2009 Conforming Loan Limits Jump

[Eugene]

[quote=BGinRB]
Popular fallacy. The argument goes something like this:
Low income people rent <=> The owners are upper 2/3 && median price needs to be affordable by median among owners => median price will never be affordable by median income family.[/quote]

That’s not how the argument goes. The argument is, “median household income does not have to afford a median house”. The reason: there are more households than houses. Many households can’t afford or don’t need houses.

Median household income should afford a median housING UNIT, which could be an apartment, a condo, or a detached house.

And “afford” is a vague word, generally speaking, even 50% of gross income could be “affordable”.

Ultimately, the ratio of median housing cost to median household income should give you the desirability of the place. It stands to reason that Rochester NY, with its climate and white flight problems, would be less desirable than San Diego.

[BGinRB]

[quote=esmith][quote=BGinRB]
Popular fallacy. The argument goes something like this:
Low income people rent <=> The owners are upper 2/3 && median price needs to be affordable by median among owners => median price will never be affordable by median income family.[/quote]

That’s not how the argument goes. The argument is, “median household income does not have to afford a median house”. The reason: there are more households than houses. Many households can’t afford or don’t need houses.

Median household income should afford a median housING UNIT, which could be an apartment, a condo, or a detached house.

And “afford” is a vague word, generally speaking, even 50% of gross income could be “affordable”.

Ultimately, the ratio of median housing cost to median household income should give you the desirability of the place. It stands to reason that Rochester NY, with its climate and white flight problems, would be less desirable than San Diego.[/quote]

I will accept that median income should afford a median housing unit. Generally speaking, 50% of gross can be affordable on far upper end and/or if you ignore various costs associated with owning a place (which applies to numbers you provided in the past).

Rochester, NY might be less desirable and that is reflected in the income and the prices.
On the other hand, Austin, TX is not Rochester, NY. Feel free not to ignore it.

[BGinRB]

[quote=esmith][quote=BGinRB]
Popular fallacy. The argument goes something like this:
Low income people rent <=> The owners are upper 2/3 && median price needs to be affordable by median among owners => median price will never be affordable by median income family.[/quote]

That’s not how the argument goes. The argument is, “median household income does not have to afford a median house”. The reason: there are more households than houses. Many households can’t afford or don’t need houses.

Median household income should afford a median housING UNIT, which could be an apartment, a condo, or a detached house.

And “afford” is a vague word, generally speaking, even 50% of gross income could be “affordable”.

Ultimately, the ratio of median housing cost to median household income should give you the desirability of the place. It stands to reason that Rochester NY, with its climate and white flight problems, would be less desirable than San Diego.[/quote]

I will accept that median income should afford a median housing unit. Generally speaking, 50% of gross can be affordable on far upper end and/or if you ignore various costs associated with owning a place (which applies to numbers you provided in the past).

Rochester, NY might be less desirable and that is reflected in the income and the prices.
On the other hand, Austin, TX is not Rochester, NY. Feel free not to ignore it.

[BGinRB]

[quote=esmith][quote=BGinRB]
Popular fallacy. The argument goes something like this:
Low income people rent <=> The owners are upper 2/3 && median price needs to be affordable by median among owners => median price will never be affordable by median income family.[/quote]

That’s not how the argument goes. The argument is, “median household income does not have to afford a median house”. The reason: there are more households than houses. Many households can’t afford or don’t need houses.

Median household income should afford a median housING UNIT, which could be an apartment, a condo, or a detached house.

And “afford” is a vague word, generally speaking, even 50% of gross income could be “affordable”.

Ultimately, the ratio of median housing cost to median household income should give you the desirability of the place. It stands to reason that Rochester NY, with its climate and white flight problems, would be less desirable than San Diego.[/quote]

I will accept that median income should afford a median housing unit. Generally speaking, 50% of gross can be affordable on far upper end and/or if you ignore various costs associated with owning a place (which applies to numbers you provided in the past).

Rochester, NY might be less desirable and that is reflected in the income and the prices.
On the other hand, Austin, TX is not Rochester, NY. Feel free not to ignore it.

[BGinRB]

[quote=esmith][quote=BGinRB]
Popular fallacy. The argument goes something like this:
Low income people rent <=> The owners are upper 2/3 && median price needs to be affordable by median among owners => median price will never be affordable by median income family.[/quote]

That’s not how the argument goes. The argument is, “median household income does not have to afford a median house”. The reason: there are more households than houses. Many households can’t afford or don’t need houses.

Median household income should afford a median housING UNIT, which could be an apartment, a condo, or a detached house.

And “afford” is a vague word, generally speaking, even 50% of gross income could be “affordable”.

Ultimately, the ratio of median housing cost to median household income should give you the desirability of the place. It stands to reason that Rochester NY, with its climate and white flight problems, would be less desirable than San Diego.[/quote]

I will accept that median income should afford a median housing unit. Generally speaking, 50% of gross can be affordable on far upper end and/or if you ignore various costs associated with owning a place (which applies to numbers you provided in the past).

Rochester, NY might be less desirable and that is reflected in the income and the prices.
On the other hand, Austin, TX is not Rochester, NY. Feel free not to ignore it.

[BGinRB]

[quote=esmith][quote=BGinRB]
Popular fallacy. The argument goes something like this:
Low income people rent <=> The owners are upper 2/3 && median price needs to be affordable by median among owners => median price will never be affordable by median income family.[/quote]

That’s not how the argument goes. The argument is, “median household income does not have to afford a median house”. The reason: there are more households than houses. Many households can’t afford or don’t need houses.

Median household income should afford a median housING UNIT, which could be an apartment, a condo, or a detached house.

And “afford” is a vague word, generally speaking, even 50% of gross income could be “affordable”.

Ultimately, the ratio of median housing cost to median household income should give you the desirability of the place. It stands to reason that Rochester NY, with its climate and white flight problems, would be less desirable than San Diego.[/quote]

I will accept that median income should afford a median housing unit. Generally speaking, 50% of gross can be affordable on far upper end and/or if you ignore various costs associated with owning a place (which applies to numbers you provided in the past).

Rochester, NY might be less desirable and that is reflected in the income and the prices.
On the other hand, Austin, TX is not Rochester, NY. Feel free not to ignore it.

[sdrealtor]

I have heard the 697K thing was coming back for SD county but no one could confirm it. That links seems to.

If we get decent conforming/super conforming rates up 697K, the market which was previously pretty healthy up to only 700K could easily bump up 900K. That would keep some more air in the bubble for a while longer. This would not be a postive for those expecting or hoping for a faster crash up above.

[sdrealtor]

I have heard the 697K thing was coming back for SD county but no one could confirm it. That links seems to.

If we get decent conforming/super conforming rates up 697K, the market which was previously pretty healthy up to only 700K could easily bump up 900K. That would keep some more air in the bubble for a while longer. This would not be a postive for those expecting or hoping for a faster crash up above.

[sdrealtor]

I have heard the 697K thing was coming back for SD county but no one could confirm it. That links seems to.

If we get decent conforming/super conforming rates up 697K, the market which was previously pretty healthy up to only 700K could easily bump up 900K. That would keep some more air in the bubble for a while longer. This would not be a postive for those expecting or hoping for a faster crash up above.

[sdrealtor]

I have heard the 697K thing was coming back for SD county but no one could confirm it. That links seems to.

If we get decent conforming/super conforming rates up 697K, the market which was previously pretty healthy up to only 700K could easily bump up 900K. That would keep some more air in the bubble for a while longer. This would not be a postive for those expecting or hoping for a faster crash up above.

[sdrealtor]

I have heard the 697K thing was coming back for SD county but no one could confirm it. That links seems to.

If we get decent conforming/super conforming rates up 697K, the market which was previously pretty healthy up to only 700K could easily bump up 900K. That would keep some more air in the bubble for a while longer. This would not be a postive for those expecting or hoping for a faster crash up above.

[sdrealtor]

Macromaniac
What general area do your rent in for 1750 and what does that get you? Its helpful for us to be able to put your broad generalizations into context.

sdr

BTW, I’m not surprised to learn you are from Ohio.

[sdrealtor]

Macromaniac
What general area do your rent in for 1750 and what does that get you? Its helpful for us to be able to put your broad generalizations into context.

sdr

BTW, I’m not surprised to learn you are from Ohio.

[sdrealtor]

Macromaniac
What general area do your rent in for 1750 and what does that get you? Its helpful for us to be able to put your broad generalizations into context.

sdr

BTW, I’m not surprised to learn you are from Ohio.

[sdrealtor]

Macromaniac
What general area do your rent in for 1750 and what does that get you? Its helpful for us to be able to put your broad generalizations into context.

sdr

BTW, I’m not surprised to learn you are from Ohio.

[Author]

Posts