Global Economy Bursting?

[Randolph Kinney]

California Hispanic Population Will Be State's Largest Ethnic Group In 2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...c-group_n_2508103.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Hispanics for the first time will become California's largest ethnic group by the end of the year, according to a report on California's shifting demographics contained in Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) 2013-14 budget proposal

The most populous U.S. state's white and white non-Hispanic populations will reach parity in July, each with about 39 percent of the population, the report projected. California's Hispanics are predominantly younger than the non-Hispanic white population, assuring the trend will continue. Only 19 percent of Hispanics are older than age 50, compared with 43 percent of whites, the report said.

"It's a seismic shift, period," Larry Gerston, professor of California politics at San Jose State and author of "Not So Golden After All: The Rise And Fall of California," told The Huffington Post.

The growth of California's Hispanic population presents significant challenges for the state, especially when it comes to education. A study by Washington-based Excelencia in Education found that only 16 percent of California Latinos hold a college degree, lagging well behind the 39 percent figure of the state as a whole. Worse, the study noted, the percentage of Hispanics attaining college degrees is by some measures declining.

Hispanics constitute more than half of the state's grade school students. "It's increasingly urgent for this state to get serious about Hispanic kids because they are the ones doing the least well in school," Patricia Gandara, UCLA professor and author of "The Latino Education Crisis: The Consequences of Failed Social Policies," explained to New American Media, noting that one-quarter of California Latino high school students drop out.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

California companies picking Colorado for staff expansions

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/p...18/california-companies-picking-colorado.html

In the past three months, companies in industries as varied as sports broadcasting, technology manufacturing and home-loan transactions have chosen to expand in Colorado rather than at their California headquarters.

That’s not by accident. Local economic-development officials have put on a special push to attract new hubs for companies that say California’s tax system and workforce costs are becoming too burdensome, and which choose to grow outside the state.

In some cases, those companies will wind up with a larger workforce in Colorado than at their headquarters.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Texas vs. California

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2013/01/17/texas-vs-california

This week, a showdown between the 2 states. Their differences reflect the battle for America's future.

Moving to California was once the dream for many Americans. Its population grew at more than double the national average--until 1990. Last decade, 2 million more Americans moved out of California than moved in. They moved to states like Texas. In the last decade, Texas' total population grew at double the national rate.

Why?

Reason Magazine's Matt Welch and Chuck Devore of the TX Public Policy Foundation give a few reasons: Texans pay less in taxes. There's more job creation. And government takes less of your paycheck.

California has bankrupt cities, like San Bernardino. 3/4ths of the city's money goes to what they call public safety--unionized cops and firemen. Politicians promised them more than they have, but the public doesn't seem to realize WHY their city went belly up. Our special correspondent, Kennedy, went to what she says looks like "ghost town" for answers.

 

[nm505]

Average annual income for California for 2011 is $51,910.

That's the average of all occupations of 14,038,950 working people.

The data came from the BLS site: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ca.htm

Looking at the occupation listed, which one do you fit into?

San Luis Obispo median household income in 2009: $38,031

San Luis Obispo median house or condo value in 2009: $507,510

http://www.city-data.com/city/San-Luis-Obispo-California.html

We are very recently retired. Trust me. I did a lot of research for my sister into RE possibilities. Sure. If you have to have an ocean view (which she wanted) there was a huge premium but because we were happy with being further inland, it was very affordable. We were shocked that we could afford something in this area. You may single handedly be bringing down RE values due to your negative comments about this beautiful state. Good for you...maybe we will get a better deal.

ps I am from NM and love our Hispanics as we celebrate their cultural contributions.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

We are very recently retired. Trust me. I did a lot of research for my sister into RE possibilities. Sure. If you have to have an ocean view (which she wanted) there was a huge premium but because we were happy with being further inland, it was very affordable. We were shocked that we could afford something in this area. You may single handedly be bringing down RE values due to your negative comments about this beautiful state. Good for you...maybe we will get a better deal.

ps I am from NM and love our Hispanics as we celebrate their cultural contributions.

If you love your Hispanics, why move?

California has problems. If you love Hispanics, move to east Los Angeles, or Chula Vista, or National City, or San Ysidro.

According to the U.S. Census, SLO county is 70.2% white (non-Hispanic) while the state is 39.7% white (non-Hispanic). http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06079.html

Strange that you should prefer to move to an area in California that is a white bastion while proclaiming your love for Hispanics.

As for California real estate, it is not cheap. Median value of owner-occupied housing units in SLO county, for 2007-2011, is $480,200 while the state is $421,600. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06079.html

I post news articles and facts from government sources. If you view them as negative about California, then you have a problem and you say you want to live here in the nice part of the state, although inland. SLO is an inland college town (California Polytechnic State University).

It also has a state prison (they call it a men's colony). The primary mission of the California Men's Colony is to provide secure housing for minimum and medium security inmates. see the photo below

 

[Randolph Kinney]

California home values may fall to the conforming loan limit

Private jumbo mortgages could soon become harder—and pricier—to get.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jumbo-mortgages-may-become-jumbo-hassles-2013-01-18?siteid=nbkh

New rules announced last week by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will tighten lending standards in the private-mortgage market. The changes, which start in 2014, will ban lenders from issuing loans if they don’t verify a borrower’s income or assets.

The CFPB rules are meant to ensure that home buyers have the ability to repay their mortgages. They also affect many affluent buyers seeking private jumbo mortgages, those that start after $417,000 in most parts of the country or at $625,501 in high-cost metro areas.

While these borrowers can more than afford the mortgage payments, their financial statements don’t always prove that. Starting next year, if home buyers can’t provide enough paperwork to verify that they have the income or the assets to afford the mortgage, they’ll be ineligible for a mortgage—even in the private market, according to the CFPB.

Most lenders will continue to require down payments of at least 30% on private mortgages. That threshold could rise as more rules are announced.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Declining birthrate poses challenge to California's future

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_2240666...allenge-californias-future?source=most_viewed

California is losing its children.

After decades of simultaneously worrying about and cashing in on its ever-growing population, the Golden State now awaits a new challenge: too few children and, eventually, too few skilled and able-bodied workers.

The number of California babies born each year began dropping steadily in 2007, according to state public health records, but the birthrate began slowing years before.

From 2002 to 2011, there was a statewide decrease in births of 5 percent.

Around Southern California, the trend can be seen across many counties. Los Angeles County saw a nearly 14 percent decrease in births in the same time period.

Within the county, similar declines were seen in San Gabriel Valley and in the South Bay.

Long Beach saw the number of live births decline quickly - by 7 percent - in just three years.

In the San Fernando Valley, from 2005 to 2010 the birthrate dropped from 13.5 births per 1,000 residents to 12.2 births per 1,000.

Changing behaviors and economic shifts are driving down the number of babies born, but no one cause can easily explain the trend, said state demographer Walter Schwarm. The recession's uncertainty delayed births, but so did women's economic gains that raise the cost of staying out of work.

"Children are expensive so couples delay getting pregnant if their financial situation is bleak."

Bostwick also noted there has been a large drop in the number of women of childbearing age, those between 20 and 49, in Los Angeles County between 2000 and 2010. The largest decline was seen among foreign-born Hispanic women, who have the highest fertility rate.

The overall decline means fewer children sitting in elementary school desks, which has a ripple effect statewide on those already in the workforce.

San Jose elementary school teacher Desiree Sattari recently lost her job because of declining first-grade enrollment.

Another study revealed that California birthrates are falling in all racial and ethnic groups, but most dramatically for Latinas. Only their birthrate comes near the replacement level, and without them, the state's birthrate would be much lower and the shortage of children would grow more severe, according to research by Myers.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Manufacturing stages U.S. comeback, but not in California

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolaler...stages-us-comeback-but-not-in-california.html

Manufacturing is staging a big comeback in the United States, according to a new U.S. Commerce Department report, but a new state employment report indicates that manufacturing is continuing its years-long slide in California.

The federal report says that between the start of 2010 and the end of 2012, manufacturing accounted for 500,000 new jobs. But a state-by-state survey indicates that the effects are being felt mostly in the Upper Midwest and the South.

Meanwhile, a monthly report on employment in California, also released Friday, shows that government and manufacturing are among the categories to show declines over the past year.

Manufacturing, once a major component of the California economy, now accounts for less than 9 percent of the state's non-agricultural payrolls.

 

[DTB]

NM - It's easy to say I saved, why didn't you? But there are a lot of folks who were wiped out so to speak when inflation robbed them of a significant portion of their savings in the 70s. Others lost a bundle when scumbag investment counselors put them into internet stocks in the late 1990s then into bank stocks in the mid-2005s. I know folks who have LESS money in their IRA than they did in 1999 and have put in money every year. I personally have a Mutual fund that has returned -2% in the past 5 years and +0.4% in 10 years-before you include fees... great mix of stocks they pulled from the "Main St." fund isn't it? My personal stock picking as outperformed my "safe" mutual funds by well over double. My choices are mostly the luck of buying oil and gas (a commodity play) vs. that professional you pay to screw up your accounts.

.

This should become a sticky somewhere. It shows that one cannot fall asleep on thing and chasing the hot commodity doesn't work either.

Diversification across sectors at the right time is investing. Chasing is trading, not bad if one knows how to do it. Big difference between the two.

Terrell why wouldn't you have dumped out of those dog funds that you were/are in? Those returns are ridiculously low, why stay? The folks with less in their IRAs did the same as you, went down with the ship.

If people wish to be more actively in control of their financial futures, the easiest thing to do is pick an index, identify the longer term trend, wait for a pullback, enter when the trend continues. Literally a long term ATM.

Good luck to all.

(for perspective, I read the 1st page from 11/2010. If anyone followed the advice to cash out then, as we make 5 year highs now... Trade what you see, not what you feel or think you know)

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Mutuals were meant to be "safe" returns. By the time I realized the fallacy of that the Mutuals had plunged right with the stock market....too late to go to the sidelines. They've recovered nicely along with the market but in reality they have performed no better than an indexed fund with the overall market. So the annual returns don't look that bad... But for 2 quarters they fell like a rock.

If one rates the "Best" places to retire then clearly the vote is Hawaii and S. California ...no. 1 and 10 on the list. CA tied with Texas. NM actually outranked both. But that is over a range of issues. If cost is an issue, then Hawaii is by far the most expensive place to retire to.

If you want the "worst" places to retire it has to be Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Alaska and Illinois.

The cheapest towns to live in? Harlingen, TX; Ardmore, OK; Memphis, TN; and Fayetteville, AR. Low insurance, low crime, low cost housing, and lower tax rates overall.

For me? I'd be hardpressed to move from New Mexico to CA, NV or AZ....Alamogordo to me would be ideal. Warm winter, and if you wanted to go skiing then Cloudcroft or Ruidoso is not far "up the hill"...and if the summer sun is too hot, I'd go back to the mountains again.