Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Why is no one here talking about Greece?

Expand Messages
  • walto
    Thanks for that explanation. I d think that an annual avg figure, whether 2%, 3% or whatever, may mask a widely varying reality. I mean, with cars, there s a
    Message 1 of 102 , Jul 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for that explanation.

      I'd think that an annual avg figure, whether 2%, 3% or whatever, may mask a widely varying reality. I mean, with cars, there's a huge fall-off in the first five minutes--when it's driven off the lot. Then it hangs on pretty tightly for maybe three years before falling off a cliff. Presumably, something similar may happen with houses. Crappy ones fall apart after maybe 20 years, decent ones hang on almost indefinitely (with a bit of maintenance). Naturally, a single avg number would mask that too.


      W

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@>\
      > wrote:
      >
      > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1"
      > > <roy_langston1@> wrote:
      > >
      > > > Based on the number Walter posted -- median age of
      > > > owner-occupied dwellings is 32 years -- it is
      > > > probably several percent rather than 1%. I am happy
      > > > to have a more accurate number, as mine was just a
      > > > guess.
      > >
      > > Would you mind explaining your calculation of this?
      >
      > I was actually a bit surprised that the median age of
      > owner-occupied dwellings in the USA was that high,
      > given the housing construction boom that began in the
      > mid-90s and peaked in 2005. There must be a tremendous
      > number of unoccupied new and new-ish houses.
      >
      > There is some bumpiness in the distribution of dwelling
      > ages because of the housing cycle, especially for the
      > youngest houses, but in time the age distribution of
      > occupied houses should smooth out. When the most recent
      > cycle is complete (the previous bottom was in 1991, so
      > roughly 20 years now) it should begin to resemble an
      > exponential probability distribution. Just as a rough
      > estimate, then, if half the occupied houses are more
      > than 32 years old, a quarter will be more than 64 years
      > old, and an eighth (12.5%) will be more than 96 years
      > old.
      >
      > However, the physical reality of depreciation is that
      > the distribution is not really random, because it is
      > very rare for houses to be demolished or abandoned in
      > the first 30-40 years. This skews the distribution
      > to younger structures, making the tail of the
      > distribution (the number of older ones) smaller. It's
      > hard to say exactly how much effect this skew has, but
      > IMO the fraction older than 100 years is likely to be
      > less than 10%. Obviously the total number of houses
      > has increased over the last 100 years to reflect
      > increased population and reduced household size, so
      > the fraction of houses surviving for 100 years would
      > be a few times larger.
      >
      > The data here show that in 2005 18.3M occupied US
      > dwellings (14.8%) were more than 65 years old:
      >
      > http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_DP4&-geo_id=01000US&-gc_url=null&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_lang=en
      >
      > As there were nearly 35M households in 1940, a little
      > over half the housing stock then existing was still
      > standing and occupied in 2005. This figure surprises
      > me more than a bit, as it implies that more than one
      > house in ten will not have depreciated to near zero
      > even after 200 years, for a depreciation rate probably
      > less than 2% annually. Average house depreciation is
      > of course much higher, at least 3%, but still.
      >
      > -- Roy Langston
      >
    • roy_langston1
      ... I don t recall him saying that, and it certainly isn t true. Many people will lose, especially in the transition period. That is why we must design the
      Message 102 of 102 , Jul 18, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...>
        wrote:

        > Henry George was adamant that full Land Value Tax,
        > the Single Tax, would mean all would gain, no losers.

        I don't recall him saying that, and it certainly isn't
        true. Many people will lose, especially in the
        transition period. That is why we must design the
        transition to be as painless as possible for the great
        majority of landowners: those who own only the land
        under their dwellings. And that is why restoring the
        equal individual right to liberty through a universal
        individual exemption (or, second best, a CD) is crucial
        to our success. This is something Henry George either
        did not understand or did not give enough weight to, or
        the exemption would have been a central feature of his
        Single Tax advocacy.

        > All boats rise on the same rising tide.

        Er, those who can't be bothered swimming or walking are
        drowned by a rising tide.

        > * Will the corporations still be loyal to the US?

        Is a tapeworm loyal to its host?

        > * Will they do everything to get the LVT
        > implementing government out?

        Yes. And that will include assassination. Let's not
        kid ourselves on that score. This is serious business,
        and the vital interests of some very powerful and
        deeply evil people are at stake.

        -- Roy Langston
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.