From: kludge@panix.com   
      
   Keith F. Lynch  wrote:   
   >Scott Dorsey  wrote:   
   >> Keith F. Lynch  wrote:   
   >>> Presumably it's actually worth far more than $168,089 today,   
   >>> meaning that the official inflation rate is an enormous   
   >>> underestimate.   
   >   
   >> This may be true, although the price for a small three-bedroom   
   >> house in this town isn't much more than that these days.   
   >   
   >What town is that?   
      
   Williamsburg, Virgina.  You get farther out into rural areas and houses   
   get much cheaper too.  In downtown Richmond they are far more expensive.   
      
   The problem in Williamsburg is that all of the new houses are these   
   giant cardboard mansions that are designed for the retirees who are   
   moving into town.  They are huge houses that are much more expensive   
   than typical housing in the area, and built to fall apart after a few   
   years.   
      
   >> However, although the price for housing has increased far faster   
   >> than inflation, the price for food has not increased anywhere near   
   >> as much as inflation.  In the fifties, food was often the largest   
   >> expense in a family budget, whereas today it is usually housing   
   >> (or medical expenses).   
   >   
   >Food inflation may be relatively small averaged over all the decades   
   >since the 1950s, but I think it's relatively high over the past decade   
   >or two.  I'm spending about twice as much on food as I did at the turn   
   >of the century, and I'm certainly not eating twice as much, nor am I   
   >eating a higher grade of food.   
      
   It has been relatively high in the past five years or so, yes.  But   
   food still doesn't make up anywhere near the percentage of the household   
   budget than it used to.   
      
   And there are plenty of other things... used to be a color TV set was   
   a few week's wages, now color TV sets are so cheap that burglars do not   
   even bother with them.   
      
   >> A lot of this is because rental houses that used to be owned by   
   >> independent landlords are now being bought up by real estate   
   >> investment trusts which basically optimize everything for maximum   
   >> return.  There are many apartment buildings in NYC which are   
   >> completely empty because the reit that runs them can't rent them   
   >> out at market rate, and if they rented them below market it would   
   >> reduce the value of their other properties.   
   >   
   >Maybe in NYC, but around here there are few vacant houses or   
   >apartments.  I also don't see how the price-demand curves can be such   
   >that vacancies benefit landlords.   
      
   Don't know about NoVa but there are a lot of vacant apartments in NW DC.   
   Not so much in SE.  They aren't for rent at any price.   
      
   >> The rental problem is less the consequence of the housing shortage   
   >> as a consequence of direct market manipulation.   
   >   
   >I'm hoping that this will be mitigated by the replacement of surplus   
   >office buildings with apartments, now that more people are working   
   >from home.  For instance the office building I was falsely convicted   
   >of burglarizing nearly half a century ago was demolished this year,   
   >to use the land for apartments.   
      
   This is a good thing, but if the apartments aren't available at a fair   
   price, or aren't available at all, it doesn't matter.   
      
   >But inflation isn't just concentrated on housing and medical care.   
   >Schooling (from infant day care through university), legal services   
   >(a good felony defense costs more than a house), construction (the   
   >new Yankee Stadium cost a thousand times the old one, and seats fewer   
   >spectators) and maintenance are also increasingly unaffordable.   
      
   I agree with some of these, and I point out that schooling is the thing   
   that most should be subsidized in that the people who need it are not   
   the people who can make financial decisions about it.   
      
   Maintenance is interesting... maintenance is expensive, but maintenance   
   is sure a lot cheaper than repairs.  Unfortunately a lot of people do not   
   seem to understand this (and certainly my father did not).   
      
   >The DC Metrorail system is once again demanding higher fares and   
   >higher subsidies, and once again threatening to cut service to the   
   >bone if they don't get everything they want.  I wish someone would   
   >call their bluff.  Fire them all and start over with people who are   
   >more competent and less greedy.   
      
   I will say that they are actually trying to fix the system, but what they   
   are dealing with is a system that has not been getting proper maintenance   
   for many decades.  As pointed out maintenance is much cheaper than   
   repairs.  They are now attempting to do repairs on a system which is in   
   use, often with staff which is extremely reluctant to actually get repairs   
   done.  It's bad, but I actually see people doing track repairs instead of   
   sitting around smoking crack and staring at the damaged track section north   
   of Takoma Park which has been unsafe for so many years.   
      
   My question is that once they have things to the point where the system is   
   working again, what are they going to do to keep it that way?   
   --scott   
   --   
   "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)