Delinquencies improve, but procedural delays plague NY/NJ

From the NYT:

Delinquencies on the Decline

In another sign of an improving market, mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures are down significantly since last year — although procedural impediments have tempered progress on the East Coast, especially in New York and New Jersey.

The national mortgage delinquency rate — defined as borrowers at least 60 days past due on their payments — shrank by 26 percent in the second quarter, when compared with the same period in 2012, according to TransUnion, a credit information service.

The delinquency rate is now 4.09 percent — still about double prerecession levels, but on a downward trend, according to Tim Martin, the group vice president for United States housing in TransUnion’s financial services business unit. “We had a really good start to the year,” he said. “This is the third quarter in a row where we’ve had record improvements.”

Florida and Nevada have the highest delinquency rates — 9.9 and 7.7 percent. But just behind them are New Jersey, at 7.2 percent, and New York, at 5.7 percent.

“They are not the worst delinquency states,” Mr. Martin said, “but they’ve made the least progress since their peak out of other states in the country.”

Although neither New York nor New Jersey experienced the boom-and-bust scenario that dragged down the Florida and Nevada markets, their foreclosure timelines have been longer because of delays in the process, caused by logjams in state courts.

Sam Khater, the deputy chief economist of CoreLogic, a residential property information provider, described it this way: “The real issue in New York and New Jersey is, you had a slow drip of water coming through, and the drain was plugged. Even a slow drip will build up after a while.”

This regional backup is also evident in foreclosure inventory levels. The three states with the biggest inventories were Florida (8.6 percent), New Jersey (6 percent) and New York (4.8 percent). Connecticut came in fourth, at 4.2 percent. But nationally, the number of homes in some stage of foreclosure had dropped off by 28 percent, to roughly 1 million, as of the end of June, according to a CoreLogic analysis.

Mr. Martin predicted that it would take two more years for delinquency rates to reach normal levels. The rapid declines of the last several quarters will most likely slow with rising interest rates, which limits people’s ability to refinance and buy homes. But the rate could still dip below 4 percent by the end of the year, he said. Essentially, the nature of the delinquent mortgages no longer looks so ominous.

“People can stop getting scared off by this big number,” Mr. Martin said. “It’s just a bubble of folks who haven’t worked their way through the process.”

This entry was posted in Economics, Foreclosures, Housing Recovery, Mortgages. Bookmark the permalink.

99 Responses to Delinquencies improve, but procedural delays plague NY/NJ

  1. Fast Eddie says:

    grim,

    What’s the inventory numbers looking like? I just haven’t paid attention to it. Is there an actual selection starting to build or is it still crumbs and multiple offers on anything worthwhile?

  2. grim says:

    Yeah there is some interesting stuff, maybe a bit more build up, lots of newer listings over the past 2 months. Problem, it’s all $50k higher.

    And anything good goes almost immediately.

  3. grim says:

    By the way, anyone looking for GOOOD Italian pastry – Pallazone 1960 in Wayne (by Willowbrook mall).

    I didn’t think too much of this place when I saw it open, the location really stinks. Stopped in yesterday, this stuff is top notch. Just finished off the tiramisu with coffee. This place blows away all the other “big names”.

  4. Fast Eddie says:

    Problem, it’s all $50k higher

    Pant up demand? Perhaps a dead cat bounce? 30 year realtor claims that the pipeline is ready to open based on his post last week. I have no idea if that’s an advantage or not. More inventory means more selection? Who the f.uck knows any more. I have to take a look at njmls and see what’s cooking. The problem is, I think those listings are a front and I don’t trust a thing those f.ucks are putting out there. I’ve discussed it ad nauseum, I’m not going to go into it again. I need more coffee. “Waiter! Get off your fat @ss and get me more coffee!”

  5. Fast Eddie says:

    Oooo!! Grim, I gotta try that place!

  6. Gooners march toward relegation begins today.

  7. Fast Eddie says:

    grim,

    287 Pine St. went for 610K?

    Across the street asking 775K –> http://www.njmls.com/listings/index.cfm?action=dsp.info&mlsnum=1326279&dayssince=&countysearch=false

  8. grim says:

    If there is a county that appears to be turning YOY positive from an inventory perspective, I’d point to Sussex. There are a number of towns that are showing YOY increases in inventory, along with a net increase in new listings as well. For Example:

    Hopatcong
    2012 – 253 Active/26 New Listings
    2013 – 265 Active/36 New Listings

    Hardyston
    2012 – 181 Active/14 New Listings
    2013 – 194 Active/19 New Listings

    Ogdensburg
    2012 – 18 Active/1 New Listing
    2013 – 20 Active/5 New Listings

    Franklin
    2012 – 49 Active/7 New Listings
    2013 – 62 Active/13 New Listings

    Now, there are many towns that show the opposite, but on net Sussex is closest. For reference, Hunterdon and Warren are still further out.

  9. nwnj says:

    Everyone in NJ should feel a lot safer out there today, 300k was just spent to record license plates of everyone going to crappy mall. This critical infrastructure is now safe from terrorists.

    http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2013/08/report_freehold_raceway_mall_installs_license_plate_readers.html

  10. anon (the good one) says:

    from wsj/market watch

    @Quantanamo: Have more sex, make more money. Employees that have sex over 4 times a week have 5% bigger wage packets. http://t.co/ahhJQmihfx

  11. anon (the good one) says:

    that’s why I get frequent raises. And salary wise too.

  12. Painhrtz - Disobey! says:

    Grim the one thing I miss about BC I have to drive to Morristown for an OK canoli or eclair.

  13. Ben says:

    Inventorywise, I was seeing nothing much in Mercer co. We tried putting in an offer on a quality house only to find out, they already entered attorney review. What we saw happening was that any house that needs work sticks around for a long long time while any home that is actually move in ready flies off the market. We saw a beautiful home that was perfect and the first open house was a few days after it came on. There had to be at least 50 people in and out of the open house. We are now in attorney review on it but I realistically paid 15k more than I would have normally been willing to knowing that one of those yuppies was gonna swoop it up. I’d say, there is pent up demand for decent housing, which is few and far between in NJ. Most people in NJ didn’t take care of their homes.

  14. grim says:

    I drive all the way out to Balthazar in Englewood just to get a decent croissant.

  15. Ben says:

    The best croissant in the world is in Princeton NJ at the Little Chef bakery. The guy makes like 2 dozen each day and they sell out quick. Sometimes, he’s just randomly closed and when you walk into his shop, he looks at you like “how dare you come into my store”. Total weirdo. But seriously, the croissant is amazing. I think he does custom pastries for the rich Princeton crowd and that’s his bread and butter. You can’t make a living selling 24 croissants a day.

  16. Michael says:

    14-Ben- I think you summed up the nj housing market. Comps are a major challenge right now. For example, a 3,747 sq ft house in wayne, sold for 665,000 in 2013 at 177 $ sq ft. A 2,690 sq ft house a couple houses away sold for 655,000 in December of 2011, coming in at 244 $ sq ft. The smaller house was built in 1994 but has been totally updated. The 1990 house that was much larger has never been updated. This is the problem with ignorant people looking to buy houses and basing their price on zillow’s and trulia’s estimates. I know for wayne, the zestimates are a joke. They make absolutely no sense. Some houses sell below the zestimates and others sell way above it. Also, the tax records are totally wrong on zillow too. Some houses taxes have remained the same for 3 years, which is laughable. My tax records on zillow are off by a 1,000 dollars. So ignorant friends of mine think that I’m lying about my taxes, thanks to zillow. Of course I set them straight by having my sister send them the gsmls email to prove to them that the zillow tax rate is wrong. I think it’s a joke with how many people base their idea of a house price on a zillow estimate. Another reason that you will always need realtors.

  17. Michael says:

    I totally agree that a lot of houses sitting on the market have to be totally gutted. Thsts why they are not selling. No one wants to deal with shady contractors. They would much rather just buy a move in ready home that has been taken care of. Outdated houses, that have been neglected are not going anywhere. Only the bare minimum maintenance had been performed. Landscaping has not been touched for years. No one wants to deal with these kind of houses, and rightfully so. So even when someone drops the price to a great value, they still sit. People think of having to deal with a shady contractors for the next year or two and say no thanks, even with a 100,000 discount.

  18. NJCoast says:

    Food geeks. Off to the beach. Going to cook up some lobsters. Boiling them in ocean water makes them yummy.

  19. Michael says:

    Anyone from wayne, see the money pouring into pines lakes. As we speak 5 or 6 houses have been knocked down with brand new custom homes going up. The houses (all located on the lake) that were knocked down were small but recently updated. They were sold in the past year for prices close to the 1 million mark and know nocked down. There are now almost no original small lake house properties that are actually on the lake.

  20. Michael says:

    20- correction- now knocked down. I have a major problem with not proof reading.

  21. Cynical Me says:

    Yesterday in the post about the Gun Law bills signed by the Fatman©, I notice this little gem:

    • Allow authorities to impound cars if an occupant illegally possesses a weapon of if they are used in cases of prostitution and buying or selling illegal drugs.

    This little gem will be a gold mine to connected towing contractors and other interested parties through out the state. As someone that had first row seats in the mid 90’s – biggest police corruption scandal in NJ (21 went up the pokie). I can tell you know that this law is a BIG mistake.

    A little well place dime bag (the classic way of arresting someone you got nothing on – every questionable cop keeps one in his pocket in case he needs it) and your $100,000 Mercedes is gone, and is up to you to prove otherwise. By the way, this is what a lot of counties in the South and Texas do with out state well heeled drivers.

    If you buy an expensive car from now on. You are a fool and are a Target.

  22. Hughesrep says:

    Clot

    Any 120 in stock?

    Didn’t know it came out already. My regular store in pt pleasant saved me one.

    Would like to take a couple to my dad and brother when I go this weekend

  23. Michael says:

    22- The police are a part of one big legal extortion scheme with their salaries and senseless arrests. How does arresting someone for drugs help keep me safe? By having to now help pay for their stay in jail? To pay for the public defendant, judge, and security at the court case all to stop this individual from taking drugs ( which won’t stop them one bit)? Now that’s a waste of money.

  24. joyce says:

    Why do you think so many people do not like the idea?

    Fabius Maximus says:
    August 16, 2013 at 11:14 pm
    #42 Joyce
    Not only would I not have a problem with it, I actively encourage it. Let Texas secede and replace with Puerto Rico and you don’t even have to take a star off the flag.

  25. anon (the good one) says:

    count me as one. 0.0% 36 months. $0 financing fees.
    negotiated a cash purchased and “changed” my mind last minute.
    took the cash and bought Etf ,6%

    @WSJ: There are now more auto loans than mortgages in the U.S. Most of them are for older americans. http://t.co/2tTvzKrK1z

  26. chicagofinance says:

    Freehold Raceway is not a crappy mall…..I don’t go there, but they have a nice mix of stores, there is no major urban area abutting it (unless you count Freehold Boro), and it has a more modern design with stores flanking the outside……it is also small enough to get in and out very quickly…..

    nwnj says:
    August 17, 2013 at 8:53 am
    Everyone in NJ should feel a lot safer out there today, 300k was just spent to record license plates of everyone going to crappy mall. This critical infrastructure is now safe from terrorists.

  27. chicagofinance says:

    Dogfish Head?

    Hughesrep says:
    August 17, 2013 at 12:03 pm
    Clot

    Any 120 in stock?

    Didn’t know it came out already. My regular store in pt pleasant saved me one.

    Would like to take a couple to my dad and brother when I go this weekend

  28. nwnj says:

    I consider every mall crappy, they’re obsolete to me. But that’s beside the point.

    The whole premise of the program is absurd. I don’t how a private shopping mall is declared critical infrastructure and eligible for a DHS grant, and how recording the activity of law abiding people on a constant basis is going to make the place any safer.

    It’s really just expanding the digital dragnet NSA style. I’m sure the local cops are already figuring out ways to use the system to catch common criminals and even expired registrations, completely paid for under the premise of “anti terrorism”
    chicagofinance says:
    August 17, 2013 at 2:01 pm
    Freehold Raceway is not a crappy mall…..I don’t go there, but they have a nice mix of stores, there is no major urban area abutting it (unless you count Freehold Boro), and it has a more modern design with stores flanking the outside……it is also small enough to get in and out very quickly…..

  29. Hughesrep says:

    Yes

  30. Ben says:

    Freehold Raceway Mall lost all its appeal the day Roli Boli left.

  31. Ben says:

    NJ Monthly school rankings out. Whoever is in charge of this methodology probably deserves to be shot. The rankings make no sense whatsoever. Whatever, its fun to watch parents throw a shit fit about these rankings.

  32. anon (the good one) says:

    @SenSanders: 18 million children have parents who will get a raise by increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. #RaiseTheWage

  33. 1987 Condo says:

    #33…you have a link?

  34. relo says:

    36:

    Cool. Apparently I’m a year younger than I thought

  35. 1987 Condo says:

    #36..that is 2012?

  36. Comrade Nom Deplume at the beach says:

    Do as I say, not as I do . . .

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/06/matt-damon-private-school-public_n_3714091.html

    Apologies if this was posted.

  37. Ben says:

    Yes, goto the list at the bottom, it says it was updated for 2013.

  38. grim says:

    Looks the same as last year, the US News HS ranking was released, but it’s largely garbage.

  39. Ben says:

    actually, yeah, I’m thinking those are still the old rankings and we gotta buy the magazine to see the new ones right now. My bad….

    Yeah, as a teacher of one of these consistently top performing districts…I would put zero faith into these rankings. You see districts with insanely high scores behind a school district like Weehauken. It seems that there is an overly significant weighting on the size of the school alone. I would look at the %advanced proficient in the HSPA category along with average SAT score and AP passing rate. Those seem to be the best indicators of student performance.

    I wouldn’t care either way though. Your kid is your kid and if you put them in a halfway decent school, they should get what they need. I’m always amazed at how these parents go into the poor house trying to get into these districts while their kid at home is a mediocre student. You’d never convince me that some kid taking all AP classes his junior and senior year is getting less of an education than someone in Tenafly.

  40. Michael says:

    http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/war_between_gov_christie_senate_threatens_justice_itself_experts_say.html#incart_river_default

    Political games… Children at play. What an embarrassment.

    essexspook
    “What a foolish hoax on the New Jersey idiots. Christie wants to show the national Republicans that he has Hispanic support. He has carefully plotted an attention getting series of moves to attract the eye of Hispanics in the State and nation. He promises Hoens a bigger payday if elected President or Vice President in 2016. She buys the plan….New Jersey is too small for both of their ambitions. Where is the local news assessment?..too myopic and ill informed…sensational and trite…superficial and whining but no real analysis!”

  41. Comrade Nom Deplume at the beach says:

    I think that it’s time for The One to go over to Egypt and whip out his Nobel Peace Prize.

    There, problem solved.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/100970062

  42. Comrade Nom Deplume at the beach says:

    I think that it’s time for The One to go over to Egypt and whip out his Nobel Peace Prize.

    There, problem solved.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/100970062

  43. Comrade Nom Deplume at the beach says:

    [46] Michael

    These sort of proposals have been around forever. And they are usually opposed by the left wing who, writ large, profess to want jobs but seem to avoid every opportunity to work. And mathematically, it makes sense. If you are getting the maximum unemployment benefit in New Jersey, and were offered a job in New York City, they would have to pay you over $25 an hour to make it worth your while. I know some laid off attorneys who turned down document review work because it was more economically feasible to sit on your butt in New Jersey for $15 an hour rather than work for $23 in NYC.

    In Massachusetts decades ago, a Democratic governor proposed a welfare to work requirement called workfare. The premise was that if you were on welfare and able bodied, you should be compelled to join what were essentially state work projects And provide some work for your welfare check. In essence, this was exactly what Roosevelt did with the CCC and some other organizations.

    Liberals and unions went nuts. They fought it hammer and tong. The effort died a slow and publicly agonizing death. Ironically, some of this work is now being done by prisoners and others who are doing community service, for no compensation whatsoever.

  44. Michael says:

    “The fuller explanation starts to come into focus when we consider the political and economic conditions that prevailed right after World War II. At that historical moment, the United States displayed much narrower gaps between the rich and poor than we do now.1 The gains of economic growth back then would be much more broadly distributed. And working families–well, white working families at least2–enjoyed much greater economic security. Why?

    This shared prosperity of the postwar years was no accident or lucky combination of circumstances. A “rising tide” of robust economic growth does not necessarily lift all boats. Political struggle and policy choices determine whose boats rise. The inequality of the 20th century’s early years actually began closing before economic growth took off in the 1940s, as a consequence of the political response to the Great Depression.3

    Thanks to this response, federal support for collective bargaining rights sustained a surge in labor organization that dramatically improving the bargaining power of America’s workers. Other political innovations of the New Deal—ranging from social security to the minimum wage—secured a floor for working class incomes. Postwar social movements, especially civil rights and “second wave” feminism, then girded that floor by closing off avenues for discrimination.4

    The nations’ tax system. meanwhile, and new regulatory obstacles to speculative finance erected something of a ceiling for higher incomes. And substantial public investments—the GI Bill support for access to higher education, mortgage subsidies for veterans, housing projects, the interstate highway system, and the Cold War—would kept the rest of the structure in pretty good repair.5

    Since then, that structure has essentially collapsed. The conventional wisdom describes this collapse as an unfortunate but necessary response to changing economic conditions. The world has become a leaner and meaner and more competitive place, so the argument goes. As a result, the policies of the New Deal—and the costs they imposed on business—had to go.

    But there is little evidence to actually support this account. Indeed the initial handwringing over American economic decline came at a time when our principal competitors, Japan and Germany, boasted both higher wages and more expansive social programs than the United States.6

    Political choices, not economic necessity, dismantled the New Deal. Future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell would first sketch out the organizational and ideological dimensions these choices in a now infamous 1971 memorandum to friends at the American Chamber of Commerce (see sidebar below). The conservative ascendance in state and national politics then etched these choices across the political landscape. The policy consequences have been dramatic: steep cuts in social spending, the political abandonment of organized labor, deregulation and privatization, tax cuts, punitive cycles of unemployment—all justified in the name of lowering business costs, capturing economic efficiencies, and unleashing markets.

    Sidebar: The Powell Memorandum

    But these lofty aims camouflage the real policy goal of the pushback against the New Deal: a redistribution of income upwards via the erosion of the hard-earned bargaining power of ordinary Americans. Rising inequality was not a lamentable side effect of America’s new policy framework. Rising inequality was its intent.7 “

  45. Michael says:

    The fuller explanation starts to come into focus when we consider the political and economic conditions that prevailed right after World War II. At that historical moment, the United States displayed much narrower gaps between the rich and poor than we do now.1 The gains of economic growth back then would be much more broadly distributed. And working families–well, white working families at least2–enjoyed much greater economic security. Why?

    This shared prosperity of the postwar years was no accident or lucky combination of circumstances. A “rising tide” of robust economic growth does not necessarily lift all boats. Political struggle and policy choices determine whose boats rise. The inequality of the 20th century’s early years actually began closing before economic growth took off in the 1940s, as a consequence of the political response to the Great Depression.3

    Thanks to this response, federal support for collective bargaining rights sustained a surge in labor organization that dramatically improving the bargaining power of America’s workers. Other political innovations of the New Deal—ranging from social security to the minimum wage—secured a floor for working class incomes. Postwar social movements, especially civil rights and “second wave” feminism, then girded that floor by closing off avenues for discrimination.4

    The nations’ tax system. meanwhile, and new regulatory obstacles to speculative finance erected something of a ceiling for higher incomes. And substantial public investments—the GI Bill support for access to higher education, mortgage subsidies for veterans, housing projects, the interstate highway system, and the Cold War—would kept the rest of the structure in pretty good repair.5

    Since then, that structure has essentially collapsed. The conventional wisdom describes this collapse as an unfortunate but necessary response to changing economic conditions. The world has become a leaner and meaner and more competitive place, so the argument goes. As a result, the policies of the New Deal—and the costs they imposed on business—had to go.

    But there is little evidence to actually support this account. Indeed the initial handwringing over American economic decline came at a time when our principal competitors, Japan and Germany, boasted both higher wages and more expansive social programs than the United States.6

    Political choices, not economic necessity, dismantled the New Deal. Future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell would first sketch out the organizational and ideological dimensions these choices in a now infamous 1971 memorandum to friends at the American Chamber of Commerce (see sidebar below). The conservative ascendance in state and national politics then etched these choices across the political landscape. The policy consequences have been dramatic: steep cuts in social spending, the political abandonment of organized labor, deregulation and privatization, tax cuts, punitive cycles of unemployment—all justified in the name of lowering business costs, capturing economic efficiencies, and unleashing markets.

    Sidebar: The Powell Memorandum

    But these lofty aims camouflage the real policy goal of the pushback against the New Deal: a redistribution of income upwards via the erosion of the hard-earned bargaining power of ordinary Americans. Rising inequality was not a lamentable side effect of America’s new policy framework. Rising inequality was its intent.7

  46. DwwmfFV2 says:

    813349 803368A blog like yours should be earning much money from adsense.~::- 634080

  47. joyce says:

    correction… someone is getting paid a lot of money for the work done by prisoners, it’s just not them

    Comrade Nom Deplume at the beach says:
    August 18, 2013 at 11:56 am

    Ironically, some of this work is now being done by prisoners and others who are doing community service, for no compensation whatsoever.

  48. Comrade Nom Deplume at the beach says:

    Grim, can I get an unmod?

  49. Michael says:

    Defending the One Percent?

    In 2013, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw made quite a splash with his spirited defense of the top 1 percent. His argument in a nutshell: Gains hoarded by the very rich amount to nothing more than an “entrepreneurial disturbance” in an otherwise egalitarian setting. High earners are high earners because they have made “significant economic contributions,” according to Mankiw — who goes on to proffer J.K. Rowling, Stephen Spielberg, and Steve Jobs as evidence.

    A lot of virtual ink has already spilled in response, much of it by the other contributors to the forthcoming issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives that features the Mankiw essay. And the verdict, pretty decisively, is that Mankiw has it all — the backstory, the logic, the evidence, and the consequences — spectacularly wrong.

    Consider the central claim that the gains of the top 1 percent are all about the supply and demand of skilled labor, that “changes in technology have allowed a small number of highly educated and exceptionally talented individuals,” as Mankiw concludes, “to command superstar incomes in ways that were not possible a generation ago.” This claim has three large holes.

    First, Mankiw’s use of Rowling, Spielberg, and Jobs as examplars of the 1 percent is more than a little disingenuous. As Larry Mishel points out, drawing on the work of Jon Bakija and others, the 1 percent is largely populated by corporate executives and financial sector professionals, for whom the plaudits “innovator” and “significant economic contributor” seem somehow less apt. And, as Dean Baker reminds us, even the incomes of Rowling, Spielberg, and Jobs owe as much to government intervention — in the form of copyrights and patents — as they do to the genius of the market.

    Second, there is no evidence — at the bottom of the income distribution or the top — that education or innovation has that sort of payoff. John Schmitt and Jannelle Jones, most recently in a paper on the prospects of black workers, have tirelessly made the case that wages and job quality have plummeted across the last generation — even as the experience and educational attainment of workers has shown dramatic gains. And Mishel shows that the trajectory of top incomes runs far ahead of any reasonable educational benchmark.

    And finally, the counter argument — that the 1 percent’s gains reflect distortions of the market, and losses for the rest of us — is pretty powerful. In their contribution to the same Journal of Economic Perspectives issue, Mishel and Josh Bivens make the case that most of these gains, especially those flowing from a bloated financial sector and excessive executive pay, come in the forms of economic rent — income either generated through preferential status or income that exceeds the real market value of the service provided.

    Mankiw closes his paper with a number of other unsupported — and unsupportable — claims, arguing in turn that the rich are already taxed enough and that rising inequality poses no threat to either economic efficiency or social mobility. By this point his argument has a sort of “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” tone to it. Once he equates social policy with involuntary kidney donations, the tired economic orthodoxy seems more like a furious distraction than any argument at all.

  50. chicagofinance says:

    Michael: this portion of your citation is completely wrong…the middle class in America thrived for the decades after WWII because Europe’s and Japan manufacturing base was decimated by war. American was made fat, dumb and happy, and unsurprisingly, without any forethought or vision. After 25 years of the U.S. middle class mopping the floor on the back of the rest of the world, those far flung places finally got back on their feet and provided some real competition for the middle class. It appears that that they were not up to the task.

    Michael says:
    August 18, 2013 at 12:02 pm
    But there is little evidence to actually support this account. Indeed the initial handwringing over American economic decline came at a time when our principal competitors, Japan and Germany, boasted both higher wages and more expansive social programs than the United States.6

  51. chicagofinance says:

    While oversimplifying everything, I would blame the UAW, Teamsters and the CWA for a good amount of the destruction of America……..of course people such as Michael suggest we shoot the messenger…..

  52. Michael says:

    A lot of your arguments you have given me this past week have been showed to be flawed. Keep defending the 1% and attacking your fellow worker for the sh-tty state of the economy for everyone except the people at the top. These folks at the top didn’t even go through a recession, for them it has been a boom!! The stock market crashes helped them steal even more money from the common worker (with the bounce back in stock markets not involving the Main Street investors) and at the same time provided the conditions to force a worker to take on his fellow workers ( who was fired/laid off) work without even getting a raise. They just received a tap on the shoulder saying, “be thankful you have a job”. Brilliant!!

  53. Michael says:

    This first paragraph describes a lot of your views.

    “In this view of the world, people work hard to avoid poverty, and even harder to get rich. Any pursuit of “equal outcomes”–through policies that would, for example lift the floor on income for the poor or lower the ceiling on income for the rich–(created for example, by a very high “guaranteed income” floor and a very low taxation ceiling) would stifle this initiative and, with it, the economic growth on which we all depend. The poor, this view takes as a given, will find themselves much better off with a thin slice of a growing pie than with a thicker slice of a small one. One version of this argument, especially popular among the conservative think tanks, holds that gaps in income or wealth gaps hold far less significance than gaps in consumption and living standards. Our poor aren’t poor. in this argument, if they have flatscreen TVs.8

    Such arguments miss the essential question, not whether we should strive for equal or unequal outcomes, but what kind or degree of inequality we are willing to live with?

    Americans understand quite clearly that the market will not reward all equally. But they also dramatically underestimate how unequal those rewards are [see video summary of this research below] The “market incentives” argument holds water only as long as hard work is reliably rewarded in the short term (wages) and in the long term (economic mobility)—a prospect that has unraveled in the last decade.9

    And, we cannot pass off relative inequality on the grounds that everyone is doing better: the well documented rise in income inequality during the last thirty years has been accompanied by an increase in consumption inequality of nearly the same magnitude.10

    In turn, there is little credible evidence to suggest that our society needs inequalities–and the incentives they create–to grow economically. In fact, nearly the reverse is true. In our own recent history, sustained economic growth is closely associated with a relatively equitable distribution of economic rewards.

    Higher levels of inequality lead to underinvestment in education (as those left behind are priced out of higher education) and in public goods and infrastructure (as skewed income distribution erodes tax revenues). Relative equality sustains demand–and sustainable economic growth–across the economy. Stark and sustained inequality, by contrast, perverts incentives, discouraging those at the bottom of the income distribution (whose hard work goes unrewarded) and encouraging those at the top to engage in short-sighted speculation—much of which (think predatory lending and usurious credit card rates) exploits the poor and widens the gap.

    Inequality does matter, most obviously and directly, to those who ever greater concentrations of income and wealth leave behind. This includes the very poor–the “underclass” or “the truly disadvantaged,” in the social science literature–who have long been cordoned off from the rewards and opportunities enjoyed by most Americans. And this increasingly includes the broad middle class, for whom growing inequality has begun to erode wealth, incomes, living standards, and opportunities.11

    Inequality also matters more generally, to society at large and to the health and prosperity of all who live within it. The evidence on this point is overwhelming. Citizens in unequal societies, researchers have shown, more likely end up sick, obese, unhappy, unsafe, or in jail. These social outcomes, in turn, undercut the productivity and efficiency of the economy as a whole, as the high costs of poor public health, heavy policing, and mass incarceration,siphon off our resoruces and leave our human capital underprepared and underutilized.

    More directly, pervasive inequality undermines economic health and economic growth. At a certain point, stark income gaps begin to hollow out consumption. “A millionaire cannot wear 10,000 pairs of $10 shoes,” as one advertiser warned on the eve of the Great Depression in 1929, “but a hundred thousand others can if they’ve got the $10 to pay for them, and the leisure to show them off. “

    Rising inequality in the last generation has created the same tension, eased only temporarily by the availability of consumer credit or home equity.12 Efforts to patch together substitutes for aggregate demand, in turn, create their own inefficiencies—including a bloated and parasitic financial services sector, fed by both the desperate demand for credit from those falling behind and the frantic search for speculative returns by those leaping ahead.13

    And finally, economic inequality endangers our democracy. Market power will always shape political outcomes, if only because the rich will always have both the wherewithal and the motive to play a role more influential than any individual votes they might cast. But pervasive or sustained inequality has broader political consequences. Massive inequality tends to tilt public policy towards shortsighted rewards or special treatment (deregulation, tax breaks), and away from the public or collective goods (education, infrastructure) essential to future economic growth. Economic inequality breeds political inequality, whose highest goal, in turn, becomes those policies that make economic inequality even worse.

    Democratic institutions, at their best, provide a basic infrastructure–physical, legal, and fiscal–where which markets can thrive. These institutions also ameliorate or regulate the excesses of market competition, and provide the public goods and services that markets are unable or unwilling to generate on their own. Under conditions of stark economic and political inequality, all of this begins to unravel. Shortsighted and speculative market activities get rewarded, not restrained. Collective investment in the economy’s infrastructure—everything from good schools to good roads—withers. And deepening economic inequality robs our politics of the collective will—and the resources–to do much about it.14 “

  54. Michael says:

    http://scalar.usc.edu/works/growing-apart-a-political-history-of-american-inequality/wages-and-earnings

    “The key point here is not just that wages have stagnated, but they have done so over an era in which the productivity and educational attainment of American workers have improved dramatically. The last generation has been marked by a stark disconnect between productivity growth (up 80 percent between 1973 and 2011) and slow or stunted wage growth.5

    As the graphic below shows, economic productivity in the United States has sustained a consistent upward trajectory since the end of the Second World War. For the first generation of this era, economic growth lifted with it the wages and earnings of most Americans (the red line on the graph shows the real hourly compensation [wages and benefits] of production and nonsupervisory workers). Beginning in the mid-1970s, wage growth slowed—even as the economy continued to grow. It is not the health of the economy, in other words, that has battered workers—but a dramatic change in the distribution of its rewards. The gap between the two lines represents inequality. And the wedges prying the lines apart, as we explore in the pages that follow, are essentially political.”

  55. Michael says:

    Post 61 is in response to post 55 by chi finance—-Are you beginning to realize the correlation between politics and the growing income inequality? The very people crying about the govt playing too large of a role in subsidizing people’s lives are the people benefitting the most. Ironic, don’t you think?

  56. Michael says:

    If you look at the graph on that link from post 61, the disturbing trends hit you right in the face. Workers are more productive(aka working harder than ever) and are more educated, yet wage growth has gone nowhere.

    Nothing to see here folks, move along. You have a job, so shut up!!

  57. chicagofinance says:

    Michael: trying to be constructive and not just reflexively reject everything you post;

    The best way to describe the basic disagreement I have with your thinking in a succinct way is that you do not offer a workable solution. You think you do, but in practice, it will fail, and worse, you create a new set of abusers, while dooming the greater society to an overall worse outcome. I would point to Argentina, Venezuela, Detroit, and Greece as extreme examples. You do not think your populist utopia would result in those situations, but if you were to spend time really considering outcomes in a deep and rational way, it would become clearer.

    Of course there is inequality. Of course people do not fully appreciate the magnitude of it. However, there is a big gap between doing what “feels good” and instinctively feels moral and just, and what truly is.

    Please appreciate that we understand your perspective, but we have witnessed prima facie evidence throughout our lives and careers that have brutally taught us that we do everyone a service to brand your view as naive, and the more you stuff it in our face, subsequently a troll.

  58. charlie says:

    Michael, could you keep your.posts to less than 5 lines?…. my thumb goes numb after so much jogging…

  59. Michael says:

    64-chi finance- Greece and Detroit were both victims of taxes. Greece had a wide open culture that supported avoiding taxes at all costs while also supporting social welfare programs. No kidding, judgement day was coming. Detroit was a victim of losing half of its population, meaning half of its tax revenue. Both have nothing to do with the growing inequality problem within America, that will hurt our country in a major way if it gets any worst. Detroit and Greece will be fine in time.

    Venezuela was a victim of being bullied by the U.S.. How the hell do we have the same problem as them, when we are their problem. We supported two failed coups in Venezuela and have hated them ever since. Argentina was completely taken advantage of by the world bank. Once again, this has nothing to do with growing inequality problem in America.

    Do you not worry for children or grand children, that there will be almost no good jobs left for the majority of Americans. It’s going to be great when the majority of America looks like a ghetto. In a ghetto, people have given up moving up in a society. They believe it is almost impossible to move up, no matter how hard they work. They lose their ambition and turn to drugs, drug dealing, and stealing. Some just live on welfare. Is this the America you want, because that’s what this growing inequality is bringing.

    You’re so old and know it all, but answer this. Why is Sweden a great place to live? Finland, Switzerland, and Norway? Aren’t they based on the ideas you are against? Only difference between Sweden and Greece is that the Swedes didn’t avoid paying their taxes.

  60. Michael says:

    Is this not what we are facing right now?

    “And finally, economic inequality endangers our democracy. Market power will always shape political outcomes, if only because the rich will always have both the wherewithal and the motive to play a role more influential than any individual votes they might cast. But pervasive or sustained inequality has broader political consequences. Massive inequality tends to tilt public policy towards shortsighted rewards or special treatment (deregulation, tax breaks), and away from the public or collective goods (education, infrastructure) essential to future economic growth. Economic inequality breeds political inequality, whose highest goal, in turn, becomes those policies that make economic inequality even worse.”

  61. Michael says:

    I’m bringing scholarly work to the table, Charlie. I’m sorry you don’t have the intellectual capability to understand it, and must slide through it causing your thumb to go numb.

  62. Brian says:

    Michael, where is your multi located?

  63. Juice Box says:

    Giants…..meh

  64. Michael says:

    I thought these comments from the nj.com opinion article on welfare are not only humorous but get the point. Yes, paying welfare is terrible but what is the alternative if more jobs are not being created? Are chaos and rioting taken into account in these economic theories that say welfare needs to be abolished? I know eliminating welfare will save a lot of wasted capital. I’m all for eliminating welfare, I just don’t want to have to carry around an ak-47 to feel safe. The “animals” will come out of the woodwork. You can count on it.

    IreallyreallyNeedHelp
    Just eliminate welfare immediately. Lmao. It would be instant carnage and anarchy throughout urban America, and the trailer parks within days. To be honest, I view welfare as a way to keep the animals in check. Can you imagine if homie can’t buy new sneakers? Or bubba can’t buy more Budweisers? Think about that for a second. Ever heard that phrase “It’s cheaper to keep her”, well her means the non working scum in our slums nationwide. I would love for welfare to come to a drastic halt. It would definitely be quality entertainment.
    outsidr4eva likes this.
    11 Hours Ago · Reply

    Concerned NJ Citizen
    Don’t forget I am too big to fail corporate Welfare. It’s all part of human nature. Everyone is trying to get something over someone. Some groups are more efficient than others.
    UnaffiliatedVtr likes this.
    11 Hours Ago · Reply

    BannedNJ
    Yup. When people think of welfare, they think of food stamps and housing subsidies. The reality is that most welfare goes to large corporations in the form of tax breaks…in some cases, like agri-business, direct grants not to grow food. These “incentives” are usually offered with no strings, the companies receiving them are under no obligation to hire anyone, or provide anything of benefit to anyone except management and the stock holders.

    OK, let’s kick all the single mothers out into the street, the same day we cut off the banks, Wall St and multinational corporations.
    Wholeisgreater likes this.
    10 Hours Ago

    outsidr4eva
    This is accurate, it is the same reason we send money to other countries. We buy peace. If you stopped subsidizing the poor, the poor would go out, steal and rob.
    9 Hours Ago ·

  65. Michael says:

    69-brian- Athenia section of Clifton.

  66. Brian says:

    72 –

    Just curious, are the tenants receiving any government assistance….like section 8 vouchers?

  67. Michael says:

    Another form of welfare that no one seems to have a problem with. Why do the tax payers get stuck with the bill for building professional stadiums. Don’t we already pay enough for the overpriced tickets, food, beer, and parking? So we have to help pay for the building that some wealthy owner will use to increase his wealth? I don’t get it? I wish I could open up a money making business with tax money. Must be nice.

  68. Michael says:

    73- hell no!!! That part of clifton is not that bad. I would never want to deal with section 8!!! Exactly why I’m scared of taking away welfare is the same reason I will never deal with that type of tenant. No way in hell!!

  69. Michael says:

    Btw, I’m not a slumlord. I’m a landlord. Big difference. Slumlord is a totally greedy bastard who brings down the neighborhood with his greed.

  70. Brian says:

    Btw, animals? Your comments are at least insensitive and possibly also racist.

    Michael says:
    August 18, 2013 at 9:02 pm
    I thought these comments from the nj.com opinion article on welfare are not only humorous but get the point. Yes, paying welfare is terrible but what is the alternative if more jobs are not being created? Are chaos and rioting taken into account in these economic theories that say welfare needs to be abolished? I know eliminating welfare will save a lot of wasted capital. I’m all for eliminating welfare, I just don’t want to have to carry around an ak-47 to feel safe. The “animals” will come out of the woodwork. You can count on it.

  71. chicagofinance says:

    Michael: possibly the most pronounced trait you repeatedly display here….
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

  72. hughes (23)-

    Got 120. Sorry, been away for a couple of days.

  73. Ragnar says:

    Mike,
    If you think Venezuela’s problem was US bullying, then you are a hopeless pawn of leftist propaganda. The sort who claimed that Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China were “progress” and that Castro is a hero.

  74. Stop feeding the troll. Jesus Christ.

  75. Michael says:

    77- Guess I fit right in with the rest of the closet racists on this blog. Yes, take away their welfare, and these individuals will lose their human characteristics and become more like rabid animals. Only difference is that these animals will be carrying guns. Like I said, its easy to say get rid of welfare. Who cares about inequality, till you see the long term effects. Scares the crap out of me. Egypt is dealing with it as we speak. They had a revolution for one reason, the inequality grew out of control. You think that poor individual set himself on fire (how the revolution started two years ago) because he had hope? He gave up and died a horrible death to prove a point.

    Where is JJ? I need some help over here.

  76. Michael says:

    80- I can say the same thing about you. You are a pawn of your ideology. You probably think Christopher Columbus was a hero too. Venezuela was sick of getting ripped off by foreign oil companies. It was their resource (oil) being exploited, and they were not getting a dime back. You wouldn’t do the same thing, if you were in their position? At least they had the balls to stand up for what’s rightfully theirs.

  77. Michael says:

    Whoever said Castro, Stalin, or Moa were heroes? Stalin was worst than Hitler. All three sold out their people. They said exactly what people wanted to hear when coming to power. Once in a power, they became absolute dictators. Who the hell in their right mind would support these leaders in the name of progress??

  78. Ccb223 says:

    Enough w/the racist crap everybody….please.

  79. Anon E. Moose says:

    Ccb [85};

    “Everybody”? Only one person around here recent who has an Tourettes’-like tic of throwing around accusations of “racist”. That’s the person perpetually on the losing end of the argument.

  80. Michael says:

    Scrapple- I’m gone. Not posting anymore. Sick of being called a troll. You want someone to feed your ego, that’s not going to be me. You don’t want anyone that challenges you. You like an environment where one can’t think for himself, rather everyone just agree. Anyone who doesn’t agree with your philosophy, is automatically an idiot. I gave you guys scholarly evidence based on research. You still don’t even give it a chance. Here is one last shot at getting you guys to open your mind. You don’t have to read the entire book but please read the part about the following “myths”. Most of you attacking me believe every single one of these myths. You have stated them before as fact on this blog. Open your mind “hotshots”. Here is the link for this book written by a Yale professor.

    http://www.prosperityforamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/prosperity-for-all.pdf

    PArt one: Austerity economics and its discontents page 3
    Myth 1: Spending and deficits are our #1 problem page 7
    Myth 2: Cutting taxes on the richest is an effective way to spur prosperity page 8
    Myth 3: Inequality is not a problem because social mobility is high page 10
    Myth 4: Markets are smart, governments are dumb page 12
    Myth 5: Those at the top are the ones who create wealth and are alone responsible for their good fortune page 13

  81. Comrade Nom Deplume at the beach says:

    [69] Michael,

    I’m seeing a lot of scholarly opinion from you. It’s of a sort I’ve seen before. As have many of the people here. The fact that you are saying it hasn’t added any special gloss nor made it more palatable than the last several times we’ve heard it.

  82. Comrade Nom Deplume at the beach says:

    [88]. Michael,

    This is a rehash of mostly liberal policy arguments. ATEOTD, it calls for a European style social structure with a command economy more closely resembling what is emerging from China. Underlying all of it however is trade policy and this paper is short on specifics and bereft of support, especially for the argument that most of these proposals can be accomplished within the WTO structure.

    Further, there are inherent contradictions in their economic and environmental goals. Yet there is no effort to address this contradiction in a meaningful way. In fact, the lack of meaningful and objective support is glaring.

    Finally, to accomplish even a portion of this agenda would require economic regulation and taxation on an unprecedented scale. It would require curtailing a broad swath of economic, and some personal, freedoms. It would inhibit, not improve, social mobility except to lift up some by artifical means at the expense of others. In short, It would signal the death knell of American Exceptionalism.

  83. Michael says:

    Comrade, like I said, I’m not posting anymore. It’s obvious you guys are obsessed with economic theories from the 1940s and 50s that have since been proven wrong. Just please read that book and give it a chance. It might help you. Milton Friedman (one time economic genius), prob your hero, has been proven wrong, over and over again. Get with the times.

  84. Comrade Nom Deplume at the beach says:

    [91] Michael,

    I’m interested in hearing solutions that are effective and efficient. A primer on policy from a Yale polisci prof and a law school 3rd year that makes broad strokes but doesn’t address obvious externalities is merely a starting point. But you seem to suggest that posting it ends debate. Not so, mon frere.

    And FWIW, most people hate being insulted, and I don’t mean insulting their intelligence. Easy trap to fall into, we’ve all done it. Also, You seem to be making the mistake many have made before–equating snark for analysis. Doesn’t work.

    Finally, this is a Jersey blog. Everything in NJ requires a thick skin. This place is no different. Kick someone in the groin and they will kick you back.

  85. Ben says:

    Milton Friedman was wrong? Great…that’s probably the first time his name appeared on this site. Of course Milton Friedman was wrong, but not where you think. Friedman thought we should open up trade with Asia because their workers would supposedly never accept slave wages for prolonged periods. Friedman was wrong. We shipped all our manufacturing outside of our borders and have a huge trade deficit to show for it. This country became the richest nation in the world under 200 years of tariffs. Removing them was just a stupid idea.

  86. Juice Box says:

    Michael for the sake of the planet give all of your wealth away already. You are the 1%!!!

  87. joyce says:

    Ben,

    Agreed.
    Milton also helped create the payroll withholding tax system… not a fan of that. And I could name a few others things that he was completely wrong about.

  88. I hate knee-jerk conservatives as much as I hate ignorant liberal eggheads. They are one and the same.

    Magpies’ road to the EPL title begins today at 3!

  89. Funny how conservatives and libs join together at important moments…like the ones where they decide to dig deeper into your pocket or put you under even more surveillance for your own “protection”.

    It’s a rigged game, folks. And we ain’t the insiders.

  90. Brian says:

    NJ foreclosure trend heading in wrong direction.

    STATE – The foreclosure trend is declining at the national level, but New Jersey is headed in the opposite direction, according to data released this week by RealtyTrac Inc.

    Nationwide, lenders repossessed 36,964 homes in July, down 31 percent from July 2012. However, 18 states saw an increase – New Jersey homes repossessed by banks were up 40 percent. Foreclosures in New Jersey were 89 percent higher last month than they were in July 2012.

    According to RealtyTrac, one out of every 864 homes in New Jersey received a foreclosure filing last month, putting the state 11th in the country. The picture is a bit worse in Union County, where one in 755 homes were affected, but Middlesex County (one in 1,162 homes) is faring better than the national rate (one in 1,001 homes)

    U.S. foreclosure activity has fallen 64 percent from its peak in March 2010, but remains 54 percent above the historical average prior to the 2006 housing market collapse.

    Read more: http://njtoday.net/2013/08/17/nj-foreclosure-trend-heading-in-wrong-direction/#ixzz2cPlRMESg

  91. I do think about the many thoughts you’ve released in the post. These are quite begging and can surely function. Nonetheless, the threads are far too swift for freshies. May perhaps you want prolong these people a little from following period? Just publish.

  92. freddie says:

    Will you be interested in changing links?

Comments are closed.