Yup. He's back and as a real estate broker he has nothing but the highest reviews. Zillow Profile: https://www.zillow.com/profile/caseyconstantine/
- Address:
- Soldin10.com
3550 Watt Ave #140
Sacramento, CA 95821 - Phone:
- (916) 800-1030
- Websites:
- FacebookSoldin10.comTwitter
- Screen name:
- caseyconstantine
- Member since:
- 08/17/2016
- Licenses:
- CalBRE 01946942 (California Broker)
- NMLS 1440338 (Mortgage Loan Originator)
- Notary Public 2119343 (Certified Signing Agent)
- Languages:
- English, Russian
51 comments:
Real estate is just a side gig while he's waiting for his Bitcoin ship to come in.
Our old friend "bohica" says it is all in on litecoin despite being months behind on his bills.
Gee, he's a notary. Have you ever actually communicated with him? It took him a long time to find out about bitcoin.
You expect anything else?
Too bad the old Casey sites have sunk down into the muck of the Internet. Caseypedia is now (or a new) scammer site.
Who is Casey Serin?
John Galt.
I am no longer a member of the notarati
We just braked for a huge her on .m
Heron.
We have both white and grey heron. Sometimes they use our driveway for a runway.
Good Morning!
More rain yesterday, 3/4" but sunshine today and back to seasonal warm 77F.
I need a jobs so I can get some rest!
Casey brings out some old names and some I don't recognize, nice.
The part of my body that needs checking today is my eyes. Wink. Eyes🙄
So what's on for today?
Lunch with a friend. Probably to wet to move dirt but some cement forms need to be made, maybe poured. I got 20 years of work left so I'm not going anywhere. :)
Second electrical. Recess LEDs and specialty boxes.
I have my garbage disposals (2) on fiber optic switches with timers. Nice for wet hands. Hot tub knock offs.
Unemployment down to 3.9.
Full employment?
The 3.9 U3 print makes headlines.
But, the drop was completely due to drop in labor force. (-236k). Per the household survey (the one that computes the U3), total number of employed only rose 3k.
Finally found an article that is at least mentioning what I've been saying about full employment:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/20/why-trump-should-be-more-wary-of-below-4-percent-unemployment-than-he-seems-to-be/?utm_term=.75ab630061c8
I had noticed the pattern in the data earlier, but really put my theory together after reading a book called "Ubiquity", examining the concept of "Critical States" in regard to a number of things (earthquakes, avalanches, and economics).
For the time being I'm sticking to my Q4 recession prediction, but I'm starting to think that call might end up being just a tad late.
Of course, since the economists are all looking for the snowflake that causes the avalanche (while ignoring the feet of snow that have already fallen), whenever the next recession does come - it will be attributed to whatever the most juicy random event that makes good for a good headline.
All any of them can do is really look in the rear view mirror. Mish has a piece on data that pretty much points out that there is data for any view you want.
B-2 shows no improvement over last year hours worked but OT was up a tick on 2 out of three covered job groups. Nothing new or earth shattering IMO.
Yeah, the statement on the news as to why the dow went up or down, is usually meaningless, unless say, the Fed's raised rates 3/4 %, or some other huge anomily.
Until the participation rate rises even just a little and part time for economic reasons falls it isn't full employment.
For the time being I'm sticking to my Q4 recession prediction, but I'm starting to think that call might end up being just a tad late.
A general widespread softness not really worrisome except it is so general. The only bright spot is the falling trade deficit. Construction employment keeps adding and that doesn't make sense. Bears watching.
But I guess they have to say something, or someone will take their slot.
Why you guys have a lot of rebuilding to do, and so do we.
Dawg,
I think your hope of any meaningful participation rate increase is a pipe dream for the next 10 years, (when the last of the Boomers finally retire).
As for PT for Economic reasons -- the best it ever got during the Bush recovery was precisely 2 months under 4.1 million. So, with the current level of 4.9M, (there were two months at 4.8 late last year, btw), I could see a tiny bit of wiggle room. But, AT BEST, you're talking another half million.
I'm skeptical of that happening due to market changes and a greater reluctance by some portions of the employer market to go there. I think it's a coin flip as to whether we hit 4.5M before the next recession.
Consider this: The labor force in 1970 was basically half what it is today (80M to 160M). Yes, First Time Claims for UI are at 1970s level. HALF as many UI claims (by rate) over that time span. Why? IMO, it's because of "efficiencies" in the market place. Employers are leveraging every trick in the book to AVOID hiring FT workers.
You must believe that there remain enough employers both willing and able to change jobs from PT to FT to make a significant impact on the BLS figures. My belief is that the ones who will already have.
Mind you - I'm not trying to paint a picture where it's all the fault of greedy business owners. I also believe the bulk of the unemployed (and especially the PT for Econ Reasons) are "unemployable". The "best" workers get hired first - so at "some point" when unemployment gets low, what is left are the worst of the lot - the ones not just lacking skills, but lacking discipline, motivation, work ethic.
And there is ZERO evidence I've seen that suggests the aggregate work ethic in America has been increasing in the past 50 years - and I've plenty of anecdotal evidence of it heading the opposite direction.
IMO, the 6M people that are currently unemployed - and the 5M who are PT for economic are largely NOT people that will actually improve productivity if/when they do get hired.
Of course, a large portion of the 6M unemployed are just standard latency - (I'd guess 1/2 to 2/3 of them) - where they will have little trouble finding a new job (in the current market), but will be instantly replaced by the standard on-going layoffs that are a part of any working economy.
I could be wrong. I could be underestimating the work ethic of the next generation - and overestimating the greed and intransigence of the employers who have not already responded to the tightening job market. Even then, however, best case, we're talking a few extra months.
So, here's the basic math behind my view that job growth for the next decade is heading to near zero:
We have 300,000 people retiring every month, (which is the new norm until 2029), you need 500,000 new workers PER MONTH to maintain the +200k we've enjoyed for the past decade. We don't have anywhere near that.
In the 90s, population was growing roughly 3M a year. (It's slowed of late to about 2M a year). But that is net. We have about 2.5M people die each year. So, the ballpark is 5.5 new people total, (heading into the job market for the first time), which is 458k a month - if 100% go into the job market. Except our working age participation is only about 82% and even at its peak never hit 85%.
At 82% participation, you're getting 375k a month in compared to 300k a month out. That's "best case". Except, a large chunk of our population increase back in the '90s was due to both legal and illegal immigration. We've spent the last 10 years reducing the inflow AND increasing the return of the immigrants, (I've read multiple place, we have been net negative for several years in regards to the illegals). So, even with the higher participation rates among immigrants (compared to natives), Numerically, we simply are not generating enough new workers to replace the retirees and the dying.
Of course, recessions create an extra pool of idle workers, so as you are recapturing them, you can add more jobs than "new" workers.
Assuming we come magically prevent a future recession - then, the math suggests, we would be adding "maybe" 50,000 jobs a month for the next decade. More likely, we would start at 50k and it would slowly drop (I'm not certain it would actually go negative, but I'm pretty sure it would be close).
We are close in our thinking.
• I think automation is going to steal more job slots at an increasing pace.
• Even in a tighter labor market for the right skills the youth are comfortable with gig jobs. Freedom and all that.
• There remains a pool of potential employed in the Not In Labor Force category that we have written off. I think a small amount will continuously trickle back.
I think 80-100k/mo will hold conditions steady in a real +2.5% GDP.
I don't think for the next 10 years boomers will retire at the rate you assume. Many of them are already out and the ones left are holding because they are needed or because they need to keep working.
Kali.has a lot to rebuild.
You should track down nPOIC and ask him about the horrors of rebuilding.
I bow to Firemane's intelligence. But I think the pt for econ reasons are more able than you think. Also what or for mom econ reasons. Kids grow up and go to school, a disabled relative gets better
Now mom wamts to work full time. Or, a highly desireable ft job opens up. Or. Or.
Black people are stuck forever in the high sixes?
My retired hub sells the novel he is working on? Does he retroactively become employed?
I know, I can't even find a painter. Took 6 months to find a roofer. Neither had to do with the hurricane. Want to redo 2 bathrooms. Nix popcorn ceilings. Fix turtle damage. Etc. We have the money.
He just might.
Popcorn in my house went ASAP. We had it scraped and hard plaster finished. Any asbestos? I do not know. I do not want to know. It is gone.
The LEDs just got their holes.
Approaching another milestone with electrical and plumbing and gas.Pictures when we get there. Maximum ugly.
Okay - using the current age 67 retirement age (for anyone born after 1959). Here are the annual BIRTHS from 65 years in the past going forward - (though SS "retirement" is already moving toward 67 for the vast majority of those not already out of the labor pool).
SS "Full Retirement" age for those born in 1943-1954 is 66 years.
That increases by 2 months per year and maxes at age 67 for everyone born 1960 and beyond. here are the births per year since 1954, (and projected retirement year.
1950 (2016) - 3.63M
1951 (2017) - 3.82
1952 (2018) - 3.91
1953 (2019) - 3.96
1954 (2020) - 4.08
1955 (2021) - 4.09
1956 (2022) - 4.22
1957 (2023) - 4.30
1958 (2024) - 4.25
1959 (2025) - 4.24
1960 (2027) - 4.26
1961 (2028) - 4.27
1962 (2029) - 4.17
1963 (2030) - 4.10
1964 (2031) - 4.03
Then it drops below 4 million
3.76
3.6
3.5
3.5
While there was some variation, we ran about 3.9 births per year in the '90s, and around 4M a year in the early 2000s, (which dropped below 4M since 2010.
The Boomer retirement pace doesn't peak until 2023. It's almost 2 years before we actually hit the first 4M input year.
The BLS has only been tracking P-rate over 65 (with no disability), since 2008. Is began at 21.6% in June of 2008, and while extremely volatile from month to month, has peaked at 24.9% in April of 2017 (but is currently at 24.4%. (I'm guessing randomness of deaths may explain the volatility of the series). In any case, there is clearly an upper boundary of how many people over 65 who will be BOTH willing and able to continue in the labor force.
The fact that life expectancy has actually gone backward the last couple of years does NOT bode well for significant increases in post-retirement age workers, (though it may begin making the P-rate LOOK better).
I hate it too. We replaced it with I forget what, which is pealing dreadfully.
Ever think about the tons of asbestos dust created by car brakes for decades? It has to be in most everybody's lungs from the area. I am not afraid to and have removed asbestos in the past but there is big money in fear.
Isnt that due to Mostly oxy and other legal drugs? What if you took druggies out?
The hub worked nut almost 71. He's been taking creative writing classes and working on a sci fi novel.
I take history classes and go to the doctors. And give speeches at the UU.
And gave a great recital of Sea Fever last week at open mike nite.
Is this still happening?
When I worked my accountant always put me down as a mechanic on tax returns and not a businessman I really was. My income had to mislead the data collected back then. Now retired for 17 years am I really retired as a active RRE investor, rental operator?
E,
PT for non-economic reasons is mostly people who just don't want a FT job. But, yes, it does include those prevented from a FT job by external life forces (school, elder care, etc.)
(And please do not bow to my intelligence)
And my beliefs on the makeup of the PT for Econ is based on where the total numbers lie compared to previous historical low points.
Basically, if you're looking at 8 million PT for Econ vs. 4 million PT for Econ - you are NOT looking at the same cross section of peoples and skills.
I knew a lady - college degree in accounting - but she was a stay-at-home Mom for 20 years and got her degree at age 50. She got one job, worked for awhile, got laid off back in 2009. She kept looking for work, but her husband made enough that she didn't "need" the money. So, she was picky and turned down offers because the pay wasn't where she thought it should be. She finally finds an easy PT job and takes it. Still "willing" to work FT. Technically, she is PT for economic reasons. If she leaves the PT job, but keeps looking, she remains a part of the labor force, (no matter how serious she really is about getting a job).
Not saying she represents a huge portion of the pie - but demonstrating there are a TON of different stories of who makes up each labor category. PT for Econ in 2010 was a huge cross section of everyone who got laid off from multiple industries with every skill imaginable. By 2015, the best and brightest were employed, retired or dead. By 2018 ... the PT for Econ pool looks very different.
I would expect most are geographically screwed (mostly rural and unwilling to move). Though, there are also some urban areas with few job opportunities, too. And other areas have way more job openings than unemployed available, (some states with low U3 are trolling states with higher unemployment to try and convince people to move).
"Unemployable" due to location.
Others are unemployable due to personal aspects (drugs, alcohol, lack of disciple, skills, etc.)
Others are unemployable because employers create barriers (not worth it to hire someone over 60 -- don't want to provide benefits, so create 2 PT jobs instead of 1 FT job, etc.)
The tendency for humans is to paint with one brush.
The unemployed are lazy!
The unemployed are victims of greedy business owners!
The truth is somewhere in between - but the ratio is not a constant. As the number of unemployed drops, the makeup of that pool alters.
Damnit. Why isn’t there a website where reasonable people can discuss housing and Econ in a civil manner like in the old days?
The LED lights are in. The workers are figuring out that I am not an a-hole. This usually takes longer.
Be greatful, dawg, not sarcastic,
we chose You.
Maybe if the discouraged hear the rate went down, they will become less discouraged and look for work
. . And find it.
The drop outs have decreased from 1.5 m to 1.2. No reason it couldnt go down to a mere million.
Can dawg ask poic to come back???
Maybe we could.press the people who foolishly stay under bad circumstances like the Brits used to?
Good morning everyone.
Good Morning!
84F and sausage egg and cheese quesadilla grilled outdoors on the flat top!
Who needs a kitchen? :)
Saw manatees at the Columbus replica ships in Titusville, which actually looks nice.
Mrs. DaWg?
I don't think Mrs Dawg is in the mood to do cooking in the living room with the crock pot and do dishes in the bathtub. IMO. Ducks!
Cooked bacon and eggs on the grill. Paper plates and plastic forks.
New post with pictures.
Post a Comment