patrick.net

KILLERJANE says

Sorry. You are right. Prices won't be ruled BY INCOME ALONE but by supply and demand

... except there isn't a shortage of homes. The supply is at an all-time high. So the supply and demand argument doesn't work here.

KILLERJANE says

My point is, don't be bored with the same old ideas, buy a home and live there forever. Boring and it effects the sex life too. Buy if you must, stay till the sex sucks and then rent it out and move to new.

That's not what was being discussed. The topic was about the general obsession people have over expensive real estate. My wife and I already go against the grain anyway so its not like we're "Bored".

edvard2 says

The supply is at an all-time high. So the supply and demand argument doesn't work here.

thing is with supply, is that it's not all the same. The supply in the fortresses is entirely fixed.

There's tons of homes for sale in Manteca and Los Banos, but that doesn't help the fortress much.

Of course, just trying to help your perspective and housing can be a great investment but sometimes we need to approach life in new ways. It is short and there are great re investments out there but waiting for highly demanded real estate to fit your budget will make you frustrated. Try a new approach is all.

KILLERJANE says

housing can be a great investment

KILLERJANE says

approach life in new ways. It is short

What I am understanding is the investment that has highly appreciated does not mean anything after one dies. So spend money on stuff other then RE.

corntrollio says

That's not that great an increase. Inflation since 1987 was 98.7% per CPI, so about $100K would have been $198,700 by inflation alone.

NO! This "Inflation adjusted" crap didn't even come into economic vernacular, until the Wealth vanished in 07. It was failed logic then and it is failed logic now. Granted 100K might as well been 198K in 1987, as at that time, I could not afford neither. But inflation had little to do with it.

Rates and Inflation has fluxed through out the 80's, in fact interest rates are lower now, so by "Inflation" standards, we should be experiencing "Deflation" but we're not for many obvious reasons. Manipulation being the biggest reason, and the same reason that people like to throw "Inflation Adjusted" around. It manipulates the facts.

KILLERJANE says

PLEASE BE SPECIFIC. My wife and I already go against the grain anyway so its not like we're "Bored".

We're married, make high incomes, yet we rent and we're cheap-skates. So its not like we can't buy. Its that we don't for the sake of economic sense.

Troy says

thing is with supply, is that it's not all the same. The supply in the fortresses is entirely fixed.

There's tons of homes for sale in Manteca and Los Banos, but that doesn't help the fortress much.

Fortress areas aside prices are still too high- even in the not so great parts of the East Bay where there's an abundance of homes.

Very funny. That's not the answer i was hoping for.

I only obsess over real estate because I own horses, and I doubt if I will be able to afford them once I get older/retire or have to live on less income. The only way I think I will be able to have them for the rest of my life is if I own a piece of property where I can have them at home.

We "own" a small house in the East Bay with a mortgage and our monthly expenses with PITI is about $1700 a month. But to own and board a horse around here runs nearly $1000/month.

We also have dogs, which is why we have this house in the first place. It was originally bought by the in-laws in the late 90s for my husband to rent since it was impossible to find a place to rent with a dog in the Bay Area from 1996+

Sadly I think there is an agenda behind the last decade of "must buy a house" propoganda. Taxes to hold real estate has risen sharply as have utilities accross the board. Insurance is way up too. Call me crazy but I think it was all a campaign by the rich to get everyone on the hook and chained to the massive prison that is home ownership for those who really cannot afford it.

I own my house. I bought it cash. I live in a city far from my first choice though. I am from Vancouver where the real estate went crazy and did not stop for the last 10 years. Instead of obsessing I moved. I went to a place I could plop down my savings (from years of renting) and own outright. Sometimes I really wish I would have stayed a renter. Its much easier and in my opinion cheaper in the long run. Sure you wont own a house when you die, but so what? Of course rents have gone crazy too as "owners" think you should foot their crazy mortgage. One fo the reasons I finally bought.

I am very glad I moved away from such a hig priced area. People in vancouver are struggling and its very dog eat dog there. Lots of drugs and prostitution ... LOTS. Thats a sad way to subsidize the rent. They are pretend to be living it up but in my eyes they are selling their souls every day.

Troy says

I bought a $10,000 motorcycle in 2002 with the savings, that qualifies as pissing it away I guess.

Meanwhile, you could probably still pay $700/month to rent a room in your friend's place in many places in the Bay Area, although I'm not sure where you lived at the time.

lurking says

They are paying their rent or mortgage on time every month, month after month, going to work

Last I checked, many of them aren't paying their rent or mortgage and many are out of work. But thanks for playing our game.

Tenouncetrout says

This "Inflation adjusted" crap didn't even come into economic vernacular, until the Wealth vanished in 07.

People did not think about inflation until 2007? Riiight. The rest of your comment is nonsense rambling.

Inflation adjustments help put absolute prices in context. No one cares that your grandpappy spent only a nickel on various things.

KILLERJANE says

This is generally why prices are higher in popular places. Prices then are not solely dictated by income. But by supply/demand.

So your argument is that household income has nothing to do with the supply and demand curve for houses?

Tude says

since it was impossible to find a place to rent with a dog in the Bay Area from 1996+

Not true.

Troy says

The supply in the fortresses is entirely fixed.

Not really. People kept saying that for decades, but we have seen from prime SF to Mt View to Los Gatos. New developments near the new Ball Park in SF, MW saw new homes dev. near downtown. Even today they are builiding new Apts off Evelyn and Castro. Los Gatos, had torn down an old hotel and put up new homes, and new homes called Thunderbird are being sold today... New homes were put up near Good Sam. Heck there is even a huge patch of farm land off 17/85 ready for new homes.

Plenty of land in the future.. take Sunnyvale. The old Westinghouse plant sitting idle and the Muni Golf course off 101. Lets not forget Moffet Field .. lots of land there. It would fix the local city/county gov budget problems.

Last year saw a former shopping center off Alma in PA get torn down for new Townhomes...

It suprising how all of sudden 'new supply' comes on the market.

Troy says

The supply in the fortresses is entirely fixed.

Not true for reasons thomas.wong said, but also another reason:

the constraint is completely artificial. There is plenty of land in the Bay Area that could be built on, but land use restrictions of various sorts prevent this. The Bay Area is obsessed with "open space," and you have to pay for that.

corntrollio says

Tude says

since it was impossible to find a place to rent with a dog in the Bay Area from 1996+

Not true.

Oh lovely, a simple "not true". I was here, I had a dog, and so did my husband. Unless you had a shit-load of money (as in thousands) for a deposit, and begged, and wrote a "resume" and provided references for your frickin dog, you pretty much had to live in a shit-hole in the ghetto. A spend quite a bit for the luxury for that.

I lived it for several years, moving around. My husband struggled with finding crappy homes that were way over-priced, then having to fill the place with dead-beat roommates to afford the ridiculous rent. It was a nightmare.

edvard2 says

I only ask this because if I stop and think about it there probably isn't a day that goes by that I don't think about this very subject: overpriced real estate.

Part of it is because of peer pressure (maw n' paw did it so why shouldn't I?), partly social inertia (THE AMERICAN DREAM), and last because housing has such an effect on the economy.

The latter is the easiest* to come to terms with since its more fact based, the first 2 weigh heavily on your and others psychology and emotions which is why its so hard to put this stuff into words for many. Home ownership is something that is ingrained into people when they're very young in America, its the American Dream after all (this is part of the social inertia aspect), so lots of people are just doing it because they don't know what else to do with their time/money.

*easiest doesn't necessarily mean easy, this is a relative statement!!

corntrollio says

People did not think about inflation until 2007? Riiight. The rest of your comment is nonsense rambling.

Inflation is always baked in, and No people did not think about inflation. They said, "Well we paid $24,000 back in 1962. "
We didn't need to adjust for inflation. The house was worth tripple at the time that statement was made. But then again so were wages, for that matter. But that house could have just as easily sold for 24,000 the next year. A house is only worth, what someone is willing to pay for it. That's economic reality, and this new fantasy Keynesian economy, it hasn't had a successful track record. Trying to valuate Real Estate across the board with some magic inflation formula.

While that formula works perfect and fits some homes, it over estimates many and under estimates others.

Young and young-ish people don't really think about inflation, its the older folks who are retired or near retirement who start to think about it since that can kill their savings.

What young/young-ish people think about is interest rates which are effected by inflation but they won't care about the inflation itself. They'll just complain about the interest rate being too high or whine about how they didn't lock in that tenth of a point less rate or whatever.

Tude says

Oh lovely, a simple "not true". I was here, I had a dog, and so did my husband.

1996+? 1996 + what? 15 years is a huge range. Do you think it's impossible now? Also, what kind of dog? I grant you it's easier to find a rental for a chihuahua than for a Great Dane, but impossible is a strong word.

Tenouncetrout says

Inflation is always baked in, and No people did not think about inflation. They said, "Well we paid $24,000 back in 1962. "
We didn't need to adjust for inflation. The house was worth tripple at the time that statement was made.

This is just nonsense babbling. What you're saying has nothing to do with inflation or how it's "baked in." Please explain the mechanism by which inflation is baked in. If you think buying a house for $24K in Detroit in 1962 and selling it for $24K in 2011 means you broke even, I have a bridge to sell you, and a whole lot of other stuff too.

Inflation is a useful metric to apply to data, but it can get a little complicated when considering wages & costs of living. For real estate, I think that a much more useful metric is the price-to-income ratio. For me anyway, it seems like the most useful way to gauge the cost of something in the past versus now. Income will become a driving factor in pricing again at some point. Sloppy lending, borrowers over-extending & our current absurdly low interest rates + GSE-backed loans are still keeping prices propped up beyond what a financially savvy individual would consider reasonable.

Why do I obsess? I don't know. It is mostly because home ownership was ingrained in my generation from day one. My fiancee & I are working hard to get the idea out of our heads, and the more progress we make, the more we seem to be able to enjoy our lives & not worry about money at all. Renting kicks ass for now because we can save cash every month, and we basically never worry about budgeting for food/restaurants/vacation/toys. If we want something, we pay cash (granted, we have worked hard to reduce our material "wants" & don't even own a TV).

The only reason I still have for wanting a house is so that I can get a garage. I love projects, particularly woodworking / loudspeaker building and car stuff. It is more of an emotional / irrational thing though, because I can always rent a workspace or find a private workshop to do things at. It just isn't as convenient...but it isn't worth half a lifetime of indentured servitude to the bank.

bmwman91 says

Inflation is a useful metric to apply to data, but it can get a little complicated when considering wages & costs of living. For real estate, I think that a much more useful metric is the price-to-income ratio.

Fair enough. Inflation does affect both. At least this is a reasonable answer vs. "inflation doesn't matter, only nominal price does, fuck you."

I agree with you that price:income is being kept propped up by various factors.

By the way, what stops you from renting and having a garage? Do you need items to be built in?

corntrollio says

Fair enough. Inflation does affect both. At least this is a reasonable answer vs. "inflation doesn't matter, only nominal price does, fuck you."

Haha, well I COULD reply like that, if it pleases the coliseum spectators.

I can still rent an apartment/townhouse for a lot less than a house in this area. My commute is a 6 minute bike ride presently, and that is worth paying a little bit of a premium for (I estimate it saves me $150-200 per month in gas & upkeep, plus 5-10 hours per week of my life). Also, from talking to some people renting out houses, they do not seem keen on table saws & the possibility of "chemical spills" from car maintenance. I guess they are afraid that sawdust will get everywhere & the noise will irritate neighbors.

I COULD rent somewhere in the East Bay, but then I have to commute & live in an area where my tools are more likely to be stolen. Working with the garage door closed kind of sucks, but I wouldn't want to "advertise" to the local thugs either. It is all a trade-off really, and at this point I am happy to not commute at the expense of a workspace. I suppose I could always go make a mess in San Jose at my father's garage workshop, but that is a bit of a drive during the week, and I don't like imposing with my mess.

corntrollio says

"inflation doesn't matter, only nominal price does, fuck you."

Well since you insist.

Well OK fancy pants, houses in most modest Ham and Egger neighborhood, is at or bellow '98 prices. Where's your interest there? And what do you do with all of the over valued years inbetween. HMM Is there a metric to retro fit those bank accounts that either benefited or lost their Asses?

NO! You take your lumps and pull up your pants.

bmwman91 says

I COULD rent somewhere in the East Bay

bmwman91 says

I can still rent an apartment/townhouse for a lot less than a house in this area.

Why not rent a house somewhere further up the Peninsula? You could also rent a townhouse + garage in some areas.

At the end of the day, we're talking about a garage. As long as it's reasonably in the same condition as you received it, no one cares. I've never heard of a landlord asking "do you plan to have table saws? I don't allow that."

As far as I can tell, the shop equipment is best left as a "better to ask forgiveness than permission" thing. I haven't talked to very many owners of rental houses though, so it is probably a sampling issue on my part. Anyway, it is all a trade off. Pulling my hair out in traffic irritates me a lot more than NOT having a workshop to play in at odd hours. Besides, I'll be married soon & probably won't be "allowed" to make noise at odd hours anywyay.

bmwman91 says

I COULD rent somewhere in the East Bay, but then I have to commute & live in an area where my tools are more likely to be stolen. Working with the garage door closed kind of sucks, but I wouldn't want to "advertise" to the local thugs either.

The east bay isn't one giant crime-ridden hell-hole. In fact, there are quite a few perfectly safe, almost crime-free areas where you don't usually have to worry about stuff getting stolen or broken into. The town I live in is renown for being insanely safe. I regularly walk to town, and sometimes at night to the bar. Oh well. If people have this notion then I guess that's better for us and keeps things nice-n-cheap.

By the way, I have a garage I work on mt cars in and its freakin' awesome. I don't give it a second thought about my stuff getting stolen and I even have a welder and a bunch os scrap steel for fabrication purposes. I'm spoiled and will probably not be going back to apartments and places without garages.

edvard2 says

bmwman91 says

I COULD rent somewhere in the East Bay, but then I have to commute & live in an area where my tools are more likely to be stolen. Working with the garage door closed kind of sucks, but I wouldn't want to "advertise" to the local thugs either.

The east bay isn't one giant crime-ridden hell-hole.

No shit. What a ridiculous thing to say! I don't even live in a "nice" part of the East Bay, I am minutes from Richmond, but in 15 years have never had a thing stolen, and my mechanic husband has a LOT of expensive equipment in the garage. His old Harley has actually been left in the driveway on numerous occasions with the keys in it, never disappeared. A garage full of dirtbikes, perfectly safe.

We know all our neighbors, and leave doors and windows unlocked regularly. What a shit-hole.

Tude, I live in a place like that, for a lifetime.

Saved (and invested) a lot of money. Raised kids who don't have a sense of entitlement, but who were able to take a shitload of AP courses in high school, in a peer group of like minded students.

The oldest got accepted to all the UC's applied to except Berkeley. Two classmates did get Berkeley though, another got Stanford and a handful of them to Ivies.

It's just that the school's API is not so hot because the whole campus was not comprised of such students as it was more diverse than that.

A lot of folks who insist on public K-12 access in The Fortress don't trust their own parenting abilities, they would rather outsource that responsibility to the API of the school.

Well, I stand corrected regarding the East Bay. I am mostly thinking of places convenient to where I work in Mountain View (not Google), and I guess those areas are sort of dumpy. I'll take EBA residents' word for it that there are decent spots.

I just find these east bay versus the Peninsula versus SF conversations funny. The average person in the Bay Area can tell you absolutely anything you'd probably want to know about Liechtenstein but couldn't tell you a thing about 20 miles down the freeway.

I live in a neighborhood like Tude described, but in the South Bay. 25 minute light rail ride to the Tasman Xfer station, where a lot of people change to the Mtn View train for their commutes in that direction. Usually the operator will even wait for the Mtn View train to arrive on the opposite track so people can transfer instantly. To Mtn View for Google or whatever. Convenient. Cheap. From cheap Tude-like neighborhood Outside the Fortress Walls, to Google.

edvard2 says

person in the Bay Area can tell you absolutely anything you'd probably want to know about Liechtenstein but couldn't tell you a thing about 20 miles down the freeway.

That is because it is so Hip and Cool to be a Beautiful Jet Setter.

Here's my bullet points as a single bachelor.

1) Work in Palo Alto, currently rent in Santa Clara. Would love to move closer to work, but prices rise exponentially the closer I look. I had hopes during the RE crash that I would be able to afford something closer, but pretty much didn't even affect things there. Actively looking to move jobs or location at this point.

2) Housing prices have scaled almost exactly with my raises and job hops after the dot com bust. I have a fair bit of money squirreled away from stocks and IPO, so could make the down-payment, it's the monthly payments that worry me as I'm pretty much at the peak of my job title payscale at this point.

3) I want to be walking distance to places of interest (bars, restaurants, caltrain). Needs to be close, not listing agent "it's walkable we swear" distance.

4) Need a place with a yard because I have a dog.

5) There are some Condos that fit the bill, but Condo association fees out here are expensive.

6) Thought about getting a duplex and renting out 1/2, but the asking prices are so out of whack, the income from rental side doesn't even cover 1/2 of the mortgage. I don't see how anyone can buy these purely for renting.

7) I obsess about landlords who are on Prop 13 and are paying next to nothing in taxes and regularly raise rents. This goes for both corporations and individuals.

8) I obsess over dual income families that price me out on 900sq foot places that would be cramped for even 1 person. Also can't stand the bay area school based obsessions that lead to higher prices in the areas that I want to live. Basically I would need to pay a premium for the house, and my taxes would pay for someone elses kids to go through school.

9) I read things like the CNN "where homes are affordable" link that was on this site today and I can't contemplate how the Bay Area with medium house incomes in the $150-200k range justify the $750k average house. Think about moving to places where income is $80k and houses are $120K. Downpayment here would just buy a place elsewhere.

10) Could buy a place in Florida for winter and something up north for summer for the same price as one place out here.

11) California state taxes suck. Payed over 10% income tax, and sales tax is additional %8+ on purchases.

12) Earthquakes. Yea, it will happen eventually.

13) Weather. Sure, it's better then the midwest, but it's really not that great. SF is terrible, have to bring a jacket with you in the middle of summer if you are out after the sun sets, and just meh down in Silicon valley.

Oh yea, and 14) The downpayment on even the cheapest place is a LOT of money that could go for any number of dreams, such as produce a movie or video game, take a world tour, open a bar in the Caribbean, or just take a couple of years off before I get too old to enjoy it.

First, you guys need to get out of the overcrowded, overpriced, and over-rated bay area fishbowl. Buyers there have been brainwashed by realtors that somehow it is so heavenly, wonderful, thrilling, fantastic, whatever, to live there, that they gleefully pay 4X the real value. It's not! There are plenty of good places to get a house without buying into the hype and greed of bay area RE. Simply, leave the smog, crime, gangs, ripoffs, frustration, and misery all behind you. Get out of there now, before you lose your minds!

I think it is also safe to say that houses being over-priced also puts a great "have" and "have not" issue on the table. There is the sense that owning a house is an entitlement, which in our mixed bag society of capitalism and socialism, is not.

I feel for your frustration. I want a house, but I'm not going down in flames financially to get it.

"As Patrick points out in his front-page "Why it's a Terrible Time To Buy a House" article, the oldest baby boomers are now 66 years old and plenty of them will sell their SF houses and move to AZ or FL or such. They paid $60K for their houses and if they make $400K instead of $800K, they've still made a big gain and can head for sunnier warmer cheaper regions. Cheaper being a big factor. Things will come full circle everywhere, even in San Francisco, and at some point the focus will be away from housing housing housing. As Edvard pointed out, a lot of this is about fear. We live in uncertain times."

But here's the thing..How can everyone do that at the same time?

There was a housing study performed that examined retirement ages and makes predictions. it's three and a half years old but it does say that there will be years where the majority of boomers retiring start to move out

www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t782043358

see i don't buy the baby-boomer move out = cheaper houses argument.

You have to realize that 1) the homes are already paid off and 2) because they've had decades with minimal house payments, much less than what you or i pay in rent and a fraction of what you and i would pay in mortgage, a good number of them probably have huge nest eggs/pensions and the actual benefit of social security.

So sure, they would make a killing at 400 or 800k, but the fact is most of them probably don't NEED the money, and if they don't NEED to sell right now, why would they throw away 400k just because you and I hope they would?

I obsess over real estate (overpriced or not) because in our area, large houses are cheap, jobs are scarce, and where I want to move I could barely afford a doghouse. It is hard to think of trading what we now enjoy (lots of space, abundant parking, no HOA or paint color rules or grass length citations) for a doghouse, but this means we spend a lot of time on the road and on the phone tracking family down south.

In regard to the boomers downsizing, I think that those who have kids or younger relatives will pass their Prop 13 properties on through a trust or other arrangement. In my parents' 1950's SoCal neighborhood, lots of old folks have died or gone into nursing homes, but their houses are quickly taken over by grandkids, nieces and nephews. So those properties are unavailable.

If the relatives decide to sell, it will be for as much as the market will bear, of course. Unless they get a scummy realtor (no R) like the one retained by the inlaws of my aunt's deceased friend, a realtor who convinced them to put the house on the market at a very high price with a "Pending" status, and come to find out he bought it from them at $150k less than listing and has now divided it in half and rents it out. It still seems wrong to advertise a house when it was never really for sale in the first place. So if there are any deals to be had from dead or demented boomers, I suspect the realtors (small r) will snap them up before normal people get a chance.

I think the psychology is simple: Not being able to get something that we want and have also earned in terms of past common sense about the housing market. The rules have suddenly changed and they don't make sense, and so we are frozen in the dilemma of overpay versus sit and wait.

We grew up middle class, knowing that we wanted to own a home when the time came, and knowing that houses were just naturally affordable to those who worked hard and had good jobs. We obsessives were moving responsibly toward our goals like pack mules, since we have hard working sensible personalities rather than get-rich-quick impulsive streaks that dominate the recent casino-like reality. Suddenly we watched as housing became a hot investment commodity, the tide of prices rose higher than we were able to pay at our point of entry, and the real-world basis for such bubble prices lost all sense. This leaves us in a dilemma of either taking out a super chunk of debt for something that should not logically be so expensive, or continuing to rent and feel disappointed. Perhaps it feels like we f'ed up somehow, but looking back it's impossible to see where we made a mistake because we used good judgment all along.

There has been a huge transfer of wealth to financiers in the past two decades. Many people lost a lot of money so that corporate coffers could be so stuffed. We Ben Franklin types (a penny saved...) managed to hold on to our money but have now lost out on our standard of living in the service of the big greed game.