[quote=no_such_reality]Maybe down in SD, up in OC, a beach sh*thole is $2000/month and anything nice is pushing three.
Shoveler, how many of those boomers will consume their house in retirement? For today’s generation of home buyers to replicate what happened, those $800K homes in Irvine will need to be ten million in 30 years. Maybe Cali will keep growing that way.
Personally, I think the boomers have simply benefited by the pig in python effect coupled with a happy timing of a real estate bubble currently being redriven by historically low interest rates. The next 30 years will be interesting as the boomers become net sellers.
There’s a reason most wealth managers look at assets outside of a primary residence. It’s in what you cited, they won’t sell, or more maybe, can’t sell. Can’t sell without massively changing their life, relocating usually out of the area. In effect, their house is a sunk cost.[/quote]
It’s just as you said, NSR. In retirement, there’s nothing wrong with housing being a “sunk cost.” I don’t see longtime CA boomer owners becoming “net sellers” en masse. Perhaps in other states they might, but not in CA.
Let me ask you, NSR. If you owned a home valued at, say, $500-$600K today which had been your principal residence for decades, you were approaching retirement or already retired and your annual property tax bill was currently $832 (incl voter-approved bonds), would YOU sell now? How about later? At what age would you sell it (assuming at all times you could still take care of yourself and live independently in it)?
