Usa Social Security Changes Impact On Retired Expats Here

[Jingthing]

Given the massive USA deficit, the third rail of USA politics, social security, is on the table for potential changes. I think these changes are coming, but will effect different age groups differently.

Let's break it down --

Younger people 20 to 40, they have internalized for a long time already that they can't expect to count on social security when they are older. They expect deep benefit cuts, large increases in the age that they can first take the benefit and also the age when they can get the full benefit. Many don't expect the system to exist later for them; they may be right, that's a long time especially for those in their 20's.

Middle age 40 - 50, they are a vulnerable group that has a high probability to be impacted at the very least with an increase in age for beginning SS benefits, and also the age the receive full benefits (if benefit taking is delayed)

Later middle age 50 - 60, this is the age group I have a big question about. It is a very rich segment to hit with changes as this now includes BABY BOOMERS, so even a minor tweak to hit this group would yield big results. However, this group is rather close to the minimum age to start taking benefits (62), so to hit this massive group with big changes risks a massive political blowback. Also note the deep recession has hit this age group very hard, and many will never recover from it, or even ever have any or any lucrative work again. It can be argued it is more ethical to make big changes to groups with the most WARNING, if large changes are made to this group, that's not much warning. The flip coin of this is that it is the younger groups that are funding the currently retired, so that also raises a big ethical/political question, why should younger people sacrifice for a benefit they aren't likely to fully enjoy when it is their turn.

Age 60 up -- I can't imagine they will be changing the policy much of people a few years from 62 and also the people already in the system. Perhaps some COLA tweaks, but they certainly won't kick people off the system that are already on it.

The Thailand hook? Thailand retirement visa starts at age 50. To my view, the current age 50 to 60 group is the biggest question mark. If many USA retirees 50 to 60 were PLANNING to start their benefit at 62 and they raise that age to 66 for example for this group, that will be a huge impact.

Any thoughts about this? I realize some sky is falling types think the SS system is near collapse now. That simply isn't true. It isn't anywhere near financial collapse yet.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Jingthing

[cloudhopper]

Sure they will continue to progressively renege (on many other socialist deals too) and the youngest will lose the most. The much bigger impact on expats will come if US reflation efforts result in a severe devaluation of the USD vs the THB.

[InterestedObserver]

Any thoughts about this? I realize some sky is falling types think the SS system is near collapse now. That simply isn't true. It isn't anywhere near financial collapse yet.

What is true is that this year it has been reported that Social Security, for the first time, will have a negative cash flow. Meaning the US Treasury will have to start repaying funds that it has borrowed from the Social Security trust fund. But the US Treasury doesn't have any money, it's broke, so it will have to borrow more from China, et al in order to pay Social Security back. All this increases the deficit more and accelerates the day of reckoning. How many of you remember an exchange rate of 20 baht for the dollar?

[Jingthing]

You're right. It is now in neg cash flow, 7 years earlier than projected. However, there are some easy fixes to address this such as raising the cut off income point where wealthier Americans don't have to contribute any more. I predict that number will be raised significantly. Like I said, cuts and changes are coming, from all directions, but the program isn't going away anytime soon.

[Thailaw]

Any one that relies on Social Security (or promises from the US or any government more generally) for their survival after retirement is very, VERY foolish. If it is there to help, fine, but everyone need to plan for and finance their retirement from their own resources, without reliance on the US government or children or any other outside source. I assumed Social Security benefits of "0" a long time ago, and if I get a penny/baht, I will consider it a windfall. I don't expect anything from the US Government. Remember the three biggest lies of all times:

1. the check is in the mail.

2. I will still respect you in the morning (actually, I might).

and the best 3. I am from the government and I am here to help.

God save us from Bush, Obama, Geitner, Pelosi, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangle and all the rest.........

If you haven't done that, then you "deserve" whatever comes your way. The bigger problem, as has been noted, is the value of the Dollar against the Baht and interest rates. Both are going the wrong way for people near retirement. They are more difficult (but not impossible) to manage, and it needs to be a part of the plan........

[Jingthing]

Thailaw, get real, you are speaking as an elitist. The vast majority of older Americans DO count on social security for survival. The vast majority of baby boomers don't even have 50K USD saved and no other pension (a huge percentage has saved NOTHING). It is easy to talk from the viewpoint of a high horse, but I prefer to see the real world as it is.

Do you seriously think there is the political will to see tens of millions of elder Americans living on the streets? It is insanity to think older Americans won't get any benefits. Younger Americans who will have decades to prepare for these new realities, probably a different story.

You are right though about a weakened dollar being a threat to us though, as well as inflation.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Jingthing

[Thailaw]

Thailaw, get real, you are speaking as an elitist. The vast majority of older Americans DO count on social security for survival. The vast majority of baby boomers don't even have 50K USD saved and no other pension (a huge percentage has saved NOTHING). It is easy to talk from the viewpoint of a high horse, but I prefer to see the real world as it is.

That's fine (seeing the real world as it is) -- no disagreement there. Just see all of the "real world" and don't be surprised if and when (more likely when) the money you planned on from the Government isn't there or is only a small fraction of what was promised and what you expected. I prefer living my life with ME in control (and no one to blame if things go wrong but myself). "Elitist"?, perhaps. But one that has always been able to deal with the future whatever it brings. And I reject that people, regardless of their income level, cannot save for the future. Living within one's means (and saving for retirement) should be the norm no matter what the "means" are. If they haven't, it isn't because they couldn't. And my situation would not be any different (in control of my future) if I had earned a small fraction of what I have -- it is a question of attitude and philosophy, personal responsibility, not income. Cheers,

[Jingthing]

OK, now that the morality lecture is done with, back to the politics/policy part.

[RKASA]

Any thoughts about this? I realize some sky is falling types think the SS system is near collapse now. That simply isn't true. It isn't anywhere near financial collapse yet.

What is true is that this year it has been reported that Social Security, for the first time, will have a negative cash flow. Meaning the US Treasury will have to start repaying funds that it has borrowed from the Social Security trust fund. But the US Treasury doesn't have any money, it's broke, so it will have to borrow more from China, et al in order to pay Social Security back. All this increases the deficit more and accelerates the day of reckoning. How many of you remember an exchange rate of 20 baht for the dollar?

I can recall 18 and a plate of Kowpot was 3 baht, but I only made about 3000 a month too.

[RKASA]

I often worry the most about a shift in the exchange rate, that can be a killer.

I don't see why they don't rise the limit at which people stop paying SSI tax and lower the rate at the same time. Tax relief for low income and a net gain for SSI while thou that have proven to live longer and draw more can stop paying a less % of life earnings into the system they get the most out of in the end. (On average)

[Thailaw]

The vast majority of older Americans DO count on social security for survival. The vast majority of baby boomers don't even have 50K USD saved and no other pension (a huge percentage has saved NOTHING). It is easy to talk from the viewpoint of a high horse, but I prefer to see the real world as it is.

Do you seriously think there is the political will to see tens of millions of elder Americans living on the streets? It is insanity to think older Americans won't get any benefits. Younger Americans who will have decades to prepare for these new realities, probably a different story.

You are right though about a weakened dollar being a threat to us though, as well as inflation.

OK, now that the morality lecture is done with, back to the politics/policy part.

JT: I thought your statistics were absurd, so I did a bit of checking. From "zero2rich.com:

"Q: What are average retirement savings?

A: Here are some average retirement savings statistics that I have gathered:

The typical American household, headed by a 43-year-old, has retirement savings of $18,750.

The typical pre-retiree household (age 55 and up) has a retirement savings of $60,000.

Baby boomers between the ages of 41 and 54 have typically a retirement savings of $30,000.

Baby boomers have median total household personal retirement savings of $35,000.

Baby boomers who save in a 401k have an average 401k account balance of $80,000.

According to a survey, 51 percent of workers age 55 and up have saved less than $50,000 in retirement savings (not including the value of a primary residence). And 39 percent of workers in the same age group have saved less than $25,000 in retirement savings.

Another survey estimates that one in five pre-retirees age 50 to 64 has less than $5,000 in retirement savings."

So, you are closer to reality that I expected. On that point you win. You also win on "the way things are" as opposed to "the way things should be". And I never suggested that retirement benefits will be taken away in their entirety, only that they are likely to be reduced in real terms (and certainly in terms of Thai Baht, but that is an exchange rate issue as much as anything), even for those in or close to retirement. My neighbor who is retired and on disability from the US military tells me that the cost of living adjustment on his pension has been frozen (no adjustment is his pension payments) for 3 years. I am confident that you will not be able to buy as much in Thailand with your monthly Social Security payment 3 years from now as you can today. Care to wager a Sandaman '63 on that?

Ethics or ethical behavior maybe; "morality" never! Cheers...............

[cloudhopper]

The vast majority of older Americans DO count on social security for survival.

They also used to count on interest income from savings they diligently accumulated before it was wiped out by the Bush/Obama Fed QE. Oh they'll get their SS benefits it just won't buy anything as the republicrat Fed prints to infinity, enabled of course by terrified clueless voters.

[flying]

They also used to count on interest income from savings they diligently accumulated before it was wiped out by the Bush/Obama Fed QE. Oh they'll get their SS benefits it just won't buy anything as the republicrat Fed prints to infinity, enabled of course by terrified clueless voters.

Sadly that is the truth........really it is. While we paid into SS strong dollars most of our life, the reality is we as well as the creditors of the US ( China,Japan et al) will be repaid in devalued dollars.

Edited July 30, 2010 by flying

[hhgz]

I think that the "hook" to tie this discussion with "Thailand" is tenuous, but if the moderators allow it to continue...

I do not believe that the entry age of 62 will rise, but the age at which you can claim full benefits will increase by one year for every decade. This simple change would prevent the oft mentioned shortfall, but neither the republicans nor the democrats seem willing to propose that legislation. What's going to happen to the planned benefits? Hey, let's toss out every single name we can Google: Pelosi, Rangle, Franks, Obama...not very helpful, but whining never helps. Any of us can find something on the internet which supports a perspective that the sky is falling, the end is near, and it doesn't take any critical analysis. On the other hand, if you steer away from the fringe websites (the nihilistic doom and gloomers), it seems as though that benefits are unlikely to be affected for anyone within 10 years of retirement but, if either the full retirement age or FICA taxes are raised, younger people need to pay attention.

[farangene]

I received the following today from an American friend who got it from the Moveon organization. I keep hear that increasing the upper limit on income subject to Soc Sec is a very likely move some time in the future as well as increasing the age for full Soc Sec benefits. Those alternatives are much more palatable politically than cutting the income pensioners are receiving or were promised.

Social Security is under attack and we need to fight back against the lies.

Have you heard that Social Security is going bankrupt? Driving up the deficit? In crisis?

Well none of that is true. These are all myths that opponents of Social Security have been spreading to scare people into accepting benefit cuts this fall. But the myths are taking hold—so we have to fight back with the facts.

So we've put together a list of the top five myths about Social Security, along with the real story. Can you check out the list and then share it with your friends, family, and coworkers?

Share the list by going to http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths?id=22141-9280234-U.nwn5x&t=1 If you're on Facebook, share it by clicking here. If you're on Twitter, tweet it here.

Top 5 Social Security Myths

Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.¹ After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago.² Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago.³ What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.⁴ But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.⁵ Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.⁶ But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.⁷ The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.⁸

Defeating these myths is the first step to stopping Social Security cuts. Can you share this list now?

[Jingthing]

Thanks for that. I think the chances of the upper limit for contributions being raised are 100 percent. I also think for younger Americans the minimum age WILL be raised above age 62. It's easier to sell the idea that medical advances will make this logical and looking at competing economies, the retirement ages ARE going up. Another aspect, statistically African Americans and Latino Americans die younger (also poor people in general), so there is a political/racial aspect to the argument against raising the retirement age. In general, democrats will oppose it and republicans will favor it. I think there is going have to be some give all around for a compromise that can be realistic.

My intention wasn't to start a political debate. Rather the intention was to spark discussion about what is likely to happen and why especially to the early retiree group in Thailand, age 50 to 62.

As far as Thailand related, well it is Thailand related to US expats, currently retired and future ones. Check the record, there are many discussions here about UK and Australian government pension policies and changes. SS is our government pension.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Jingthing

[yabaaaa]

So looking at this "if" I save currently i will get little interest I may lose a fortune in currency swings and the state will pay me almost nothing when i retire later so "what" should I be doing, "where" should I be putting any spare cash?.

Theoretical for me, I bought some real assets a long time ago which i can sell later, something real not some paper promises.

Edited July 30, 2010 by yabaaaa

[tonypace]

Originally, the retirement age was 65. There was no early retirement until the Eisenhower years when women were allowed to retire at 75%benefits at age 62. Widows received full benefits at that age. A few years later, men got the same benefit. Of course the contribution was increased by4%, 2% from the employer and 2% from the employee.

I don't see any reason why it can't be moved back to theoriginal figure.

Edited July 30, 2010 by tonypace

[Jingthing]

Yeah, I do think the age is going to be ratcheted up over time. However, the devil is in the details, as they say. Suppose you are 60 and have been planning to start your benefit at age 62 for 5 years. All of a sudden you can't, you must wait till 65. I don't think there is any chance the change will be made that way. The pattern is to make these changes based on birth year.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Jingthing

[zaphodbeeblebrox]

Raising the retirement age, reducing benefits, increasing the maximum salary cap - it all makes sense. A political reality is that Congress will never be able to touch social security, the 3rd rail. It's political suicide.

[Jingthing]

OK, so assuming the SS program is not going away anytime soon, and assuming there are going to be some changes made to the program in the next few years, what do you reckon will happen to the current age group, 50 to 60, in regards to raising the minimum benefit age and raising the full benefits age? My guess is the full benefits age may go up for the current age group 50 - 55 approx, but the minimum benefit age won't.

[cloudhopper]

Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.⁸

Sure just because we say it's off the budget then SHAZAAM by our definition SS can never add to the deficit. Just like the imperial war mongering costs have been placed "off budget".

Don't worry though even though your SS check (after taxes) won't be able to buy anything the government will declare hunger and homelessness impossible "by law" - sorted.

Edited July 30, 2010 by cloudhopper

[ronz28]

Facts of life are... its harder to get/stay employed in your 60s. They can keep raising the retirement age but some people are worn out at 62 while others can work a lot longer. Depends on what type of work you do but your health usually gets worse as you age and I don't know how a construction worker would work longer than the current age. I wouldn't touch social security.

I think there are a lot of other opportunities for the U.S. government to cut expenses and certainly a greater opportunity in state and local governments. There are too many people in government at all levels paid over $125K-$250K and then get 70 to 100% of that salary as an annuity for retirement for life. They ought to be capped at say $70k in retirement. Social security is peanuts compared to the taxpayer ripoff in excessive pay and retirement for government managers and executives who are often political hacks that lack the competence needed for their jobs.

[californiabeachboy]

The irony is that even though the US government is in dire straits in terms of the deficit, people are more willing to loan money to it than to any other government. Every time there is a financial crisis, the US dollar strengthens, (the so-called flight to safety). Also, we have the good fortune of being able to grow our way out of a deficit, and I believe we will always be able to fund our Social Security obligations (I hope so as I am 59). That is why I am not a doom and gloomer, but If I was a citizen of Greece - I would be a big time doom and gloomer.

[moe666]

Social Security was seperate at one time, in the 80's when Ronald Regan signed into law one of the biggest tax increases in history it was a increase in social security tax. Part of the same law made social security part of the general budget. How do you think congress fiances the government besides borrowing they write a iou to socialsecurity and pay only 2 or 3 percent intrest.

Apply for your benefit is seamless I made 2 phone calls and my check started 3 months later, I got mine hope you guys get yours as well.

[cloudhopper]

The irony is that even though the US government is in dire straits in terms of the deficit, people are more willing to loan money to it than to any other government. Every time there is a financial crisis, the US dollar strengthens, (the so-called flight to safety). Also, we have the good fortune of being able to grow our way out of a deficit, and I believe we will always be able to fund our Social Security obligations (I hope so as I am 59). That is why I am not a doom and gloomer, but If I was a citizen of Greece - I would be a big time doom and gloomer.

The irony is that the US is not in fact financed by mom and pop buying savings bonds. It is financed by treasury bills and bonds (tax payers are) paying 1-4% interest that are bought by banks with money printed by the Fed and loaned to them (but not you or your small business) at 0-0.25% interest. You will be a doomer if/when you finally realize that the US has been playing the same shell games Greece has.

[flying]

The irony is that even though the US government is in dire straits in terms of the deficit, people are more willing to loan money to it than to any other government. Every time there is a financial crisis, the US dollar strengthens, (the so-called flight to safety). Also, we have the good fortune of being able to grow our way out of a deficit, and I believe we will always be able to fund our Social Security obligations (I hope so as I am 59). That is why I am not a doom and gloomer, but If I was a citizen of Greece - I would be a big time doom and gloomer.

A bit confusing..... When you say

Every time there is a financial crisis,

Which are you referring to? Because compared to this there was only one other & the flight to safety that time was a dollar backed by gold.

Perhaps it is partially because the world believes we hold what we claim in Fort Knox?

But yes this time there was still a flight to the USD but why? Because they think the biggest military will be the last man standing?

Or because they already hold too many IOU's & need to help prop the shell game as long as possible while they quietly try to off these into real assets?

Or is it because as long as oil is traded in these they are useful? Which again would seem to go back to the biggest military in many ways..

As for growing our way out of it....I wonder about that. Consumerism was a good gig while it lasted but where do you grow & who are the customers with means to buy?

Edited July 31, 2010 by flying

[craigt3365]

The vast majority of older Americans DO count on social security for survival. The vast majority of baby boomers don't even have 50K USD saved and no other pension (a huge percentage has saved NOTHING). It is easy to talk from the viewpoint of a high horse, but I prefer to see the real world as it is.

Do you seriously think there is the political will to see tens of millions of elder Americans living on the streets? It is insanity to think older Americans won't get any benefits. Younger Americans who will have decades to prepare for these new realities, probably a different story.

You are right though about a weakened dollar being a threat to us though, as well as inflation.

OK, now that the morality lecture is done with, back to the politics/policy part.

JT: I thought your statistics were absurd, so I did a bit of checking. From "zero2rich.com:

"Q: What are average retirement savings?

A: Here are some average retirement savings statistics that I have gathered:

The typical American household, headed by a 43-year-old, has retirement savings of $18,750.

The typical pre-retiree household (age 55 and up) has a retirement savings of $60,000.

Baby boomers between the ages of 41 and 54 have typically a retirement savings of $30,000.

Baby boomers have median total household personal retirement savings of $35,000.

Baby boomers who save in a 401k have an average 401k account balance of $80,000.

According to a survey, 51 percent of workers age 55 and up have saved less than $50,000 in retirement savings (not including the value of a primary residence). And 39 percent of workers in the same age group have saved less than $25,000 in retirement savings.

Another survey estimates that one in five pre-retirees age 50 to 64 has less than $5,000 in retirement savings."

So, you are closer to reality that I expected. On that point you win. You also win on "the way things are" as opposed to "the way things should be". And I never suggested that retirement benefits will be taken away in their entirety, only that they are likely to be reduced in real terms (and certainly in terms of Thai Baht, but that is an exchange rate issue as much as anything), even for those in or close to retirement. My neighbor who is retired and on disability from the US military tells me that the cost of living adjustment on his pension has been frozen (no adjustment is his pension payments) for 3 years. I am confident that you will not be able to buy as much in Thailand with your monthly Social Security payment 3 years from now as you can today. Care to wager a Sandaman '63 on that?

Ethics or ethical behavior maybe; "morality" never! Cheers...............

Yikes...those are scary stats! But I think you also have to factor in equity. I know in my case, I had hardly any money in savings, but a bunch in equity. That's really true for those who have lived in one place for many years. But still....very scary stats. Also wonder what percent has some sort of pension? Here is some interesting info I found, though a bit old:

Age: 50-59

Median Net Worth: $182,300

Top 25%: $563,800

Top 10%: $1,187,600

Age: 60-69

Median Net Worth: $209,200

Top 25%: $647,200

Top 10%: $1,429,500

Source: Federal Reserve Board's 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances

Source: http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2006/11/median_net_wort.html

See also pages 9 and 10 on the document at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-88.pdf

Sources: http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2006/11/median_net_wort.html

[ronz28]

Equity portion of net worth is based on mark to market... what a willing buyer and willing seller would do a net deal for at the time of the mark. We all know property values have taken a major hit in many places in the U.S. so that a condo in Nevada costing $379,000 three years ago can't be sold for $150,000 today. Any one holding a mortgage on such a place will loose maybe $229K for making the loan and be out the interest income until the property is sold because the buyer can/will stiff you. Even if you can get $150K back on the loan and deposit in a bank, your friendly banker might now only now pay you 1% interest on your deposit. So you now have $1500 a year in interest from the bank and you were planning on getting $26,000 per year net on your $379K loan multiply that by the number of loans you did and you get a flavor of what happened to some retirees and their current net worth vs 2004 because they now have less assets and are having to spend down some of those to live on since their interest income is inadequate.

Personal balance sheets have taken a major hit so 2004 Net Worth stats are worthless.

Edited July 31, 2010 by ronz28

[craigt3365]

Equity portion of net worth is based on mark to market... what a willing buyer and willing seller would do a net deal for at the time of the mark. We all know property values have taken a major hit in many places in the U.S. so that a condo in Nevada costing $379,000 three years ago can't be sold for $150,000 today. Any one holding a mortgage on such a place will loose maybe $229K for making the loan and be out the interest income until the property is sold because the buyer can/will stiff you. Even if you can get $150K back on the loan and deposit in a bank, your friendly banker might now only now pay you 1% interest on your deposit. So you now have $1500 a year in interest from the bank and you were planning on getting $26,000 per year net on your $379K loan multiply that by the number of loans you did and you get a flavor of what happened to some retirees and their current net worth vs 2004 because they now have less assets and are having to spend down some of those to live on since their interest income is inadequate.

Personal balance sheets have taken a major hit so 2004 Net Worth stats are worthless.

I hear ya, but not every market has taken huge hits. Vegas, Phoenix, Florida...all got hit the worst...but then they went up the most. Some places didn't skyrocket in the early 2000's, so they didn't fall like others.

Many of my friends have lived in their homes for over 20 years, and in areas where values are still strong, like Texas. Quite a few are paid off. They stand to make a substantial amount of money when they sell...bad market or good. My Mom built her house in Vegas in 2005. It is down for sure. But paid off and could still sell for $350k or so as it is on a golf course with stunning mountain views (2005 price was around $550k). Properties are selling in Vegas, but only if they are priced right. I am in the RE biz in Vegas...mainly dealing with mortgages...not much to do for the past few years. But there are still deals out there and I have done a few in the past several years. Can't wait for things to get sorted out though!!!!

Here is an interesting article. But overall, the market is still slow, prices soft and inventory high.

My link