Real Estate Market beginning a big Price Correction? Especially in the suburban over a $million bracket?

[johngolf]

Originally Posted by porterhouse

What kind of small business?

A custom golf shop but I know two others that dropped from high tech about the same time. One bought a garden supply/nursery business. Another bought a window fixtures (blinds, shutters, etc) business.

The catch was to buy an existing business that had customers and potential that could be expanded via salesmanship and marketing. At least there were customers coming through the door every day. Could you sell them and expand the customer base is up to you. A bank or money lenders are more willing to lend money on an existing business (even one with problems) with a plan to correct/expand the business then finance an "idea".

I learned in the custom golf club business is we did not sell equipment. We sold hope. Learn what they buy.

Bye the way. The Internet killed the small custom golf club business (as it has many small businesses) but I had a great 20 year run. Not a good business in this day and age. Avoid it.

Stay away from anything cutesy, no customers, no experience, etc. I know two woman that peed away their and some of their husbands money on a never seen before, cutesy, expensive , women's clothing business as they "felt/believed" there was a need for such in that area.. Wrongo ladies.

Over the years I believe the best business is the service business. Offer people a service they need at a reasonable price no matter how un-pretty or not nice sounding the business is. As an example. Cleaning up other people messes is not pretty, but it pays. We Cleanup Your Chit.......LOL

PS

All I refer to took place in the greater Boston area.

[porterhouse]

Originally Posted by johngolf

All I refer to took place in the greater Boston area.

Interesting, I appreciate your taking the time to pass that on. I'm getting itchy to ditch corporate America. I'm too young to retire outright so Im starting to turn different ideas over. I wouldn't need to make a fortune, but want to ensure I minimize downside risk.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by Cabound1

What age do you think you have to live to to make waiting till 70 a good decision, factoring in present value considerations?

Here's what I'm wondering...(and I admit I've done no research on this)....is it always just assumed that whatever money you might get from, say, 62 to 70 is just spent away, and thus there's no earnings potential on it? IOW, if someone like you (and me) has a pile of cash to live on to 70, aren't we missing a huge investment opportunity by Not taking it at 62? Let's say I take 20K a year in SS from 62 to 70, invest it (because I can) and get 8 % yearly. How big a pile of cash would this be at age 70? Or in other words, how much ground do you have to make up and do you have enough time to do it. Remember, your payments may be twice as much now at 70, but the gal who took it at 62 now has a pile of cash, that if left invested, can get in investment return greater than the difference between the 2 payouts... i.e., you really can't make up the ground that easily.

I guess what I'm trying to say is for people that don't need the money, contrary to popular advice, I think it makes more sense to take it asap. Like I said, haven't fully researched tax implications, etc, but I never see earnings potential considered when discussing this.

This is way off-topic for this thread but...

Ignoring inflation and return on the capital you spend to defer until age 70, the crossover is in your early 80's. It's about age 82 for me. It varies a bit depending on your year of birth and the change in full retirement age. There's a bigger penalty for collecting before FRA if you were born in 1960 than in 1950.

The decision is also somewhat more complex for a married couple. If the higher wage earner defers to age 70 and then dies, the spouse has survivor benefits where they then get the larger Social Security check instead of their lower one. For most people, the husband gets the bigger Social Security check and has the shorter expected lifespan. If you're affluent, married, and age 62, the odds are pretty high that one of you will make age 90.

I have 35 high income years so I'll be collecting the maximum possible benefit. If I started collecting at age 62, I'd collect ~$200K worth of Social Security checks by age 70. I'd rather spend $200K of my own money over 8 years to bump my Social Security check $20,000 per year from age 70 onwards. My dad made it to his mid-80's and my mom is 85. I don't want to risk making it into my 90's and running out of money. As I wrote earlier, I view it as insurance against out-living my portfolio.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by johngolf

At one time in my high tech career I was part of a small team that would come in and try to resurrect once good, high tech, small companies. One place we looked to cut expenses were people we thought overpaid for the job they were doing. This generally meant older people that had been with the company for a long time. We called them "dinosaurs".

Early on I had asked about keeping the experienced people (dinosaurs) but lowering their salary. I thought better something then nothing. I was told bad idea as they would resent us and they would create problems. I was shown this is true so out with the expensive old and in with the cheap new.

I dropped out of high tech (cashed in my stock options and bought a small business) in my late 40's as I was becoming one of those "dinosaurs".

If you have some gray hair ,the next time you are in a company meeting count how many others do. If no one has and you do not own the company, look to the wall for the handwriting.

Yep.

I don't have gray hair but I'm 59. At this point in my career, I'm pretty much unhireable in a generic tech job. I'm an industry expert in something very specialized so I can find work where someone needs that subject matter expertise and skill set but I can't compete against the 30 year old. Among other things, nobody wants to add the old guy to their group health insurance plan and see it go up for all the employees. If they're paying for disability insurance, that also spikes dramatically for older employees.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Err... blame parents and a lousy peer group, not teachers. You can't force someone to learn.

Commuter rail is going to be further stressed because metro-Boston is seeing explosive growth and you can't commute to many of those jobs by car. The issue is track maintenance, not aging rolling stock. That problem is hardly unique to Boston. NYC has far worse problems with their rail/subway infrastructure for the same reasons.

GE isn't going to move their world HQ to Worcester. Employees go where the jobs are.

The problem in blue states is that 50% of the state budget goes to the safety net leaving little for infrastructure. If you're going to have a European-style first world social democracy, you have to tax like a European-style first world social democracy. You either raise taxes or cut services to the bottom 20%. The blue states aren't making that decision since it's so politically unpopular no matter which side they pick.

Generally speaking, I don't blame teachers. I can't blame teachers but Boston is a bit different.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=us


Don't you need a license for that?
FOX25 Investigates: Hundreds of Boston teachers working without proper licenses | Boston 25 News

Yeah hundreds of teachers without licenses that's a great idea

But the population must be growing...right

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...0qM/story.html

"At the Jeremiah Burke High School in Dorchester, a $50 million renovation five years ago has done little to entice students to enroll, and more than half of the seats are empty."

It's ok it's just 50 million..right. Certainly Boston Latin is good but the chance of getting in is pretty slim.

Aging rolling stock *is* and issue. FTA recommends a rail car last 25 years. Yes you can refurbish it but there's only so long. Commuter rail ones are often from the 90's if not 80s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBTA_Commuter_Rail

I'm not saying GE is going to worcester but if the rail problems reguardless of if it is the track or the car continue businesses can be apt to leave. If everyone that took public transit drove into work (assuming they have a car or access (zip car ubur taxi etc) ) the amount of traffic would expand dramatically.



That's 1974 in DC during a transit strike.

It isn't really a blue state or red state thing. Infrastructure spending just needs to be spent. It is more expensive to provide assistance to more distant areas so it makes sense to spend on things like roads, transit, power lines etc.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Yep.

I don't have gray hair but I'm 59. At this point in my career, I'm pretty much unhireable in a generic tech job. I'm an industry expert in something very specialized so I can find work where someone needs that subject matter expertise and skill set but I can't compete against the 30 year old. Among other things, nobody wants to add the old guy to their group health insurance plan and see it go up for all the employees. If they're paying for disability insurance, that also spikes dramatically for older employees.

What about outsourcing or finding work online? It isn't so much health insurance. Where I work we'd just hire a consultant. they work well for the most part.

Recently we had a 25 year old let go. We gave him an office with a door, work cell phone, work car, intern and starting at 77K. He had only 1.5 years experience and didn't last six months I think he left for something that paid 18K less

It's a really tight market these days and takes too long to hire people.

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by mdovell

It's a really tight market these days and takes too long to hire people.

Tell me about it. We had a mid-level engineer leave us 6 months ago, and the position still hasn't been posted yet so we can start interviewing. Meanwhile, the hit we took when he left is still being felt as he was a specialist in his area and the project has since stalled. I joked that it would take a year to put someone in his seat again, and that may actually come true.


Even after hire, it still takes a good year or so before you start to get a return from the new employee, and at that point you want to make sure they stick around a few years after that. Having someone leave after 2-3 years just causes a huge waste of time in hiring and training that new person....often myself doing it.


As for dinosaurs? Well, my boss is 65, and no desire to retire anytime soon. We recently had our 2017 intern group leave us, and offer some parting reviews, and one I saw was "lack of young people". I guess this is true in a way as I'm 36 and one of the youngest here.