Slashdot Mirror

Google as an entity isn't going anywhere and you can't call a business a single point of failure

Except it routinely does. Gtalk, Gmail, and other services have gone down partially, regularly.

trust me, their infrastructure is well built to sustain multiple failure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Big_to_Fail_policy and http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/10/business/fi-carstocks10 and http://housingdoom.com/2008/07/11/fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-too-big-to-fail-too-big-to-bail/

The mortgage, car, and general financial market make Google look like a tiny little grain of sand. Google makes its money entirely off advertisers (they have no other revenue stream except a tiny amount of money from hosted apps), and guess what is one of the first things companies scale back on?

I work in government IT. Government doesn't have the buying power to hire the trained workstaff to set up an infrastructure like this reliably.

High availability infrastructure is well understood and relatively easy to implement. Maybe they don't where you work, but that doesn't imply nobody in government can. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, there is a very, very large pool of qualified, cheap, available labor right now- it's called "the unemployment line."

Do you have a newsletter? Because I'd like to subscribe to it.
I'd recommend HousingDoom.

"Saudi Arabia has $800bn (£400bn) in their future generation fund, and the entire region has $3,500bn under management. They face an inflationary threat and do not want to import an interest rate policy set for the recessionary conditions in the United States" ...
"why bear the risk in these dramatically changed circumstances? We think that a fall in dollar to $1.50 against the euro is not out of the question at all by the first quarter of 2008," he said.

"This is nothing like the situation in 1998 when the crisis was in Asia, but the US was booming. This time the US itself is the problem,"

The Sub-Prime Market imploded, which has been very bad for US banks, like NetBank (which was just shut down by the FDIC).

The budget defecit swelled to 117 billion dollars in August. For those keeping track, that's up 80% year over year, with spending up 30% month over month.

Oh, and for icing on the cake - it looks like housing sales in some areas are down 46% year over year, or 25% month over month.

So, please, we have enough problems - let's not go deliberately taunting the biggest superpower in the world (at least any more - with our 9 trillion in debt, we're not going to be the "world police" much longer.) Also, the "but our GDP grows faster than our debt" argument doesn't cut it when the GDP is shrinking, the currency is in the toilet, and we still get to pay the interest on all that debt.

The correction is happening, but there's obviously a lot of resistance to the new reality from people who bought at the peak. http://www.realtytrac.com/ tracks foreclosures, and there are a LOT. New records every month.

Check out the headlines from sites like http://housingdoom.com/

Phoenix- "Sadly, we are trying to clear-out historic HIGH levels of inventory with historic LOW levels of sales"

http://patrick.net/housing/crash.html

US Housing Crash Continues
It's A Terrible Time To Buy
Why?

1. Prices still disconnected from fundamentals. House prices are still far beyond any historically known relationship to rents or salaries. Rents are less than half of mortgage payments. Salaries cannot cover mortgages except in the very short term, by using adjustable interest-only loans. Anyone who buys now will suffer losses immediately, and for the next several years at least.

2. Buyers borrowed too much money and cannot pay the interest. Now there are mass foreclosures, and senators are talking about taking your money to pay for your neighbor's McMansion.

Banks happily loaned whatever amount borrowers wanted as long as the banks could then sell the loan, pushing the risk onto Fannie Mae (ultimately taxpayers) or onto buyers of mortgage backed securities. Now that it has become clear that a trillion dollars in mortgage loans will not be repaid, Fannie Mae is under pressure not to buy risky loans and investors do not want mortgage backed securities. This means that the money available for mortgages is falling, and house prices will keep falling, probably for 5 years or more.

A return to traditional lending standards will mean a return to traditional prices, which are far below current prices.

3. Interest rates increases. When rates go from 5% to 7%, that's a 40% increase in the amount of interest a buyer has to pay. House prices must drop proportionately to compensate.

For example, if interest rates are 5%, then $1000 per month ($12,000 per year) pays for a loan of $240,000. If interest rates rise to 7%, then that same $1000 per month pays for a loan of only $171,428.

Even if the Fed does not raise rates any more, all those adjustable mortgages will go up anyway, because they will adjust upward from the low initial rate to the current rate.

4. Extreme use of leverage. Leverage means using debt to amplify gain. Most people forget that losses get amplified as well. If a buyer puts 10% down and the house goes down 10%, he has lost 100% of his money on paper. If he has to sell due to job loss or an interest rate hike, he's bankrupt in the real world.

It's worse than that. House prices do not even have to fall to cause big losses. The cost of selling a house is 6%. On a $300,000 house, that's $18,000 lost even if prices just stay flat. So a 4% decline in housing prices bankrupts all those with 10% equity or less.

5. Shortage of first-time buyers. The percentage of San Francisco Bay Area households who could afford a median-price house in the region plunged from 20 percent in July 2003 to under 10 percent in 2006.

6. Surplus of speculators. Nationally, 25% of houses bought in 2005 were pure speculation, not houses to live in, and the speculators are going into foreclosure in large numbers now. Even the National Association of House Builders admits that "Investor-driven price appreciation looms over some housing markets."

7. Fraud. It has become common for speculators take out a loan for up to 50% more than the price of the house he intends to buy. The appraiser goes along with the inflated price, or he does not ever get called back to do another appraisal. The speculator then pays the seller his asking price (much less than the loan amount), and uses the extra money

Simple- don't allow companies to move.

It's not nearly as "simple" as you might think. It's fairly trivial to start sending business to a foreign subsidiary. So, we ban that. What's to stop the company from then having an "affiliate" company that gets 95% royalties on whatever they sell. Ok, ban that too. Companies can then "license" their technology to a foreign company cheaply, and operate the other company instead. Or, they can enter into business deals with the foreign company that cost a great deal of money, allowing them to funnel the money in the company to the foreign one. Finally, they have the option of just closing up shop, and when approached about business, say "we're not in business; however, we recommend the services of [foreign company] instead".

Legislating away all the ways one can move overseas would require such stringent legislation that nobody would want to do business here at all. It would take laws regulating (among other things) who you could do business with, require certain profit margins on all deals, impose requirements regarding ownership of multiple companies (remember that stocks convey ownership), regulate who you could recommend for services, and a number of other things which would greatly increase the size of government, decrease freedom for individuals and companies, cost a lot of money, and make the US a (even more) difficult place to do business.

I run a business in the United States, and I would like to continue to do so. We have a Hungarian engineer, not because he's cheap (he's not - he makes more than me), but because there isn't anyone better at what he does that we know of. We outsource to India on occasion because of the simple fact that for some jobs, we cannot compete at American wages. Which is better for America - an American company, paying American taxes, and hiring a few Indians as needed, or an Indian Company, paying Indian taxes, hiring only Indians?

If America started to take the steps to make it impossible to (effectively) move business overseas, regardless of the collateral damage, I would move. America is no longer the "shining beacon of liberty" it once was - we willingly, gladly trade real liberty for imagined security. Don't believe me? How is a Metal Detector going to stop a suicide bomber with some dynamite, a fuse, and a book of matches? George Bush has done more harm to this country's freedoms than any other person in history, congress and the police ignore the constitution at every occasion, we're turning into a police state, and we lose more life waiting in the airport security line every year than was lost on 9/11.

We squander money like it's going out of style, and our economy is doomed. Housing prices are way overinflated, we have no savings, and the FDIC doesn't have enough cash to make more than a token gesture at fixing things when the inevitable crash happens.

So, if this country is so bad, why don't I leave? Well, it's (at the moment) a favorable environment for business, and I have family here. I also think that it may be possible to save our freedoms, and that an economic crash may help wake people up, and will be good in the long run (affordable housing, smaller government from lack of funding, etc.). So I stay, run my business, and work to make the country a better place. Take away my business, or threaten it, and I will lose much of my reason for staying. Companies aren't the only ones who can move.

Here's a hint - if you never have any equity, you don't really own anything. It's just as easy to rent from someone else as from the bank. Besides, with Record number of houses, and Home sales dropping 4 years in a row in some areas, what would be the point.

Besides, with the Subprime Meltdown going on (41 major lenders down since Dec 31), you probably can't afford the payments on that new place anyway. You couldn't afford it before, but at least there were people willing to lend you more money than they should, figuring you could just flip it to a bigger sucker at a profit if you get in trouble. With median prices declining countrywide, that's not happening any time soon.

At the moment, you're better off "investing" in a new sports car or computer, you will make a better profit off them than that new home. That's true whether you are dying or not. (Don't believe me? Factor in the interest paid over the life of the loan, and the opportunity cost from not investing that money in something that earns interest. Adjust for inflation, and don't count the 2004-2005 years when people went nuts and drove up prices without a shift in the factors which should determine the price. You will _lose_ money buying a house, and it gets worse the longer you own it, even when it's not crashing like it is now.)

Here's a hint - if you never have any equity, you don't really own anything. It's just as easy to rent from someone else as from the bank. Besides, with Record number of houses, and Home sales dropping 4 years in a row in some areas, what would be the point.

Besides, with the Subprime Meltdown going on (41 major lenders down since Dec 31), you probably can't afford the payments on that new place anyway. You couldn't afford it before, but at least there were people willing to lend you more money than they should, figuring you could just flip it to a bigger sucker at a profit if you get in trouble. With median prices declining countrywide, that's not happening any time soon.

At the moment, you're better off "investing" in a new sports car or computer, you will make a better profit off them than that new home. That's true whether you are dying or not. (Don't believe me? Factor in the interest paid over the life of the loan, and the opportunity cost from not investing that money in something that earns interest. Adjust for inflation, and don't count the 2004-2005 years when people went nuts and drove up prices without a shift in the factors which should determine the price. You will _lose_ money buying a house, and it gets worse the longer you own it, even when it's not crashing like it is now.)

Wow. Who are you working for? Might I suggest you work somewhere else?

I've worked 9 to 5 (IT and services), union and non-union (Airlines). Unions have their place, but they are always going to have overhead. When the jobs aren't in horribly short supply, you can typically negotiate way better on your own. Working for America West (union), the guys I worked with would always do the bare minimum of what they were required to do to get paid. The pay took this into consideration, and it wasn't very good. I was there to work (didn't really need the money, but the flight benefits were nice); my coworkers would get ticked that I would take break time to go help out people on other gates. I'm paid to work, not paid to sit around - despite what the union contract said. Merit didn't matter, promotions and pay were based on time served, and it was almost impossible to get yourself promoted, or fired.

I also went to work for Mesa Airlines (America West Express, same facilities and terminal. Non union.) From what I understand, they weren't allowed to pay more than America West (contractual obligations); however, it didn't really matter. On time for work - $0.25/hour bonus. Working during the summer - $100 bonus. Company did well - $100 bonus. I made way more than any of the America West guys did in the same position, and since my coworkers could be fired, we got a way better caliber employee. Since the union didn't get involved, it was a lot easier for motivated people to make more money, and get promoted. On the other hand, lazy people who are just there to pay their dues do tend to stay where they are.

Finally, unionize. Your employee[sic] is trying very hard to reduce your pay as much as possible, you need a way to fight for what you are due.
This, quite frankly, can be stupid advice depending on the state, and the company. I run a software company, and I hate unions with a passion. I'm in a right to work state for a reason (sadly, airlines are covered under the railway act, and can unionize). If you are a competent, hard-working, educated person, with a skill useful enough to justify your salary, you should not (generally speaking - there are some exception) need a union.

I do take offense to the "trying very hard to reduce your pay" quip. Not all employers are like this, and I most certainly am not one of them. Paying employees the same, regardless of the quality of the work they do, results in disgruntled, unproductive, unhappy employees who do the bare minimum required to not get fired. Why would you want to run a company you wouldn't want to work for? I choose to pay above average rates, for above average service. I'll pay for education, too. Employees who have fun, and are paid well for what they do are less likely to go to the competition, less likely to produce crap software, less likely to steal. I have one employee (a developer) who is utterly irreplaceable. He is one of the top people in his field. He also makes more than I do, because he adds more to the company than I do. I can be honest; he does things for the company that I can't. I have another employee who will be making a $25,000 USD bonus after this last contract we made. That's more than what he made in two years at his last job (not a US guy).

In short, while I don't know everyone, I do know me (and a few jobs I've worked). Not everyone is out there to screw you; however, large corporations tend to be really large for a reason (and it's not being nice). Learn a skill worth something, and go to work in a field where you can make a difference (whether for yourself, or someone else). Work with a group of people who care about each other, where it's not just about squeezing every last bit of productivity out of an employee before you discard his drained husk.

Of course, if the economy gets REALLY screwed up, unions may once again serve a useful purpose. When you have college graduates working at McDonalds (nationwide, so moving isn't an o

I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Housing has been rather screwy lately after the mad rush we had in '05. Like all things, the market eventually starts to correct itself. Gotta love supply and demand.

Yes, because Real Estate Will Go Up Forever.

Sure, over time, things will tend to go up. That being said, in many areas, gains of 30% or more happened over the past year - that's simply not sustainable. In many of those places, builders have built huge amounts of homes - far more than the market can support.

In Phoenix, for example, sales are at record lows for this time of year (sales to inventory ratios - even without seasonal adjustments), and inventories are at the highest levels ever. Builders are literally walking away from developments, and large numbers of apartments that were converted to condos last year are being converted back to apartment. Selling prices (not asking prices) are way down from last year, and even Realtor.com is admitting that to sell your home, you have to be willing to cut a deal.

It's going to be a great time to _buy_ soon, but don't plan on flipping the house for a quick buck any time soon. If you wait long enough, you will make a profit (or die, in which chase it doesn't really matter).

Yes, because Real Estate Will Go Up Forever.

Sure, over time, things will tend to go up. That being said, in many areas, gains of 30% or more happened over the past year - that's simply not sustainable. In many of those places, builders have built huge amounts of homes - far more than the market can support.

In Phoenix, for example, sales are at record lows for this time of year (sales to inventory ratios - even without seasonal adjustments), and inventories are at the highest levels ever. Builders are literally walking away from developments, and large numbers of apartments that were converted to condos last year are being converted back to apartment. Selling prices (not asking prices) are way down from last year, and even Realtor.com is admitting that to sell your home, you have to be willing to cut a deal.

It's going to be a great time to _buy_ soon, but don't plan on flipping the house for a quick buck any time soon. If you wait long enough, you will make a profit (or die, in which chase it doesn't really matter).

Yes, because Real Estate Will Go Up Forever.

Sure, over time, things will tend to go up. That being said, in many areas, gains of 30% or more happened over the past year - that's simply not sustainable. In many of those places, builders have built huge amounts of homes - far more than the market can support.

In Phoenix, for example, sales are at record lows for this time of year (sales to inventory ratios - even without seasonal adjustments), and inventories are at the highest levels ever. Builders are literally walking away from developments, and large numbers of apartments that were converted to condos last year are being converted back to apartment. Selling prices (not asking prices) are way down from last year, and even Realtor.com is admitting that to sell your home, you have to be willing to cut a deal.

It's going to be a great time to _buy_ soon, but don't plan on flipping the house for a quick buck any time soon. If you wait long enough, you will make a profit (or die, in which chase it doesn't really matter).

Housing Doom is a pretty good bubble blog. The author isn't a realtor, and isn't trying to sell anything either.

It seems to be mainly phoenix related, and has some interesting graphs courtesy of the local MLS data.