327215ebc7fe12ea93a)
Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.
Those are just public sector jobs. It's showing that the government hired more people during previous recessions, while it layed them off during the 2007 recession.
It does say "share of total jobs" which I believe is misleading. With the huge number of full time jobs going to part time, there may be more jobs, making the increased in government jobs a smaller percentage of total jobs. The sequester has definitely decreased the number of contract gov jobs, so that probably plays into it, but to say there are fewer people working for the government is probably not true.
It says "share of total jobs", but it only is talking about government jobs. The dashed line is where each of those recessions ended, and the chart is displaying the total percentage of government jobs in relation to the number of government jobs at the end of the recession. That is why every line is at 100% at the dashed line.
It looks like Reagan cut jobs, then started hiring workers back to get out of his recession. Bush Sr. just kept hiring workers, sort of a "business as usual" approach. It looks like we hired a bunch of government workers for W's 2001 recession, and chose to freeze hiring for the 2007 recession. Obama has made massive cuts, but that probably has more to do with his inability to work with Congress on getting a budget passed than it does his strategy to revive the economy.
Ok, you're right. But, the graph is still a bit misleading. The last column below is the total number of federal employees (thousands).
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/ (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/)
Year
2000 2,639 1,426 63 4,129
2001 2,640 1,428 64 4,132
2002 2,630 1,456 66 4,152
2003 2,666 1,478 65 4,210
2004 2,650 1,473 64 4,187
2005 2,636 1,436 65 4,138
2006 2,637 1,432 63 4,133
2007 2,636 1,427 63 4,127
2008 2,692 1,450 64 4,206
2009 2,774 1,591 66 4,430
2010 2,776 1,602 64 4,443
2011 2,756 1,583 64 4,403
2012 2,697 1,551 64 4,312
The public sector includes more than just federal employees. The public sector includes state and local government workers as well. Your inability to comprehend a simple chart is both sad and hilarious.
:rolleyes: :lol:
Your charts don't have any context so we are all left guessing what they represent. You are terrible at this.
If your charts include local and state employees, the only conclusion that can be made is the economy is so bad that local and state government have had to lay off hundreds of thousands of employees. Good work libtard.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffloatingpath.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2FChange-In-Public-Sector-Employment-Since-The-Start-Of-Last-Four-Recoveries.png&hash=8bae9f94cfe8711237c0b327215ebc7fe12ea93a)
Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.
Those are just public sector jobs. It's showing that the government hired more people during previous recessions, while it layed them off during the 2007 recession.
It does say "share of total jobs" which I believe is misleading. With the huge number of full time jobs going to part time, there may be more jobs, making the increased in government jobs a smaller percentage of total jobs. The sequester has definitely decreased the number of contract gov jobs, so that probably plays into it, but to say there are fewer people working for the government is probably not true.
It says "share of total jobs", but it only is talking about government jobs. The dashed line is where each of those recessions ended, and the chart is displaying the total percentage of government jobs in relation to the number of government jobs at the end of the recession. That is why every line is at 100% at the dashed line.
It looks like Reagan cut jobs, then started hiring workers back to get out of his recession. Bush Sr. just kept hiring workers, sort of a "business as usual" approach. It looks like we hired a bunch of government workers for W's 2001 recession, and chose to freeze hiring for the 2007 recession. Obama has made massive cuts, but that probably has more to do with his inability to work with Congress on getting a budget passed than it does his strategy to revive the economy.
Ok, you're right. But, the graph is still a bit misleading. The last column below is the total number of federal employees (thousands).
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/ (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/)
Year
2000 2,639 1,426 63 4,129
2001 2,640 1,428 64 4,132
2002 2,630 1,456 66 4,152
2003 2,666 1,478 65 4,210
2004 2,650 1,473 64 4,187
2005 2,636 1,436 65 4,138
2006 2,637 1,432 63 4,133
2007 2,636 1,427 63 4,127
2008 2,692 1,450 64 4,206
2009 2,774 1,591 66 4,430
2010 2,776 1,602 64 4,443
2011 2,756 1,583 64 4,403
2012 2,697 1,551 64 4,312
The public sector includes more than just federal employees. The public sector includes state and local government workers as well. Your inability to comprehend a simple chart is both sad and hilarious.
:rolleyes: :lol:
Your charts don't have any context so we are all left guessing what they represent. You are terrible at this.
If your charts include local and state employees, the only conclusion that can be made is the economy is so bad that local and state government have had to lay off hundreds of thousands of employees. Good work libtard.
The top of the graph says "public sector employment since the start of last four recoveries." Public sector employment covers federal, state, and local municipalities. I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand simple concepts.
-
Your chart shows how bad the economy is (still) and that we came out of all other recessions much faster and stronger than this one. Your hero has failed and his policies are lining the pockets of his rich campaign contributors.
-
great job, everyone. good illustration of the problem.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/new-study-politics-makes-you-innumerate
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992
-
Your chart shows how bad the economy is (still) and that we came out of all other recessions much faster and stronger than this one. Your hero has failed and his policies are lining the pockets of his rich campaign contributors.
Okay, now you're starting to get it. Now let's see if you can figure out which party is responsible for those cuts to the public sector.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-rEunWDF7K4E%2FUYPZcF5owQI%2FAAAAAAAANrw%2Fs5O76uac3dI%2Fs1600%2FPrivate%2BSector%2BJobs%2BGrowth.jpg&hash=a8a2c5dc44ea83f3f6d145c8276a57d60fe49a09)
-
Your chart shows how bad the economy is (still) and that we came out of all other recessions much faster and stronger than this one. Your hero has failed and his policies are lining the pockets of his rich campaign contributors.
Okay, now you're starting to get it. Now let's see if you can figure out which party is responsible for those cuts to the public sector.
Actually, neither. Just a product of a poor economy on the local level. The federal level jobs are still at a positive growth since 2008.
-
BMW is such a useful drone for the thinkprogress.com, et al., propaganda machines.
What a cute little lemming. Hey lemming, watch out for that canyon!!! Oh, too late.
-
Your chart shows how bad the economy is (still) and that we came out of all other recessions much faster and stronger than this one. Your hero has failed and his policies are lining the pockets of his rich campaign contributors.
Okay, now you're starting to get it. Now let's see if you can figure out which party is responsible for those cuts to the public sector.
Actually, neither. Just a product of a poor economy on the local level. The federal level jobs are still at a positive growth since 2008.
Nope. The private sector has added millions of jobs over the past four or five years. Conservative states are lowering taxes and cutting funding for things like education, which is why the public sector has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs since '09. The slashing of state and local government funding is hurting the overall health of the economy and keeping the unemployment rate artificially high.
-
What kind of jobs Beems? Good paying, full time jobs, or part time jobs with no benefits?
What percentage of these "millions of jobs created" were full time jobs with benefits such as healthcare etc. etc??
-
Where's my short term mortgage rate analysis? This is seriously relevant to me RIGHT NOW.
-
Your chart shows how bad the economy is (still) and that we came out of all other recessions much faster and stronger than this one. Your hero has failed and his policies are lining the pockets of his rich campaign contributors.
Okay, now you're starting to get it. Now let's see if you can figure out which party is responsible for those cuts to the public sector.
Actually, neither. Just a product of a poor economy on the local level. The federal level jobs are still at a positive growth since 2008.
Nope. The private sector has added millions of jobs over the past four or five years. Conservative states are lowering taxes and cutting funding for things like education, which is why the public sector has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs since '09. The slashing of state and local government funding is hurting the overall health of the economy and keeping the unemployment rate artificially high.
Healthy private sector job growth is a lie.
state and local funding is cut because tax revenue is way down and they can't print money to make up the difference, so they MUST cut jobs or claim bankruptcy.
-
What kind of jobs Beems? Good paying, full time jobs, or part time jobs with no benefits?
What percentage of these "millions of jobs created" were full time jobs with benefits such as healthcare etc. etc??
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.advisorperspectives.com%2Fdshort%2Fcharts%2Femployment%2FFull-Time-vs-Part-time-16-plus-since-2000.gif&hash=58ccc7e4b05b362850e27ec9d3275d53490f30ba)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.advisorperspectives.com%2Fdshort%2Fcharts%2Femployment%2FFull-Time-vs-Part-time-16-plus-since-2007.gif&hash=f2237d37977d87fedb01b3a79f63684ab7389904)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.advisorperspectives.com%2Fdshort%2Fcharts%2Femployment%2FFull-Time-vs-Part-time-25-54-since-2007.gif&hash=38a413872b45d0c5a895e85d4a64ec3c8a71d640)
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment.php (http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment.php)
-
That's interesting, still doesn't really answer the question, and it still doesn't make up for the current universal consensus on job creation which currently says, ". . . far short of where it needs to be".
The only reason the unemployment rate is "falling" is because the DoL keeps removing people from the workforce.
-
Where's my short term mortgage rate analysis? This is seriously relevant to me RIGHT NOW.
NM, I read some articles and am good now I guess.
-
Where's my short term mortgage rate analysis? This is seriously relevant to me RIGHT NOW.
NM, I read some articles and am good now I guess.
[/quote
what did you decide to do?
-
Where's my short term mortgage rate analysis? This is seriously relevant to me RIGHT NOW.
NM, I read some articles and am good now I guess.
what did you decide to do?
let it ride, baby.
glad to see its down from last week. I would have felt like a major league dumbass, if I had paid to lock the rate.
-
do you have to lock the rate at some point, or can you just take the rate at the time you assume the mortgage, without paying any fees?
-
That's interesting, still doesn't really answer the question, and it still doesn't make up for the current universal consensus on job creation which currently says, ". . . far short of where it needs to be".
The only reason the unemployment rate is "falling" is because the DoL keeps removing people from the workforce.
If those graphs don't answer your question, I can't help you. They show the percentage difference in full-time workers vs. part-time workers. Since the recession, full-time employment has been gradually increasing in relation to part-time employment. As for current job creation, you're right. It isn't where it needs to be, but it would be closer if governments weren't cutting hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs.
As to your last point, people who give up looking for work have always dropped out of the labor force. They go from being unemployed to out of the labor force. The unemployment rate is calculated the same as it's always been.
-
do you have to lock the rate at some point, or can you just take the rate at the time you assume the mortgage, without paying any fees?
basically the rate is locked for free 60 days out from your closing. so for time increments beyond that, lenders will charge either an upfront fee or a certain additional interest % to lock the rate.
-
do you have to lock the rate at some point, or can you just take the rate at the time you assume the mortgage, without paying any fees?
basically the rate is locked (for free) 60 days out from your closing. so for time increments beyond that, lenders will charge either an upfront fee or a certain additional interest % to lock the rate.
really speculative, vegas-y crap.
-
That's interesting, still doesn't really answer the question, and it still doesn't make up for the current universal consensus on job creation which currently says, ". . . far short of where it needs to be".
The only reason the unemployment rate is "falling" is because the DoL keeps removing people from the workforce.
If those graphs don't answer your question, I can't help you. They show the percentage difference in full-time workers vs. part-time workers. Since the recession, full-time employment has been gradually increasing in relation to part-time employment. As for current job creation, you're right. It isn't where it needs to be, but it would be closer if governments weren't cutting hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs.
As to your last point, people who give up looking for work have always dropped out of the labor force. They go from being unemployed to out of the labor force. The unemployment rate is calculated the same as it's always been.
That's exactly it, more people than ever have just given up.
Your graphs also say nothing about benefits, pay etc. etc.
You're not completely wrong, but you're leaving out the fact that baby boomers are starting to retire, which lowers the labor force significantly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/10/the-biggest-question-facing-the-u-s-economy-why-are-people-dropping-out-of-the-workforce/
1) The aging of America. One major reason the participation rate dropped involves long-run demographic trends that have little to do with the current economy. Baby boomers are starting to retire en masse, which means that there are fewer eligible American workers.
Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. From 1960 to 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to more women entering the labor force. But it was also due to improvements in health and to the fact that the types of jobs available allowed Americans to work more years.
Since 2000, however, the labor force rate has been declining steadily as the baby boom generation has been retiring. That's why, in 2012, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago predicted that the labor force participation rate would be lower in 2020 regardless of how well the economy does.
One way to see the demographic shift is in this chart by Bloomberg Businessweek (via Derek Thompson).
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fwonkblog%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F04%2FScreen-Shot-2012-09-07-at-11.06.40-AM-1.png&hash=433f6fdf6c56dc2ef60c22e87c166aece0b22d00)
Americans over the age of 65 are much less likely to work than prime-age Americans. And since that subset of Americans is expanding its ranks, that drives the labor-force participation rate down. Note that this shift is happening even though older Americans are staying on the job for longer than they did during the 1990s.
Economists disagree, however, on exactly how much demographics are responsible for the current fall in the participation rate. The Chicago Fed estimated in 2012 that retirements accounted for one-fourth of the drop in labor force participation since the recession began. Other analysts, including Barclays, have suggested that aging Boomers could account for more than half the drop.
Meanwhile, a recent paper by Shigeru Fujita of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia staked out a more nuanced view: Demographics, he argued, didn't play a huge role in the labor-force drop between 2007 and 2011. But since then, retirements are responsible for basically the entire fall of the participation rate. One possible reason is that many older Americans postponed retirement immediately after the financial crisis to rebuild their battered 401(k)s. By 2012 or so, they began retiring en masse.
2) The bad economy is keeping workers in school and out of the labor force. Demographics can't entirely explain of the labor force slide. For one, the number of Americans working or actively seeking work has actually fallen faster than demographers had predicted:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fwonkblog%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F09%2Fepop-graph-thumb-615x395-82792.png&hash=f961ab68f62e04ac48b933fea0745972c94030f6)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fwonkblog%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F01%2FEmployPop2554Dec2013.jpg&hash=ec2ddfaaed87f0358433e8a30bec4d162f7382c7)
3) More workers are going on disability insurance: There are now roughly 8.8 million Americans receiving disability benefits, a number that has doubled since 1995. Could that be a factor pulling people out of the labor force?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fwonkblog%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F09%2Fdisability-applications.png&hash=19cdf7ad868b456ab4cf80c2a764c91c2939e070)
-
Once the unemployed run out of unemployment insurance they are dropped from the workforce whether or not they are still looking for a job. This is the only reason the unemployment percentage has dropped at all during the last 4 years
-
do you have to lock the rate at some point, or can you just take the rate at the time you assume the mortgage, without paying any fees?
basically the rate is locked (for free) 60 days out from your closing. so for time increments beyond that, lenders will charge either an upfront fee or a certain additional interest % to lock the rate.
really speculative, vegas-y crap.
i'm not sure if you HAVE to lock the rate at some point. good question. I will ask it.
-
It's still a jobless "recovery".
http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/business/2014-01-28/obama-addresses-nation-best-economy-recession-even-many-americans-still (http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/business/2014-01-28/obama-addresses-nation-best-economy-recession-even-many-americans-still)
By the middle of this year, after years of steady but sluggish improvement, the United States is expected to have finally regained all the 8.7 million jobs lost during the recession, which officially ended 4½ years ago.
JOBS: Job growth has been remarkably steady in an uneven recovery. Employers have added at least 2.1 million jobs in each of the past three years, creating momentum that could help the economy gain speed in 2014. The unemployment rate has plunged from 7.9 percent to 6.7 percent over the past year. That’s down from a 10 percent peak in October 2009.
HOUSING: Real estate is rebounding. Home prices have climbed 13.7 percent over the past 12 months, according to a Standard & Poor’s index released Tuesday. Sales of existing homes totaled 5.09 million last year, the best such performance since 2006, the National Association of Realtors said last week.
CONSUMER SPENDING: The spending of consumers is starting to return to its pre-recession levels. The Conference Board’s consumer confidence index rose to 80.7 this month, well above last year’s average of 73.3. Retail sales bumped up 4.2 percent in 2013, the fourth straight annual increase.
STOCKS: The Dow Jones industrial average enjoyed a monster 2013, climbing 28 percent. Corporate profits are at their highest share of the economy in the 66 years of tracking by the government.
Shares were bolstered by a Federal Reserve bond-buying program that is now being wound down. The eventual end of the program, paired with weak growth in China and troubles in Argentina and Turkey, help explain the 4.1 percent decline in the stock market since the start of this year.
-
Once the unemployed run out of unemployment insurance they are dropped from the workforce whether or not they are still looking for a job. This is the only reason the unemployment percentage has dropped at all during the last 4 years
That's interesting, still doesn't really answer the question, and it still doesn't make up for the current universal consensus on job creation which currently says, ". . . far short of where it needs to be".
The only reason the unemployment rate is "falling" is because the DoL keeps removing people from the workforce.
If those graphs don't answer your question, I can't help you. They show the percentage difference in full-time workers vs. part-time workers. Since the recession, full-time employment has been gradually increasing in relation to part-time employment. As for current job creation, you're right. It isn't where it needs to be, but it would be closer if governments weren't cutting hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs.
As to your last point, people who give up looking for work have always dropped out of the labor force. They go from being unemployed to out of the labor force. The unemployment rate is calculated the same as it's always been.
That's exactly it, more people than ever have just given up.
Your graphs also say nothing about benefits, pay etc. etc.
You're not completely wrong, but you're leaving out the fact that baby boomers are starting to retire, which lowers the labor force significantly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/10/the-biggest-question-facing-the-u-s-economy-why-are-people-dropping-out-of-the-workforce/
1) The aging of America. One major reason the participation rate dropped involves long-run demographic trends that have little to do with the current economy. Baby boomers are starting to retire en masse, which means that there are fewer eligible American workers.
Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. From 1960 to 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to more women entering the labor force. But it was also due to improvements in health and to the fact that the types of jobs available allowed Americans to work more years.
Since 2000, however, the labor force rate has been declining steadily as the baby boom generation has been retiring. That's why, in 2012, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago predicted that the labor force participation rate would be lower in 2020 regardless of how well the economy does.
One way to see the demographic shift is in this chart by Bloomberg Businessweek (via Derek Thompson).
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fwonkblog%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F04%2FScreen-Shot-2012-09-07-at-11.06.40-AM-1.png&hash=433f6fdf6c56dc2ef60c22e87c166aece0b22d00)
Americans over the age of 65 are much less likely to work than prime-age Americans. And since that subset of Americans is expanding its ranks, that drives the labor-force participation rate down. Note that this shift is happening even though older Americans are staying on the job for longer than they did during the 1990s.
Economists disagree, however, on exactly how much demographics are responsible for the current fall in the participation rate. The Chicago Fed estimated in 2012 that retirements accounted for one-fourth of the drop in labor force participation since the recession began. Other analysts, including Barclays, have suggested that aging Boomers could account for more than half the drop.
Meanwhile, a recent paper by Shigeru Fujita of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia staked out a more nuanced view: Demographics, he argued, didn't play a huge role in the labor-force drop between 2007 and 2011. But since then, retirements are responsible for basically the entire fall of the participation rate. One possible reason is that many older Americans postponed retirement immediately after the financial crisis to rebuild their battered 401(k)s. By 2012 or so, they began retiring en masse.
2) The bad economy is keeping workers in school and out of the labor force. Demographics can't entirely explain of the labor force slide. For one, the number of Americans working or actively seeking work has actually fallen faster than demographers had predicted:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fwonkblog%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F09%2Fepop-graph-thumb-615x395-82792.png&hash=f961ab68f62e04ac48b933fea0745972c94030f6)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fwonkblog%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F01%2FEmployPop2554Dec2013.jpg&hash=ec2ddfaaed87f0358433e8a30bec4d162f7382c7)
3) More workers are going on disability insurance: There are now roughly 8.8 million Americans receiving disability benefits, a number that has doubled since 1995. Could that be a factor pulling people out of the labor force?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fwonkblog%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F09%2Fdisability-applications.png&hash=19cdf7ad868b456ab4cf80c2a764c91c2939e070)
-
Yet, a simple search yields countless articles in the Post, NYT, WSJ etc. etc. explaining how jobless recoveries are here to stay . . . articles with a litany of economists, research groups and think tanks all offering up their own explanations as to how and why Americans can expect even more "jobless recoveries" like the one we're in now when the next economic downturn hits.
Nothing gets in your little bubble, does it? I've explained that part of the lack of a recovery is due to huge job losses in the public sector. I've shown that private sector job growth is up significantly. I've shown evidence of various labor force participation factors and just what exactly is going on within the labor force. Since the recession, the US has added over 8 million jobs. Yet, you continue to just repeat the same things over and over again. What's the deal, man?
-
you continue to just repeat the same things over and over again. What's the deal, man?
umm, oregon, you're talking to dax.
-
Baby boomers are retiring because they're getting older, and they can finally cash in on their retirement funds now that the stock market is at record levels. People held onto their jobs through the recession due to the financial collapse, and now they're finally able to start retiring again.
-
Is goE collecting rent from thinkprogress.com for all the crap BMW has plastered all over this thread?
If not, it should be.
Also, would be curious to know bmw's thoughts on Obama's 9 million enrolled figure.
-
Has anyone been more butthurt by GWB mushing Obamas face on job creation than BMW? I think not.
This meltdown is all the evidence I need.
Also OT, what does fed tapering do the mortgage rates???
-
DROP! DROP! DROP! DROP! DROP!
:Woot:
-
DROP! DROP! DROP! DROP! DROP!
:Woot:
I think it is time to hike interest rates immediately.
-
So last year I refi'd to a 15yr conventional at 2.8 apr with a lender credit that slightly exceeded my closing costs. How'd i do compared to now?
-
So last year I refi'd to a 15yr conventional at 2.8 apr with a lender credit that slightly exceeded my closing costs. How'd i do compared to now?
good.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FBN-BI718_EPOP_E_20140203163902.jpg&hash=983c0115cf351f80cb0b1aa52559b1d9f143bbbb)
Yikes. Just think how bad this would look if Obama's "new normal" part time health insuranceless jobs weren't included. Double-Yikes!
But yeah, we're right where we were pre-recession, per BMW and other mouth breathing libtard lemmings
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FBN-BI718_EPOP_E_20140203163902.jpg&hash=983c0115cf351f80cb0b1aa52559b1d9f143bbbb)
Yikes. Just think how bad this would look if Obama's "new normal" part time health insuranceless jobs weren't included. Double-Yikes!
But yeah, we're right where we were pre-recession, per BMW and other mouth breathing libtard lemmings
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.gallup.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2Fnxq4nzchwu-paoi06of3aw.gif&hash=e13a45c1b29d000a6df18c1fab4be6a465dd082e)
-
Well that's sad as well. :cry:
-
DROP! DROP! DROP! DROP! DROP!
:Woot:
I'm looking for a new house in April, sd, so I get excited when you get excited.
-
Well that's sad as well. :cry:
yeah
-
So last year I refi'd to a 15yr conventional at 2.8 apr with a lender credit that slightly exceeded my closing costs. How'd i do compared to now?
that's a great rate. I also got a 15 a couple years ago at rates that can't be found now. I should have just built a house then. COMING DOWN, THO! :Woot:
-
So last year I refi'd to a 15yr conventional at 2.8 apr with a lender credit that slightly exceeded my closing costs. How'd i do compared to now?
that's a great rate. I also got a 15 a couple years ago at rates that can't be found now. I should have just built a house then. COMING DOWN, THO! :Woot:
I think I could have actually gotten 2.625, but opted for 2.8 and a few grand in my pocket. I don't plan on owning the house for more than maybe 5 more years.
-
I heard the reason home prices declined was because baby boomers were moving into condos and retirement communities, leaving a glut on the market.
-
I heard the reason home prices declined was because baby boomers were moving into condos and retirement communities, leaving a glut on the market.
'Grats on the condo, FSD!
-
I heard the reason home prices declined was because baby boomers were moving into condos and retirement communities, leaving a glut on the market.
'Grats on the condo, FSD!
A dozen posts about basis points on a 15 yr mortgage and you come at me with this?
Get the eff out ta here
-
I heard the reason home prices declined was because baby boomers were moving into condos and retirement communities, leaving a glut on the market.
'Grats on the condo, FSD!
A dozen posts about basis points on a 15 yr mortgage and you come at me with this?
Get the eff out ta here
Still down today! What do you think will happen in the next two weeks?
-
still dropping!
i read some experts saying it may continue to dip down below 4% (30y)
anyone disagree?
-
still dropping!
i read some experts saying it may continue to dip down below 4% (30y)
anyone disagree?
i don't disagree that it (the average) may, but i don't think it's probable.
-
It's pretty much guaranteed to continue dropping because I just refi'd.
-
Another month, another horrible jobs report, another drop in the completely illogical "unemployment rate" as more people give up.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579368562158283286?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304680904579368562158283286.html (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579368562158283286?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304680904579368562158283286.html)
-
This needs reposted.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FBN-BI718_EPOP_E_20140203163902.jpg&hash=983c0115cf351f80cb0b1aa52559b1d9f143bbbb)
-
Not a graph measuring percentage change in percentages, just straight evidence
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FBN-BK818_epop_E_20140207170859.jpg&hash=87f378099b6328352e497bb4524a2a0ceaa0404e)
-
got our 30y today at 4%
-
got our 30y today at 4%
they will start building your house before you get your mortgage? how does that work? just suitcases full of cash until then? or an omaha handshake?
-
got our 30y today at 4%
they will start building your house before you get your mortgage? how does that work? just suitcases full of cash until then? or an omaha handshake?
we just gave them 5%. then if we don't fork over they just keep that and sell the house they just built us I guess :dunno:
-
It's pretty common, even w/o the 5% down. Many builders only require a few grand earnest money, sign a contract, they finance the build through their own construction loan, you finance and close at the time of taking possession at the end if the build and the earnest money is just subtracted from the loan total and the builder keeps it.
-
It's pretty common, even w/o the 5% down. Many builders only require a few grand earnest money, sign a contract, they finance the build through their own construction loan, you finance and close at the time of taking possession at the end if the build and the earnest money is just subtracted from the loan total and the builder keeps it.
that's exactly what I said but in english
-
It's pretty common, even w/o the 5% down. Many builders only require a few grand earnest money, sign a contract, they finance the build through their own construction loan, you finance and close at the time of taking possession at the end if the build and the earnest money is just subtracted from the loan total and the builder keeps it.
Is that different for homes >$1 million?
-
It's pretty common, even w/o the 5% down. Many builders only require a few grand earnest money, sign a contract, they finance the build through their own construction loan, you finance and close at the time of taking possession at the end if the build and the earnest money is just subtracted from the loan total and the builder keeps it.
that's exactly what I said but in english
Assumed that your home value was higher so that 5% equates to more than a couple grand. Also, was reaponding to puni's post.
-
It's pretty common, even w/o the 5% down. Many builders only require a few grand earnest money, sign a contract, they finance the build through their own construction loan, you finance and close at the time of taking possession at the end if the build and the earnest money is just subtracted from the loan total and the builder keeps it.
that's exactly what I said but in english
Assumed that your home value was higher so that 5% equates to more than a couple grand. Also, was reaponding to puni's post.
I know, I was just messing with you
-
It's pretty common, even w/o the 5% down. Many builders only require a few grand earnest money, sign a contract, they finance the build through their own construction loan, you finance and close at the time of taking possession at the end if the build and the earnest money is just subtracted from the loan total and the builder keeps it.
Is that different for homes >$1 million?
No clue. I would imagine that most, if not all, of those are custom rather than spec, and that the earnest money would be higher. Would guess that the construction loan/home loan sitch would be the same, though.
I thought you just bought a house.
Also, well done.
-
It's pretty common, even w/o the 5% down. Many builders only require a few grand earnest money, sign a contract, they finance the build through their own construction loan, you finance and close at the time of taking possession at the end if the build and the earnest money is just subtracted from the loan total and the builder keeps it.
Is that different for homes >$1 million?
Not sure if this works the same way in all states, but in CA, you get a construction loan where the bank will release money to the construction company in smaller amounts as they reach milestones in the construction. Once done, the loan is converted into a mortgage.
-
It's pretty common, even w/o the 5% down. Many builders only require a few grand earnest money, sign a contract, they finance the build through their own construction loan, you finance and close at the time of taking possession at the end if the build and the earnest money is just subtracted from the loan total and the builder keeps it.
Is that different for homes >$1 million?
No clue. I would imagine that most, if not all, of those are custom rather than spec, and that the earnest money would be higher. Would guess that the construction loan/home loan sitch would be the same, though.
I thought you just bought a house.
Also, well done.
I asked because my folks are building a custom home near Portland and they need to do the construction loan deal. Wasn't sure if that was regional or because it was more money or what.
-
It's pretty common, even w/o the 5% down. Many builders only require a few grand earnest money, sign a contract, they finance the build through their own construction loan, you finance and close at the time of taking possession at the end if the build and the earnest money is just subtracted from the loan total and the builder keeps it.
Is that different for homes >$1 million?
Not sure if this works the same way in all states, but in CA, you get a construction loan where the bank will release money to the construction company in smaller amounts as they reach milestones in the construction. Once done, the loan is converted into a mortgage.
It can work that way. If it is going up in a new development where the developer is throwing up houses at the same time, its not necessary.
-
It's pretty common, even w/o the 5% down. Many builders only require a few grand earnest money, sign a contract, they finance the build through their own construction loan, you finance and close at the time of taking possession at the end if the build and the earnest money is just subtracted from the loan total and the builder keeps it.
Is that different for homes >$1 million?
No clue. I would imagine that most, if not all, of those are custom rather than spec, and that the earnest money would be higher. Would guess that the construction loan/home loan sitch would be the same, though.
I thought you just bought a house.
Also, well done.
I asked because my folks are building a custom home near Portland and they need to do the construction loan deal. Wasn't sure if that was regional or because it was more money or what.
they do it both ways here depending on what your builder will allow. ours gave us the option to do either.
-
got our 30y today at 4%
Mine was 4.5% (APR) with 10% down, but I took a slightly higher rate (like an 1/8th percent) for no PMI.
-
looks like both you guys waited too long.... :gocho:
-
looks like both you guys waited too long.... :gocho:
UNDER 4% OVER HERE!
-
looks like both you guys waited too long.... :gocho:
UNDER 4% OVER HERE!
Yep. Feels good, guys.
-
I'm currently in the low 3s, gonna hurt
-
looks like both you guys waited too long.... :gocho:
UNDER 4% OVER HERE!
Yep. Feels good, guys.
can confirm
-
looks like both you guys waited too long.... :gocho:
Wasn't quite ready to move a year ago.
Interest rate still lower than what I have now, though. Didn't refi there at the end because it wouldn't have been worth it since we've been planning a 2014 move now for a couple of years.
-
looks like both you guys waited too long.... :gocho:
UNDER 4% OVER HERE!
:thumbs:
-
15 year, well under 4, own over half! :lynchmob:
-
:fistpump:
-
15 year, well under 4, own over half! :lynchmob:
:Woot:
-
thoughts on potential to drop mortgage rates in the near term? :love:
not likely to drop or rise much near term.
fed exits asset purchases, rates drop like a rock. people in this thread smarter than the fed = 0.
-
for the side discussion people.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2015-01-15/working-poor-are-working-more-than-experts-suspected
-
looks like both you guys waited too long.... :gocho:
Wasn't quite ready to move a year ago.
Interest rate still lower than what I have now, though. Didn't refi there at the end because it wouldn't have been worth it since we've been planning a 2014 move now for a couple of years.
Refinance now, friends. Rates are great.
I just locked in a 3.375% Our house appraised for about $12k over what we expected, so I'm not bringing any money to close. :gocho:
We wanted to do a 15 or 20 year loan because those rates are even better, but we want to do about $75k of work here in the next five years or so, so we figured we'd work on that and then refi to a shorter loan in 5-10 again if the rates look good. Otherwise, we'll just pay off early.
Regardless, mortgage term and retirement date are still in line. :crossfingers:
-
A crappy economy is great for mortgage rates.
-
A crappy economy is great for mortgage rates.
but good for people who own multiple pieces of property and can lev those.
-
A crappy economy is great for mortgage rates.
but good for people who own multiple pieces of property and can lev those.
:thumbs: The rich get richer :kstategrad:
-
http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article122394264.html (http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article122394264.html)
-
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=38257.msg1633425#msg1633425
:gocho:
-
:gocho: