Los administradores de TransicionEstructural no se responsabilizan de las opiniones vertidas por los usuarios del foro. Cada usuario asume la responsabilidad de los comentarios publicados.
5 Usuarios y 22 Visitantes están viendo este tema.
[He introducido matices importantes en...https://www.transicionestructural.net/index.php?topic=2628.msg246587#msg246587... comentario que considero importantísimo para entender cuándo vamos a notar la Suelta-2025.]
https://www.eleconomista.es/vivienda-inmobiliario/noticias/13490213/08/25/estas-son-las-playas-de-espana-donde-puedes-alquilar-un-apartamento-sin-arruinarte.htmlSaludos.
@pollo, @AbiertoPorDemolición, @BenzinoNapaloni Les contesto sin citar sus mensajes por economía de espacio.- Al que habla de "sentido común" -el menos común de los sentidos por lo que se ve- y dice que no es lógico que los ciudadanos de un país no puedan permitirse hoteles de vacaciones en temporada alta en las playas de su país y sí en otros países: ¿de dónde se ha sacado usted que sea "de sentido común" que los ciudadanos de un país tengan que poder permitirse obligatoriamente bienes o servicios de lujo de alta demanda internacional? ¿y si producimos diamantes? ¿los empleados de Boeing se tienen que permitir el producto que fabrican también? El turismo es el primer sector exportador de la economía española, con el que pagamos buena parte de la sanidad, pensiones, y también el consumo que haga usted viajando al extranjero, ¿o de dónde cree que salen los salarios de las empresas privadas no relacionadas directamente con el turismo? Dice usted también que los hoteles ponen los precios que les da la gana. No, no ponen los precios que les da la gana. Si pusieran los precios que les diera la gana una noche de hotel valdría muchísimos millones de euros, ¿no se ha parado a pensarlo? Los precios los ponen los consumidores. No hablamos de un bien básico, insisto, ni de consumidores cautivos.Augura usted un inmenso castigo para los hoteles el año que viene o el siguiente por haberse pasado con los precios este año,¿de verdad se cree que el mundo funciona así?- Para el negacionista de los sistemas de reservas de precio dinámico, que se refiere a estos como "mi teoría". No es "mi teoría". Puede comprobarlo usted mismo en Skyscanner o en Booking, no me diga que no lo ha hecho. Usted sabe perfectamente que los precios bajan y suben en función de la demanda y que va por temporadas, ¿por qué dice lo contrario? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_management Le pongo el enlace en inglés porque en la versión en español faltan muchas cosas y es mejor usar el traductor con la versión en inglés si quiere el texto en español. Hay mucha más información y mucho más interesante sobre "yield management systems" en cualquier sitio fuera de wiki pero pongo este enlace como referencia.El precio de esa habitación del hotel de los Pirineos del que habla usted no lo puse yo. Tampoco lo pone el sistema de reservas, ¡el precio lo pone usted que paga 100 euros por eso! Eso es todo lo que quiero decir. Que hubiera o no habitaciones libres es lo de menos.Ni soy hotelero ni vivo del turismo pero conozco bien el sector y su historia por motivos que sería largo de explicar. El sector hotelero de costa en España es un sector durísimo, un sector históricamente M-A-C-H-A-C-A-D-O por la estacionalidad y una verdadera ruina como negocio. Y sin embargo aporta muchísimo a la economía española. Por poner un ejemplo de las dificultades del sector, ¿cuánto creen ustedes que cuesta sólo la lavandería de las sábanas y toallas? No existe una máquina en la que metas todo y salga lavado, planchado y empaquetado. Las máquinas de planchar sábanas necesitan operarios, las lavadoras industriales también. Y estamos hablando sólo de toallas y sábanas. ¿Cuánto tiempo -y por tanto dinero- cuesta limpiar bien una habitación? Y mejor no hablemos de los costes de energía, mantenimiento de edificios, etc, etc.El sector hotelero de playa en España ha estado desde siempre en el infierno de las bajas rentabilidades y la estacionalidad insufrible. Uno de los grandes problemas históricos del sector ha sido siempre la sobreoferta de alojamiento turístico, ese tiro en el pie que nos dimos los españoles y que explica que durante mucho tiempo los precios de las habitaciones no daban ni para cubrir costes. Como bien decía antes @sudden_and_sharp , nos estábamos vendiendo barato. Históricamente esto no ha sido solo cuestión de sobreoferta en general sino de diversificación de la oferta de alojamiento turístico. Es decir, hay sobreoferta en ciertos segmentos de mercado y falta oferta en otros. En un mundo ideal tiene que haber hoteles de '7 estrellas', de 4, de 3..., albergues juveniles -me gusta llamar así a los 'hostels'- , campings, etc. Se ha conseguido mucho en las últimas décadas pero el sector sigue sufriendo el 'subdesarrollo' inherente a la estacionalidad.Todo el mundo debería alegrarse de que el turismo tenga años muy buenos y de que los precios de las habitaciones de hotel suban. La aportación del sector a la economía española es inmensa y por tanto también lo es a nuestro bienestar como ciudadanos.No entiendo esa rabia tan exagerada sólo porque Torremolinos se ha puesto caro. ¿Tan importante es? ¿No hay cosas más importantes en la vida? Si es verdad que no voy a ir a Torremolinos ya nunca en la vida, ¿dónde está ese contrato? Díganme dónde está y donde hay que firmar, ¡que lo firmo ahora mismo! Pásenme también el de no ir nunca a un concierto de Bad Bunny, que también lo firmo, muy rápidamente.- Para el que me ha insultado gravemente: no le voy a contestar al insulto porque, si lo hago, ¿qué sería lo siguiente? ¿quedar para pegarnos en el 'descampao'? Pero hombre... que esto es sólo un foro. Encima me acusa usted de 'bicurvista', cuando ese término solo lo utiliza el maestro para referirse a estafas intelectuales en relación a la causa de los actuales precios de la vivienda -bien básico de consumo obligatorio, recordemos, y no servicio de lujo que es de lo que estaba hablando yo-. Confunde usted las cosas hasta tal punto que ya no sabe ni quiénes son sus aliados. Yo nunca he defendido los precios altos de vivienda, sino justo todo lo contrario. Yo creo que la vivienda debe ser asequible, que debe volver a ser considerada un bien de uso duradero y no una 'himbersión' y es por eso por lo que me gusta este foro. No creo que el maestro haya dicho nunca que la economía 'de mercadillos' no exista o que no deba existir. Lo que dice es que no debe aplicarse esa lógica a un bien básico como la vivienda y que no se puede esperar a ninguna mano invisible que ponga las cosas en su sitio porque no va a suceder. En todo eso estoy totalmente de acuerdo. No veo qué tiene de bicurvista ni de mala persona defender un sistema de reservas de precio dinámico para entradas de conciertos y noches de hotel. No me desee usted ese mal que me desea, que yo no se lo deseo a usted. Además es inútil, ya he dicho que renuncio a Torremolinos y a los conciertos de urban, trap, reggaeton, momias del heavymetal y demás sacamantecas de a 300 euros la broma. Hay formas mucho más fáciles de pasárselo bien sin pasar por el aro. Incluso, por lo que estoy viendo, creo que es imprescindible estar fuera de todo eso para pasárselo bien de verdad.
‘Disguised mortgages’ threaten China’s fragile property sectorHalf of all outstanding personal business loans may be hidden mortgages, The CreditSights report warns disguised mortgage borrowing through PBLs could spiral into a vicious circle for China’s housing market © AFP via GettyA significant portion of personal business loans are being used by Chinese borrowers to cover residential mortgage payments, posing a growing risk to the already embattled property sector as loans come to their end of term, according to a report by CreditSights. While mortgage loans have tenors of up to 30 years, PBLs are renewed every three years, when the value of assets used as collateral are reassessed. With property values declining by as much as 50 per cent in some Chinese cities, some loans risk being marked as insufficiently collateralised when borrowers’ property is used for this purpose.Borrowers who cannot provide additional collateral risk the loans being downgraded to non-performing loan status, triggering remedial actions that could push the real estate market into a vicious circle.Karen Wu, Asia-Pacific financials director at CreditSights, said: “This could force some borrowers to sell homes at steep discounts, further weighing on China’s property sector.”Historically, there has been more favourable interest rates attached to PBLs compared with mortgages, often by as much as 150 basis points, according to CreditSights. As of April 2025, the average mortgage rates were 3.1 per cent for first homes and 3.2 per cent for second homes. PBLs were mostly maintained at rates of around 3 per cent, although some banks had reduced rates to as low as 2 per cent. The report notes that 2021 and 2022 were likely the peak for PBLs being taken out to serve mortgages — more than 70 per cent of them were used for this purpose — but due to the three-year assessment cycle, the risks are most acute this year.Figures from China’s State Council’s 2021 audit report found that 364 out of 517 sampled micro loans had no underlying business activity. “It is reasonable to estimate that at least half of the current outstanding PBLs are, in fact, disguised mortgage loans,” the report noted. There has been a rise in non-performing loans from PBLs, rising 60bp in 2024. “We expect the trend to at least continue if not worsen in 2025,” the report noted. There are concerns the levels of NPLs are under-reported and do not fully reflect the asset quality risks due to support being given to smaller businesses, and NPLs being transferred to asset management companies. While some loans are taken by individuals through their own businesses and then use the funds to finance home purchases, Wu said there are others who are falsifying business ownership in order to be eligible for loans. “Many intermediaries offer one-stop solutions, including transferring ownership of pre-established companies to borrowers and fabricating business transactions to help them qualify for PBL applications,” Wu said.
Un Monopoly amañado¿Alguna vez has intentado unirte a una partida de Monopoly ya empezada? Si has jugado a este juego de mesa, sabrás que en él compites por quedarte con una serie de propiedades limitadas. Puedes comprar las calles de la ciudad y sus compañías de servicios, como el agua y la electricidad. Cuando otro jugador cae en una de tus casillas, tiene que pagarte un alquiler. Todas las partidas acaban de la misma manera: uno de los jugadores arruina al resto, a base de cobrarles unas rentas cada vez más altas y quedándose con sus propiedades. En mi casa dejamos de jugar a este juego porque mi pareja y yo siempre acabábamos peleados.De hecho, ese enojo es precisamente lo que buscaba la inventora del juego. El nombre original que le dio Elizabeth Magie Phillips en 1904 era nada menos que The Landlord’s Game (‘El Juego del Casero’). Lo que pretendía era denunciar lo que he explicado desde el principio del libro: que el suelo no es un bien cualquiera, y que en manos del mercado tiende a generar desigualdad y erosionar el bienestar colectivo. En 1932, un tipo llamado Charles Darrow se lo apropió, vendió los derechos a los Parker Brothers y se volvió rico, haciendo gala de lo que el juego criticaba.[...]Claro que tiene solución[...]Hay algo que casi nadie sabe sobre el juego del Monopoly. La versión original contenía un manual de instrucciones alternativo, pero quienes se apropiaron del juego lo hicieron desaparecer. Aquellas otras reglas permitían a los jugadores cooperar, si querían. Cada vez que caían en una calle con casas y les tocaba pagar, tenían la opción de poner el dinero en un bote común. De esta manera, aseguraban que nadie se arruinase y que todos fueran prósperos. En lugar de permitir que uno o dos jugadores se adueñaran de las rentas del suelo, podían usar el dinero de ese fondo colectivo para que todos tuvieran mejores hospitales, escuelas y, cómo no, casas.Estoy convencido de que la creadora del juego original no se equivocaba. Hay otra partida posible, y está en nuestras manos jugarla.
Top AI Salaries Dwarf Those of the Manhattan Project and the Space RacePosted by BeauHD on Saturday August 02, 2025 @09:00AM from the compare-and-contrast dept.An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica:CitarSilicon Valley's AI talent war just reached a compensation milestone that makes even the most legendary scientific achievements of the past look financially modest. When Meta recently offered AI researcher Matt Deitke $250 million over four years (an average of $62.5 million per year)—with potentially $100 million in the first year alone -- it shattered every historical precedent for scientific and technical compensation we can find on record. [Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg reportedly also offered an unnamed AI engineer $1 billion in compensation to be paid out over several years.] That includes salaries during the development of major scientific milestones of the 20th century. [...]To put these salaries in a historical perspective: J. Robert Oppenheimer, who led the Manhattan Project that ended World War II, earned approximately $10,000 per year in 1943. Adjusted for inflation using the US Government's CPI Inflation Calculator, that's about $190,865 in today's dollars -- roughly what a senior software engineer makes today. The 24-year-old Deitke, who recently dropped out of a PhD program, will earn approximately 327 times what Oppenheimer made while developing the atomic bomb. [...] The Apollo program offers another striking comparison. Neil Armstrong, the first human to walk on the moon, earned about $27,000 annually -- roughly $244,639 in today's money. His crewmates Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins made even less, earning the equivalent of $168,737 and $155,373, respectively, in today's dollars. Current NASA astronauts earn between $104,898 and $161,141 per year. Meta's AI researcher will make more in three days than Armstrong made in a year for taking "one giant leap for mankind."The report notes that the sums being offered to some of these AI researchers top even the most popular sports athletes. "The New York Times noted that Steph Curry's most recent four-year contract with the Golden State Warriors was $35 million less than Deitke's Meta deal (although soccer superstar Cristiano Ronaldo will make $275 million this year as the highest-paid professional athlete in the world)," reports Ars.
Silicon Valley's AI talent war just reached a compensation milestone that makes even the most legendary scientific achievements of the past look financially modest. When Meta recently offered AI researcher Matt Deitke $250 million over four years (an average of $62.5 million per year)—with potentially $100 million in the first year alone -- it shattered every historical precedent for scientific and technical compensation we can find on record. [Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg reportedly also offered an unnamed AI engineer $1 billion in compensation to be paid out over several years.] That includes salaries during the development of major scientific milestones of the 20th century. [...]To put these salaries in a historical perspective: J. Robert Oppenheimer, who led the Manhattan Project that ended World War II, earned approximately $10,000 per year in 1943. Adjusted for inflation using the US Government's CPI Inflation Calculator, that's about $190,865 in today's dollars -- roughly what a senior software engineer makes today. The 24-year-old Deitke, who recently dropped out of a PhD program, will earn approximately 327 times what Oppenheimer made while developing the atomic bomb. [...] The Apollo program offers another striking comparison. Neil Armstrong, the first human to walk on the moon, earned about $27,000 annually -- roughly $244,639 in today's money. His crewmates Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins made even less, earning the equivalent of $168,737 and $155,373, respectively, in today's dollars. Current NASA astronauts earn between $104,898 and $161,141 per year. Meta's AI researcher will make more in three days than Armstrong made in a year for taking "one giant leap for mankind."
Don’t blame Jerome Powell — or the Fed — if you can’t afford to buy a house right nowTrump says the Fed’s high interest rates are keeping Americans from buying houses. There’s more to it than that.President Donald Trump has repeatedly accused Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell of hindering home buying, saying in a July 18 Truth Social post that Powell and the Fed “are choking out the housing market with their high rate, making it difficult for people, especially the young, to buy a house.”Photo: MarketWatch photo illustration/iStockphoto, Getty ImagesHas Trump got the wrong guy?President Donald Trump has cast Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s reluctance to lower interest rates as the biggest obstacle to aspiring home buyers.“People aren’t able to buy a house because this guy is a numbskull,” Trump said of Powell ahead of Wednesday’s Fed policy meeting, where the central bank left its benchmark interest rate unchanged despite pressure from Trump to cut borrowing costs.Trump has said repeatedly that high interest rates are blocking Americans from buying houses. But Powell is not the main reason so few people can afford to buy a home right now, experts told MarketWatch.With so little supply, home prices have shot up to all-time highs. The market is too expensive for both renters trying to buy their first homes and repeat buyers who want to upgrade or downsize. And many of those existing homeowners can’t afford to let go of their low mortgage rates, fueling the so-called lock-in effect.The Trump administration’s scapegoat for America’s housing-affordability crisisYes, elevated mortgage rates are part of the reason buying a home is unaffordable for so many.Most people in the U.S. take out a mortgage when they buy a house. In 2024, 91% of first-time buyers financed their home with a mortgage, according to the National Association of Realtors.For those people, higher mortgage rates have been a barrier. The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage averaged 6.72% as of July 31, according to Freddie Mac. The 30-year rate has been in this range for a while, hovering above 6% for most of the last three years.That’s a big jump from years past. A home buyer purchasing a $400,000 home with a 15% down payment and a 30-year mortgage rate of 3% — a common rate during the pandemic — would pay about $2,000 per month. With a 7% mortgage rate, that monthly payment would be nearly $2,800.Trump has repeatedly singled out Powell, saying in a July 18 Truth Social post that Powell and the Fed “are choking out the housing market with their high rate, making it difficult for people, especially the young, to buy a house.” A week later, the president said that housing in the U.S. was “lagging because Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell refuses to lower Interest Rates.”But mortgage rates don’t directly follow the direction of the Fed’s benchmark short-term interest rate. Instead, they tend to move in tandem with the yield on the 10-year Treasury note, which typically rises when investors see inflation ahead. When the 10-year yield rises, so does the 30-year mortgage rate.However, the timing of Powell’s decision to raise interest rates from pandemic-era lows did contribute to housing-affordability challenges by making mortgage rates more volatile, said Michael Fratantoni, the chief economist of the Mortgage Bankers Association, an industry trade group.“The Federal Reserve was late to increase rates in 2022,” Fratantoni told MarketWatch. “If they had moved more quickly, they likely would not have needed to raise rates to the same extent. So there is some culpability for the extent of rate volatility we experienced.”Powell’s response to being blamed for the housing-affordability crisisAsked at this week’s Fed policy meeting about 7% mortgage rates and housing affordability, Powell said he doesn’t believe the Fed plays the central role in those issues.“We don’t set mortgage rates at the Fed,” Powell said in response to a question during the Wednesday press conference. “It’s not that we don’t have any effect. We do have an effect. But we’re not the main effect.”The current housing-affordability crisis is more about the “long-term housing shortage that we have,” Powell added. “We haven’t built enough housing. This is not something the Fed can help with. And that’ll be the case even after things normalize.”“So I think the best thing that we can do for housing is to have 2% inflation and maximum employment. And that’s what we can contribute to housing,” Powell said.Some don’t agree with that analysis. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, a Trump ally who has also repeatedly attacked Powell for not cutting interest rates, wrote on X in response to Powell’s comment that “The Fed has EVERYTHING to do with Housing.”The Fed has more impact on the housing market than its officials would like to think, said David Dworkin, president and chief executive of the National Housing Conference, a left-leaning nonprofit advocacy group. The Fed’s interest-rate policy directly affects home builders’ borrowing costs, which in turn affects how many new homes are built.The Fed’s holdings of mortgage-backed securities also have an impact on mortgage rates. In theory, if the Fed buys up more mortgage-backed securities, that in turn could push mortgage rates down. But the Fed has not been doing this. It has been trying to trim its balance sheet by letting those securities mature and roll off.The housing market has deeper, structural problemsThe reality is that lower mortgage rates wouldn’t be enough to solve affordability issues, experts told MarketWatch.While lower rates might make it more affordable to buy a home with a mortgage, the housing market’s affordability crisis is also fueled by high home prices. Those rising prices are driven by a mismatch between supply and demand.Even as home sales are running at the slowest pace in 30 years, home prices continue to reach record highs. The median price of an existing home sold this June was $435,300.Putting aside pandemic boom towns and the Sun Belt, where builders have been able to boost construction of new homes, most markets are still undersupplied. The pace of home building is still far below where it was two decades ago, prior to the Great Recession, and has not recovered fully.That’s in spite of demand skyrocketing over the years across most markets.Even current homeowners, who have benefited from significant home-price appreciation, face a tough market. Many bought their homes when both mortgage rates and home prices were significantly lower. To sell now would mean confronting a market that has become much more expensive — and that doesn’t incentivize them to move. Hence, “rate cuts alone aren’t enough,” Amy Nixon, a housing economist and a contributor at MacroEdge Research, noted in a post on X. “We need lower prices and consistently higher wages,” she wrote. “Some regions still need more inventory too.” For a typical house to become affordable to a buyer, the 30-year mortgage rate would need to drop to an “unrealistic” 4.43%, according to a recent report by the real-estate platform Zillow. The last time the 30-year rate was at that level was in March 2022.In response to a request for comment, a White House spokesperson said the Trump administration’s efforts to address housing affordability aren’t focused only on interest rates.“The Trump administration’s push to restore the American Dream of homeownership goes beyond interest rates,” spokesperson Kush Desai told MarketWatch. “Rapid deregulation to expand new home construction, historic working-class tax relief through The One Big Beautiful Bill, and America First trade deals that level the playing field for American workers reflect the Administration’s two-pronged approach of cutting costs while raising wages for everyday Americans.”Home prices would need to fall 18% to be affordable for a median-income buyerThe other option to make housing more affordable is for home prices to fall. But that’s equally unrealistic, according to Zillow. “If rates and other factors held steady, home values would need to drop 18% for the typical home to be affordable for a median-income family,” the company said.And falling home prices is not necessarily a positive trend.“The bulk of people in the U.S. don’t have massive equity-market portfolios,” James Knightley, chief international economist at ING, previously told MarketWatch. “The bulk of people’s wealth is overwhelmingly in their property and their pension fund as well.”Most middle-income families pay more attention to the value of their home than the value of their stock-market portfolio, Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told MarketWatch.So when home prices fall or are poised to fall, Knightley said, “I am a little bit nervous” that those declines could negatively hurt consumers’ outlook regarding the economy and their interest in spending. And that could start to weigh down the U.S. economy. “We need a multifaceted all-of-government approach to addressing a housing-affordability crisis, which has become mainstreamed across America,” Dworkin said. “We need to build more housing, and we need to build housing that’s affordable to first-time homebuyers. But we need to do it in a way that doesn’t depreciate home prices.”Two bills recently introduced in Congress seek to address housing affordability. One would eliminate capital-gains taxes on home sales; another would try to boost new-home construction by cutting red tape.“We didn’t get into this because of one policy, and we’re not going to get out of this because of one policy,” Dworkin added. What Powell and the Fed could do to revive the frozen housing marketSo what could Powell do at this point to address the stagnant housing market? “At this point, it would be best for housing markets if the Fed meets their mandates: conducting monetary policy in a manner that results in price stability and maximum employment,” the MBA’s Fratantoni said.“If the Fed gets monetary policy right over time, longer-term rates like mortgage rates will be lower and more stable on average,” he added. And “that would benefit housing affordability.” Jim Bullard, the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, told MarketWatch in an April interview that he was “a little bit pessimistic about housing.”“I think it has gotten quite a ways away from a steady state. And it’s going to take a long time [to fix because] it’s a slow-moving market. We just didn’t build enough houses after the global financial crisis,” he said. “It is going to take a long time to come back into equilibrium.”