patrick.net

That's the right attitude. Better luck next time.

FunnyBayAreaBuyer says

Happiness to all. Wether you own a house or not, the true secret of happiness lies within your objectives, working hard towards them, learning from failures in trying to achieve them, and becoming a better person in the process (and hey, maybe you will also get your objectives achieved! That's a plus!)

I agree. I decided to stop looking for a house and start focusing on my health--no more processed food and already training for my second half-marathon, which is in two weeks. Joy!

I'll tell you what Sam told those Ethiopians back in the 80's.

"Move to where the fucking food IS... Ah ah Ohhhhh!"

It sounds like to me, that the Bay area will always be one of those place that the old adage applies...

"If you have to ask, you probably can't afford it."

I also sort of gave up. I wanted a SFH with yard, 4 bd, and enough sqf to not feel cramped, in an area with good schools for my kids. That was too much to ask for, and by the time I realized prices were once again rising out of reach, it was almost too late.

I reexamined my goals and decided that this rat race isn't worth it long term. So we bought a town home with 4 beds, a garage, a small back yard, and a community pool for the kiddies. It's working well, and it's well under what I can afford, so we can save money still. Now the plan is to send the wife back to work in a year or two, then save like demons for a few more years, sell the house (hope it doesn't drop!) and move elsewhere that's much cheaper to live. Austin seems nice. Just somewhere else where we don't have to struggle to be a second class citizen. California has great weather, horrid laws, and awful bureaucracy. There are too many people and not enough housing. And too many areas are just foreign countries with regard to ethnicity and language spoken. And it's getting worse, forcing the few Americans left to try to outbid each other to live in one of the last few places where we aren't a tiny
minority.
The native population looks to be aging rapidly, and will be replaced by yet more foreign investors who buy here so they can squat.

Quigley says

California has great weather, horrid laws, and awful bureaucracy.

You forgot to add, insane taxes too.

Quigley says

Austin seems nice.

Austin is nice as is San Antonio. I've made Houston work for me and as a last resort there is always Dallas.

California is known for it's sour grapes:)

Quigley says

horrid laws....

Ceffer says

keep in constant motion like a shark, never rest....

Wow, such dire depictions seem difficult to understand. Which laws are horrid, compared to other places? What is legal or illegal here that would not be in other states? Why must a person "keep in constant motion like a shark" here more than elsewhere?

mmmarvel says

Quigley says

California has great weather, horrid laws, and awful bureaucracy.

You forgot to add, insane taxes too.

If that's a reference to the voter-approved "mental health tax," i.e. a 1% income surtax devoted to SSRIs and the homeless industrial complex, I have to admit you have a point there. Also the electronics recycling fee, and the inscrutable CRV which is itself subject to ever increasing sales tax, can seem rather odd, and income taxes are higher than most states.

ya, i've all but given up, too, but am totally cool with it - for the time being. owning a little bungalow would be nice, seeing how i'm getting older and want a little slice of americana.

but i've grown content with being a renter. my rent is cheap since my place is like that house in the movie fight club, and i'm able to squirrel away my hard-earned nuts like no other.

all my family is in california, and i love this state. i was in yosemite last week hiking half dome! where else you gonna get that type of vista, eh? san antonio? balderdash!

Caucasian population has always tendency to run away from areas where they start to feel like minority, due to different values in live. In Dallas area, where I am at this moment, seeing Caucasian families with 4-5 children is not uncommon. This fact only, run by natural instinct, speaks for itself.

Quigley says

The native population looks to be aging rapidly, and will be replaced by yet
more foreign investors who buy here so they can squat.

I didnt see any native americans in here

do you mean caucasians when you refer to the native population?Last heard they too came from some other continet

AdamCarollaFan says

all my family is in california, and i love this state. i was in yosemite last week hiking half dome! where else you gonna get that type of vista, eh? san antonio? balderdash!

I went to Yellowstone and hiking in Grand Teton, but kept thinking there is no comparison to Yosemite and Tahoe.

California is expensive but I know I would always feel like I was settling for my second choice if I moved somewhere else.

FunnyBayAreaBuyer says

I will wait until the next recession hits.

You can still find great deals just not in California.

Californian home prices are way over priced and the Bay well, you can forget it unless your a Chinese banker hiding his money outside the country.

mmmarvel says

Quigley says

California has great weather, horrid laws, and awful bureaucracy.

You forgot to add, insane taxes too.

Thats an understatement.

But if you compare NY crazy taxes with CA I would take the high taxes in CA over NY any of the week.

If I may offer some advice for the future - if and when the house prices fall again, the perspective buyers should look at it as a good thing. Pretend you are in a store. Imagine that a particular brand of jeans has been going up for years and imagine that jeans are scarce and that a buyer can always sell jeans in the future in a "resale" market. Imagine that at max, you can only put 20% down on that pair of jeans and finance it over 30 years. Now imagine that a recession hit - at the peak of the market, jeans were going for $100, but now they can be purchased for $70. Is that a good thing? Of course, it is! Why would you be "scared" that jeans will fall more and that you will end up "underwater?" Instead a lot of the buyers are completely illogical - they will happily pay more as jeans go up to $120, then $130, etc because they need to have the evidence that they can resell the jeans at the profit. And now, they will pay the penalty for this lack of judgement in the form of lack of jeans to choose from and obscenely high prices.

How long should one wait for the price to fall again? 3, 5 or 10 years?

I'm not a quitter. I'm still offering 50% of asking price.
Let the suckers pay too much.

Moderate Infidel says

California is known for it's sour grapes:)

hey, I grow my own in my own Bay Area backyard and they are not sour.

HEY YOU says

I'm not a quitter. I'm still offering 50% of asking price.

Let the suckers pay too much.

:-) :-) :-)

This one made my day. Thinking like that, actually, i think I will not quit either!. Let's drive them RE Agents crazy!!!

You guys are the best ppl in the world!

dublin hillz says

Pretend you are in a store. Imagine that a particular brand of jeans has been going up for years and imagine that jeans are scarce and that a buyer can always sell jeans in the future in a "resale" market. Imagine that at max, you can only put 20% down on that pair of jeans and finance it over 30 years.

Jeans like homes infact havent been going up for the past 30 years. They are nice, but no one is naive to pay 100 bucks. People have been paying 30 bucks for the past 30 years regardless how scarce they become. Strangely some odd people did start paying 100 for no reason creating a fade and get rich scheme, calling jeans a good investment they can hustle to sell for higher prices. Eventually prices crash, and they go back to 30 bucks. So is the story or Jeans.

hanera says

How long should one wait for the price to fall again? 3, 5 or 10 years?

Waiting for the next downturn?

What makes you guys think you will be able to recognize the next bottom when you completely missed the meltdown.

Carolyn C says

hanera says

How long should one wait for the price to fall again? 3, 5 or 10 years?

Waiting for the next downturn?

What makes you guys think you will be able to recognize the next bottom when you completely missed the meltdown.

Exactly.

Carolyn C says

Waiting for the next downturn?

What makes you guys think you will be able to recognize the next bottom when you completely missed the meltdown.

well we (SFBA) started the bubble back in 1998 and kicked in a second bubble post 2001...
while we corrected for the first, we havent corrected for second.. It will correct one way or another.. to get back to the normal prices.

frankly, SFBA is in a economic contraction compared to prior decades which saw some serious expansion both jobs and income increased.

rufita11 says

I went to Yellowstone and hiking in Grand Teton, but kept thinking there is no comparison to Yosemite and Tahoe.

You've obviously never made it to Oregon then.

bob2356 says

rufita11 says

I went to Yellowstone and hiking in Grand Teton, but kept thinking there is no comparison to Yosemite and Tahoe.

You've obviously never made it to Oregon then.

Been to Oregon quite a bit actually. I especially liked Eugene because it reminded me of Berkeley. But, I have never been to Crater Lake, which is still on my list of things to do in the next two years.

Carolyn C says

Vallejo, Benicia, San Pablo, Richmond, west Oakland, Hayward, Fairfield, Manteca. Vallejo homes are very affordable but it does look economically depressed. And I am not sure what the future holds for that community. Looking for communities with the most appreciation potential to sell at a later date. Any advice will be appreciated.

when were anyone of these cities NOT economically depressed ?

The future is the past.. what was it like in the 90s, 80s 70s ???

Carolyn C says

hanera says

How long should one wait for the price to fall again? 3, 5 or 10 years?

Waiting for the next downturn?

What makes you guys think you will be able to recognize the next bottom when you completely missed the meltdown.

FIrst of all, there was no complete melt down. There was a correction from a HUGE bubble. Meltdown? really? Secondly, I dont think people are saying they want to buy at the bottom, they just are not willing to buy at inflated prices, which are two completely separate things.

thomaswong.1986 says

when were anyone of these cities NOT economically depressed ?

I have not been in the area that long to know what is was like for those cities during the 70s & 80s. I do believe that the economic condidtion of neighborhoods change from time to time. So if you have any helpful suggestion it would be appreciated. If you are just going to talk doom and gloom then you can keep your advise to yourself.

Meccos says

Carolyn C says

hanera says

How long should one wait for the price to fall again? 3, 5 or 10 years?

Waiting for the next downturn?

What makes you guys think you will be able to recognize the next bottom when you completely missed the meltdown.

FIrst of all, there was no complete melt down. There was a correction from a HUGE bubble. Meltdown? really? Secondly, I dont think people are saying they want to buy at the bottom, they just are not willing to buy at inflated prices, which are two completely separate things.

Will the Bay Area ever be a place to purchase a home at non inflated prices? I do not think so simply because the Bay Area is an employment hub. I could see that being the case if it were the central valley or Texas. It just my opinion. If it were my way all homes would be free.

Carolyn C says

Will the Bay Area ever be a place to purchase a home at non inflated prices? I do not think so simply because the Bay Area is an employment hub. I could see that being the case if it were the central valley or Texas. It just my opinion. If it were my way all homes would be free.

Its more of a HQ hub but majority of hiring is outside of Bay Area. Intel, HP, Cisco, etc etc all hire more and have larger operations outside of SFBA. My former employer who had 10,000s of employes in Santa Clara is now based in Austin.

Apple is expanding to include 3000 employees in Austin. Seagate has massive R&D in Minnesota.. yet its local HQ is much smaller.

Its too expensive to hire in SFBA.. it was not the case pre1998. It was much more reasonable...

Carolyn C says

Vallejo homes are very affordable but it does look economically depressed.

Bankruptcy will do that.

Iwong needs the money.. he couldnt care otherwise.

The poor bastards who lived in Dickensian England didn't have access to millions of firearms and instant information subsystems like the Internet and cellular communications. Why do you think people in the Middle East are rioting? They're not gonna sit there and take it up the ass while Keynesians like you drive up food prices into the stratosphere.

thomaswong.1986 says

talk to me how prices tanked from 1988 to mid 90s...you keep getting this delusional idea that bubble prices are somehow legitimate...

For the first half of American history so far, periods of inflation and deflation tended to offset each other, resulting in stable prices. That isn't the case anymore.

In the century prior to the Fed, prices actually fell slightly, due to increases in productivity and confidence in the USD. In the century since the Fed began promoting a stable currency, the USD has lost more than 95% of its value. The $ creators at the Fed have decided to prop up housing prices, "easing" vast quantities of $$$ into the SFBA market. Therefore, housing prices increased.

It isn't a question of legitimacy, it's a matter of data. If the people creating the USD decide to use that power to prop up the price of something else instead, that other thing will get propped up. If the Fed decided to prop up the price of rag dolls, then rag dolls would be a safer investment than the USD. I don't believe their propaganda about this being good for the economy; houses aren't intrinsically a better store of value than rag dolls would be, but I don't blind myself to the data.

Reality says

On top of that, you are continuing your historical ignorance. The coal mine owners of the 19th century were not "Robber Barons"; none of them had the market power like industrialists of the new and rising industries of the time like Steel making and oil. That's the reason why some of them tried to cut cost by hiring child labor. Child labor was socially frowned upon long before the laws came along. You don't see the real Robber Barons with high margins hiring child labor.

Historical ignorance? Really?

Child labor was common until WWI, the gilded age started in 1870. The FIRST child labor law was passed in 1916. Go look up the pictures made by people like Lewis Hines who did a lot of documentation on child labor in the early 1900's. There is a wealth of photographic history that clearly shows children, some as young at 8, working in almost every industry all over the country. Working, not picking up coal or searching for scraps.

Mr History, perhaps you were not aware, but many of the industries of the gilded age were vertical monopolies. Carnegie for example owned the steel mills, coke and coal properties, iron ore properties, a fleet of steamers on the Great Lakes to move coke/coal/ore, a port town on Lake Erie, and a connecting railroad. So in fact frequently the "coal mine owners" WERE the robber barons.

Child labor is still common today for exactly the same reasons as the gilded age. Generating high profits by paying wages so low every family member has to work to survive. It's just been off shored.

Reality says

Not deliberately after he became a rich "Robber Baron.

Vote for the most silly statement of the year. Carnegie wasn't involved in hiring of any type as the owner of huge industries. Or in operations. That's like saying Nike didn't "deliberately" use child labor because they didn't know who the subcontractors hired.

Please feel free to produce some documentation that Carnegie had a policy of no child labor in the industries he owned.

bob2356 says

Vote for the most silly statement of the year. Carnegie wasn't involved in hiring of any type as the owner of huge industries. Or in operations. That's like saying Nike didn't "deliberately" use child labor because they didn't know who the subcontractors hired.

That's just reality on the ground. The US Navy and Army signed up many recruits who falsified their age during WWII. Do you consider the army and navy as gross violators of child labor laws?

Please feel free to produce some documentation that Carnegie had a policy of no child labor in the industries he owned.

The fact that they were on the leading edge for adopting mechanical coal breakers spoke more loudly than any paper policy.

I have come to exactly the same conclusion! With a high six figure income, I maxxed out 401k already but cannot stomach paying most of my paycheck for house in the RBA. Looking at Sacramento and commuting 1-2x a week instead when my lease expires next summer. At least I will own a place and have more room than my cramped 1 BR apartment for same or less money!

SJ says

With a high six figure income, I maxxed out 401k already but cannot stomach paying most of my paycheck for house in the RBA.

I'm guessing you mean five figure income.

Reality says

No it is not the reason. Two or three incomes are necessary to make ends meet because of debt burden. That's the biggest chunk of a typical family's expenditure: the student loans, the mortgage, and tax burden (which is a debt/rent for being alive and have income; the money also mostly goes to service public debt and public obligations to unions).

Absolutely.

Reality says

The debt burden was a lot lower. The stay-home spouse also didn't get taxed for her work done at home, unlike all the taxes piled onto restaurants, house cleaners, nannies, day-care, etc. etc. on top of taxes on her wage income. In many ways, the liberal agenda of getting the women into work force did in fact work out to be a huge tax boom on the family.

Also true.Reality says

They are able to take a far larger cut of the money supply because they are allowed to leverage with the FED covering their tail end risk (aka covering their asses).

The worst of it all. Picking winners and losers, "good" and "bad" debt is ruining the economy. No skin in the game for the middle-men, hit and run. It becomes a game of being best connected, closest to the money supply and best back-stopped (no risk). Slice and dice and resell that crap downstream, too late for the suckers to realize that profit was made without the production or invention of anything tangible/useful.