50% off is the regular price.

[an]

[quote=barnaby33]Actually SDEngineer, I would dispute your claim. For the same level of skill I would have been paid almost the same if not the same amount that I was making when the bubble burst, and houses were 1/3 to 1/2 what they are now.

I am a software engineer. I’m also talking nominal dollars. In real dollars my salary has gone down.
Josh[/quote]
Fresh grad in 2001-2002 were making around 45k/year. Now, they’re around 58k/year. I got the current number from Salary.com and 2002 salary from my group of friends since I graduated in 2002. So, that show about 25-30% in appreciation of the base salary. So, I’d have to assume it’s the same for more experienced as well.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=Rt.66]

So a proven 100 year old housing affordability ratio (price x average wages) is no longer accurate because we have a new dynamic called renters and low earners to contend with?

If you chop off the bottom 1/3 won’t you logically chop off the top 1/3 as well? SD especially has lots of millionaires and even billionaires that throw the average way up.

Millionaires and billionaires are not players in the housing reality we live in but their houses and incomes are included in ratios.

Those apartment dwellers and renters are future first time buyers, a group housing cannot survive without. You can’t move up if others below are not moving up. So they most certainly are to be considered in housing affordability.

So Cal has gotten around historical affordability ratios with housing bubbles. No more though.
2.5-3 times earnings is a historically proven AFFORDABILITY gage. Meaning people can actually make their payments at those ratios.

SD average wage of $61k is probably high and even if not; wage deflation will probably bring it into the $50ks. Even 3x earnings at $55k aver. earnings is $165k for SD housing. So the HIGH end of affordability will probably be $165k.

Unbelievable? In 2006 how people would have thought you could buy a 2500 sq’ house in Temecula for $220k in 2009? Not many, and most would have thought the idea completely absurd. That rushed cut in prices was just the quick fall to “regular” prices. Now the discounts begin.

[/quote]

The 2.5-3x median household income to median price is a national average and has NEVER been true in So Cal (at least not since the WW II era) – and it’s not because of bubbles – it’s because this is one of the most desirable areas in the U.S. to live.

It’s also the reason why there are so many renters in So Cal – and always have been – this isn’t a new trend, this is a multidecade trend again going back as long as records continue. It’s EXPENSIVE to buy in So Cal and always has been – bubble years or not. Instead of only about 2/3 of people being able to affordably buy a house (like in much of the U.S.), historically only a little over 55% of the people in So Cal can afford to buy a house. Only Hawaii and New York have a lower homeownership rate compared to California. Check this table out:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html

The HIGHEST homeownership percentage ever reached in CA was at 58%, in the 1960 Census. And this is for all of CA.

It’s simply a case of supply and demand – all other things being equal, more people would want to live here than in, say, Louisville. So all other things aren’t equal – the desirability of So Cal pushes the prices up. Detroit suffers from the exact opposite – relatively few people would consider Detroit a desirable city to live in, and so their ratio is much LOWER than the national average.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=Rt.66]

So a proven 100 year old housing affordability ratio (price x average wages) is no longer accurate because we have a new dynamic called renters and low earners to contend with?

If you chop off the bottom 1/3 won’t you logically chop off the top 1/3 as well? SD especially has lots of millionaires and even billionaires that throw the average way up.

Millionaires and billionaires are not players in the housing reality we live in but their houses and incomes are included in ratios.

Those apartment dwellers and renters are future first time buyers, a group housing cannot survive without. You can’t move up if others below are not moving up. So they most certainly are to be considered in housing affordability.

So Cal has gotten around historical affordability ratios with housing bubbles. No more though.
2.5-3 times earnings is a historically proven AFFORDABILITY gage. Meaning people can actually make their payments at those ratios.

SD average wage of $61k is probably high and even if not; wage deflation will probably bring it into the $50ks. Even 3x earnings at $55k aver. earnings is $165k for SD housing. So the HIGH end of affordability will probably be $165k.

Unbelievable? In 2006 how people would have thought you could buy a 2500 sq’ house in Temecula for $220k in 2009? Not many, and most would have thought the idea completely absurd. That rushed cut in prices was just the quick fall to “regular” prices. Now the discounts begin.

[/quote]

The 2.5-3x median household income to median price is a national average and has NEVER been true in So Cal (at least not since the WW II era) – and it’s not because of bubbles – it’s because this is one of the most desirable areas in the U.S. to live.

It’s also the reason why there are so many renters in So Cal – and always have been – this isn’t a new trend, this is a multidecade trend again going back as long as records continue. It’s EXPENSIVE to buy in So Cal and always has been – bubble years or not. Instead of only about 2/3 of people being able to affordably buy a house (like in much of the U.S.), historically only a little over 55% of the people in So Cal can afford to buy a house. Only Hawaii and New York have a lower homeownership rate compared to California. Check this table out:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html

The HIGHEST homeownership percentage ever reached in CA was at 58%, in the 1960 Census. And this is for all of CA.

It’s simply a case of supply and demand – all other things being equal, more people would want to live here than in, say, Louisville. So all other things aren’t equal – the desirability of So Cal pushes the prices up. Detroit suffers from the exact opposite – relatively few people would consider Detroit a desirable city to live in, and so their ratio is much LOWER than the national average.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=Rt.66]

So a proven 100 year old housing affordability ratio (price x average wages) is no longer accurate because we have a new dynamic called renters and low earners to contend with?

If you chop off the bottom 1/3 won’t you logically chop off the top 1/3 as well? SD especially has lots of millionaires and even billionaires that throw the average way up.

Millionaires and billionaires are not players in the housing reality we live in but their houses and incomes are included in ratios.

Those apartment dwellers and renters are future first time buyers, a group housing cannot survive without. You can’t move up if others below are not moving up. So they most certainly are to be considered in housing affordability.

So Cal has gotten around historical affordability ratios with housing bubbles. No more though.
2.5-3 times earnings is a historically proven AFFORDABILITY gage. Meaning people can actually make their payments at those ratios.

SD average wage of $61k is probably high and even if not; wage deflation will probably bring it into the $50ks. Even 3x earnings at $55k aver. earnings is $165k for SD housing. So the HIGH end of affordability will probably be $165k.

Unbelievable? In 2006 how people would have thought you could buy a 2500 sq’ house in Temecula for $220k in 2009? Not many, and most would have thought the idea completely absurd. That rushed cut in prices was just the quick fall to “regular” prices. Now the discounts begin.

[/quote]

The 2.5-3x median household income to median price is a national average and has NEVER been true in So Cal (at least not since the WW II era) – and it’s not because of bubbles – it’s because this is one of the most desirable areas in the U.S. to live.

It’s also the reason why there are so many renters in So Cal – and always have been – this isn’t a new trend, this is a multidecade trend again going back as long as records continue. It’s EXPENSIVE to buy in So Cal and always has been – bubble years or not. Instead of only about 2/3 of people being able to affordably buy a house (like in much of the U.S.), historically only a little over 55% of the people in So Cal can afford to buy a house. Only Hawaii and New York have a lower homeownership rate compared to California. Check this table out:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html

The HIGHEST homeownership percentage ever reached in CA was at 58%, in the 1960 Census. And this is for all of CA.

It’s simply a case of supply and demand – all other things being equal, more people would want to live here than in, say, Louisville. So all other things aren’t equal – the desirability of So Cal pushes the prices up. Detroit suffers from the exact opposite – relatively few people would consider Detroit a desirable city to live in, and so their ratio is much LOWER than the national average.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=Rt.66]

So a proven 100 year old housing affordability ratio (price x average wages) is no longer accurate because we have a new dynamic called renters and low earners to contend with?

If you chop off the bottom 1/3 won’t you logically chop off the top 1/3 as well? SD especially has lots of millionaires and even billionaires that throw the average way up.

Millionaires and billionaires are not players in the housing reality we live in but their houses and incomes are included in ratios.

Those apartment dwellers and renters are future first time buyers, a group housing cannot survive without. You can’t move up if others below are not moving up. So they most certainly are to be considered in housing affordability.

So Cal has gotten around historical affordability ratios with housing bubbles. No more though.
2.5-3 times earnings is a historically proven AFFORDABILITY gage. Meaning people can actually make their payments at those ratios.

SD average wage of $61k is probably high and even if not; wage deflation will probably bring it into the $50ks. Even 3x earnings at $55k aver. earnings is $165k for SD housing. So the HIGH end of affordability will probably be $165k.

Unbelievable? In 2006 how people would have thought you could buy a 2500 sq’ house in Temecula for $220k in 2009? Not many, and most would have thought the idea completely absurd. That rushed cut in prices was just the quick fall to “regular” prices. Now the discounts begin.

[/quote]

The 2.5-3x median household income to median price is a national average and has NEVER been true in So Cal (at least not since the WW II era) – and it’s not because of bubbles – it’s because this is one of the most desirable areas in the U.S. to live.

It’s also the reason why there are so many renters in So Cal – and always have been – this isn’t a new trend, this is a multidecade trend again going back as long as records continue. It’s EXPENSIVE to buy in So Cal and always has been – bubble years or not. Instead of only about 2/3 of people being able to affordably buy a house (like in much of the U.S.), historically only a little over 55% of the people in So Cal can afford to buy a house. Only Hawaii and New York have a lower homeownership rate compared to California. Check this table out:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html

The HIGHEST homeownership percentage ever reached in CA was at 58%, in the 1960 Census. And this is for all of CA.

It’s simply a case of supply and demand – all other things being equal, more people would want to live here than in, say, Louisville. So all other things aren’t equal – the desirability of So Cal pushes the prices up. Detroit suffers from the exact opposite – relatively few people would consider Detroit a desirable city to live in, and so their ratio is much LOWER than the national average.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=Rt.66]

So a proven 100 year old housing affordability ratio (price x average wages) is no longer accurate because we have a new dynamic called renters and low earners to contend with?

If you chop off the bottom 1/3 won’t you logically chop off the top 1/3 as well? SD especially has lots of millionaires and even billionaires that throw the average way up.

Millionaires and billionaires are not players in the housing reality we live in but their houses and incomes are included in ratios.

Those apartment dwellers and renters are future first time buyers, a group housing cannot survive without. You can’t move up if others below are not moving up. So they most certainly are to be considered in housing affordability.

So Cal has gotten around historical affordability ratios with housing bubbles. No more though.
2.5-3 times earnings is a historically proven AFFORDABILITY gage. Meaning people can actually make their payments at those ratios.

SD average wage of $61k is probably high and even if not; wage deflation will probably bring it into the $50ks. Even 3x earnings at $55k aver. earnings is $165k for SD housing. So the HIGH end of affordability will probably be $165k.

Unbelievable? In 2006 how people would have thought you could buy a 2500 sq’ house in Temecula for $220k in 2009? Not many, and most would have thought the idea completely absurd. That rushed cut in prices was just the quick fall to “regular” prices. Now the discounts begin.

[/quote]

The 2.5-3x median household income to median price is a national average and has NEVER been true in So Cal (at least not since the WW II era) – and it’s not because of bubbles – it’s because this is one of the most desirable areas in the U.S. to live.

It’s also the reason why there are so many renters in So Cal – and always have been – this isn’t a new trend, this is a multidecade trend again going back as long as records continue. It’s EXPENSIVE to buy in So Cal and always has been – bubble years or not. Instead of only about 2/3 of people being able to affordably buy a house (like in much of the U.S.), historically only a little over 55% of the people in So Cal can afford to buy a house. Only Hawaii and New York have a lower homeownership rate compared to California. Check this table out:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html

The HIGHEST homeownership percentage ever reached in CA was at 58%, in the 1960 Census. And this is for all of CA.

It’s simply a case of supply and demand – all other things being equal, more people would want to live here than in, say, Louisville. So all other things aren’t equal – the desirability of So Cal pushes the prices up. Detroit suffers from the exact opposite – relatively few people would consider Detroit a desirable city to live in, and so their ratio is much LOWER than the national average.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=Rt.66]

So a proven 100 year old housing affordability ratio (price x average wages) is no longer accurate because we have a new dynamic called renters and low earners to contend with?

If you chop off the bottom 1/3 won’t you logically chop off the top 1/3 as well? SD especially has lots of millionaires and even billionaires that throw the average way up.

Millionaires and billionaires are not players in the housing reality we live in but their houses and incomes are included in ratios.

Those apartment dwellers and renters are future first time buyers, a group housing cannot survive without. You can’t move up if others below are not moving up. So they most certainly are to be considered in housing affordability.

So Cal has gotten around historical affordability ratios with housing bubbles. No more though.
2.5-3 times earnings is a historically proven AFFORDABILITY gage. Meaning people can actually make their payments at those ratios.

SD average wage of $61k is probably high and even if not; wage deflation will probably bring it into the $50ks. Even 3x earnings at $55k aver. earnings is $165k for SD housing. So the HIGH end of affordability will probably be $165k.

Unbelievable? In 2006 how people would have thought you could buy a 2500 sq’ house in Temecula for $220k in 2009? Not many, and most would have thought the idea completely absurd. That rushed cut in prices was just the quick fall to “regular” prices. Now the discounts begin.

[/quote]

The 2.5-3x median household income to median price is a national average and has NEVER been true in So Cal (at least not since the WW II era) – and it’s not because of bubbles – it’s because this is one of the most desirable areas in the U.S. to live.

It’s also the reason why there are so many renters in So Cal – and always have been – this isn’t a new trend, this is a multidecade trend again going back as long as records continue. It’s EXPENSIVE to buy in So Cal and always has been – bubble years or not. Instead of only about 2/3 of people being able to affordably buy a house (like in much of the U.S.), historically only a little over 55% of the people in So Cal can afford to buy a house. Only Hawaii and New York have a lower homeownership rate compared to California. Check this table out:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html

The HIGHEST homeownership percentage ever reached in CA was at 58%, in the 1960 Census. And this is for all of CA.

It’s simply a case of supply and demand – all other things being equal, more people would want to live here than in, say, Louisville. So all other things aren’t equal – the desirability of So Cal pushes the prices up. Detroit suffers from the exact opposite – relatively few people would consider Detroit a desirable city to live in, and so their ratio is much LOWER than the national average.

[/quote]

Rt. 66 seems to be ignoring all the historical data that Rich produced to initiate this Blog.
For those who haven’t been around here too long, check out the primer :

A Bubble Primer

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=Rt.66]

So a proven 100 year old housing affordability ratio (price x average wages) is no longer accurate because we have a new dynamic called renters and low earners to contend with?

If you chop off the bottom 1/3 won’t you logically chop off the top 1/3 as well? SD especially has lots of millionaires and even billionaires that throw the average way up.

Millionaires and billionaires are not players in the housing reality we live in but their houses and incomes are included in ratios.

Those apartment dwellers and renters are future first time buyers, a group housing cannot survive without. You can’t move up if others below are not moving up. So they most certainly are to be considered in housing affordability.

So Cal has gotten around historical affordability ratios with housing bubbles. No more though.
2.5-3 times earnings is a historically proven AFFORDABILITY gage. Meaning people can actually make their payments at those ratios.

SD average wage of $61k is probably high and even if not; wage deflation will probably bring it into the $50ks. Even 3x earnings at $55k aver. earnings is $165k for SD housing. So the HIGH end of affordability will probably be $165k.

Unbelievable? In 2006 how people would have thought you could buy a 2500 sq’ house in Temecula for $220k in 2009? Not many, and most would have thought the idea completely absurd. That rushed cut in prices was just the quick fall to “regular” prices. Now the discounts begin.

[/quote]

The 2.5-3x median household income to median price is a national average and has NEVER been true in So Cal (at least not since the WW II era) – and it’s not because of bubbles – it’s because this is one of the most desirable areas in the U.S. to live.

It’s also the reason why there are so many renters in So Cal – and always have been – this isn’t a new trend, this is a multidecade trend again going back as long as records continue. It’s EXPENSIVE to buy in So Cal and always has been – bubble years or not. Instead of only about 2/3 of people being able to affordably buy a house (like in much of the U.S.), historically only a little over 55% of the people in So Cal can afford to buy a house. Only Hawaii and New York have a lower homeownership rate compared to California. Check this table out:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html

The HIGHEST homeownership percentage ever reached in CA was at 58%, in the 1960 Census. And this is for all of CA.

It’s simply a case of supply and demand – all other things being equal, more people would want to live here than in, say, Louisville. So all other things aren’t equal – the desirability of So Cal pushes the prices up. Detroit suffers from the exact opposite – relatively few people would consider Detroit a desirable city to live in, and so their ratio is much LOWER than the national average.

[/quote]

Rt. 66 seems to be ignoring all the historical data that Rich produced to initiate this Blog.
For those who haven’t been around here too long, check out the primer :

A Bubble Primer

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=Rt.66]

So a proven 100 year old housing affordability ratio (price x average wages) is no longer accurate because we have a new dynamic called renters and low earners to contend with?

If you chop off the bottom 1/3 won’t you logically chop off the top 1/3 as well? SD especially has lots of millionaires and even billionaires that throw the average way up.

Millionaires and billionaires are not players in the housing reality we live in but their houses and incomes are included in ratios.

Those apartment dwellers and renters are future first time buyers, a group housing cannot survive without. You can’t move up if others below are not moving up. So they most certainly are to be considered in housing affordability.

So Cal has gotten around historical affordability ratios with housing bubbles. No more though.
2.5-3 times earnings is a historically proven AFFORDABILITY gage. Meaning people can actually make their payments at those ratios.

SD average wage of $61k is probably high and even if not; wage deflation will probably bring it into the $50ks. Even 3x earnings at $55k aver. earnings is $165k for SD housing. So the HIGH end of affordability will probably be $165k.

Unbelievable? In 2006 how people would have thought you could buy a 2500 sq’ house in Temecula for $220k in 2009? Not many, and most would have thought the idea completely absurd. That rushed cut in prices was just the quick fall to “regular” prices. Now the discounts begin.

[/quote]

The 2.5-3x median household income to median price is a national average and has NEVER been true in So Cal (at least not since the WW II era) – and it’s not because of bubbles – it’s because this is one of the most desirable areas in the U.S. to live.

It’s also the reason why there are so many renters in So Cal – and always have been – this isn’t a new trend, this is a multidecade trend again going back as long as records continue. It’s EXPENSIVE to buy in So Cal and always has been – bubble years or not. Instead of only about 2/3 of people being able to affordably buy a house (like in much of the U.S.), historically only a little over 55% of the people in So Cal can afford to buy a house. Only Hawaii and New York have a lower homeownership rate compared to California. Check this table out:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html

The HIGHEST homeownership percentage ever reached in CA was at 58%, in the 1960 Census. And this is for all of CA.

It’s simply a case of supply and demand – all other things being equal, more people would want to live here than in, say, Louisville. So all other things aren’t equal – the desirability of So Cal pushes the prices up. Detroit suffers from the exact opposite – relatively few people would consider Detroit a desirable city to live in, and so their ratio is much LOWER than the national average.

[/quote]

Rt. 66 seems to be ignoring all the historical data that Rich produced to initiate this Blog.
For those who haven’t been around here too long, check out the primer :

A Bubble Primer

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=Rt.66]

So a proven 100 year old housing affordability ratio (price x average wages) is no longer accurate because we have a new dynamic called renters and low earners to contend with?

If you chop off the bottom 1/3 won’t you logically chop off the top 1/3 as well? SD especially has lots of millionaires and even billionaires that throw the average way up.

Millionaires and billionaires are not players in the housing reality we live in but their houses and incomes are included in ratios.

Those apartment dwellers and renters are future first time buyers, a group housing cannot survive without. You can’t move up if others below are not moving up. So they most certainly are to be considered in housing affordability.

So Cal has gotten around historical affordability ratios with housing bubbles. No more though.
2.5-3 times earnings is a historically proven AFFORDABILITY gage. Meaning people can actually make their payments at those ratios.

SD average wage of $61k is probably high and even if not; wage deflation will probably bring it into the $50ks. Even 3x earnings at $55k aver. earnings is $165k for SD housing. So the HIGH end of affordability will probably be $165k.

Unbelievable? In 2006 how people would have thought you could buy a 2500 sq’ house in Temecula for $220k in 2009? Not many, and most would have thought the idea completely absurd. That rushed cut in prices was just the quick fall to “regular” prices. Now the discounts begin.

[/quote]

The 2.5-3x median household income to median price is a national average and has NEVER been true in So Cal (at least not since the WW II era) – and it’s not because of bubbles – it’s because this is one of the most desirable areas in the U.S. to live.

It’s also the reason why there are so many renters in So Cal – and always have been – this isn’t a new trend, this is a multidecade trend again going back as long as records continue. It’s EXPENSIVE to buy in So Cal and always has been – bubble years or not. Instead of only about 2/3 of people being able to affordably buy a house (like in much of the U.S.), historically only a little over 55% of the people in So Cal can afford to buy a house. Only Hawaii and New York have a lower homeownership rate compared to California. Check this table out:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html

The HIGHEST homeownership percentage ever reached in CA was at 58%, in the 1960 Census. And this is for all of CA.

It’s simply a case of supply and demand – all other things being equal, more people would want to live here than in, say, Louisville. So all other things aren’t equal – the desirability of So Cal pushes the prices up. Detroit suffers from the exact opposite – relatively few people would consider Detroit a desirable city to live in, and so their ratio is much LOWER than the national average.

[/quote]

Rt. 66 seems to be ignoring all the historical data that Rich produced to initiate this Blog.
For those who haven’t been around here too long, check out the primer :

A Bubble Primer

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=Rt.66]

So a proven 100 year old housing affordability ratio (price x average wages) is no longer accurate because we have a new dynamic called renters and low earners to contend with?

If you chop off the bottom 1/3 won’t you logically chop off the top 1/3 as well? SD especially has lots of millionaires and even billionaires that throw the average way up.

Millionaires and billionaires are not players in the housing reality we live in but their houses and incomes are included in ratios.

Those apartment dwellers and renters are future first time buyers, a group housing cannot survive without. You can’t move up if others below are not moving up. So they most certainly are to be considered in housing affordability.

So Cal has gotten around historical affordability ratios with housing bubbles. No more though.
2.5-3 times earnings is a historically proven AFFORDABILITY gage. Meaning people can actually make their payments at those ratios.

SD average wage of $61k is probably high and even if not; wage deflation will probably bring it into the $50ks. Even 3x earnings at $55k aver. earnings is $165k for SD housing. So the HIGH end of affordability will probably be $165k.

Unbelievable? In 2006 how people would have thought you could buy a 2500 sq’ house in Temecula for $220k in 2009? Not many, and most would have thought the idea completely absurd. That rushed cut in prices was just the quick fall to “regular” prices. Now the discounts begin.

[/quote]

The 2.5-3x median household income to median price is a national average and has NEVER been true in So Cal (at least not since the WW II era) – and it’s not because of bubbles – it’s because this is one of the most desirable areas in the U.S. to live.

It’s also the reason why there are so many renters in So Cal – and always have been – this isn’t a new trend, this is a multidecade trend again going back as long as records continue. It’s EXPENSIVE to buy in So Cal and always has been – bubble years or not. Instead of only about 2/3 of people being able to affordably buy a house (like in much of the U.S.), historically only a little over 55% of the people in So Cal can afford to buy a house. Only Hawaii and New York have a lower homeownership rate compared to California. Check this table out:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html

The HIGHEST homeownership percentage ever reached in CA was at 58%, in the 1960 Census. And this is for all of CA.

It’s simply a case of supply and demand – all other things being equal, more people would want to live here than in, say, Louisville. So all other things aren’t equal – the desirability of So Cal pushes the prices up. Detroit suffers from the exact opposite – relatively few people would consider Detroit a desirable city to live in, and so their ratio is much LOWER than the national average.

[/quote]

Rt. 66 seems to be ignoring all the historical data that Rich produced to initiate this Blog.
For those who haven’t been around here too long, check out the primer :

A Bubble Primer

[temeculaguy]

Rt. 66, it is not a 100 year proven affordability index and you wouldn’t chop off the top third (the ultra-rich do not represent any more than the top 1%). I’ll try an analogy. Let’s say you are at the river and you drive past a boat with 10 women wearing bikinis. The six women with fake boobs who are most proud of their investment decide to flash you. You decide to use those six to determine the average breast size of the women on the boat, therefore your average cup size is flawed. This is the reason pollsters only look at likely voters, not the population as a whole.

You are trying to use the numbers to determine a price based on ALL PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO BUY A HOUSE, the fact is, not all people buy homes.

BTW, ask around, many of us believed a Temecula home in the 2500 sq ft range would hit low to mid 2’s, because in 1998 that house was being sold for 170-190k, using a variety of formulas (not just the sky is falling ones) it was easy to see. It is also easy to see that the 65k median income of Temecula puts a median house in the 150-170 range, using your affordability parameters, and you know what, you can get a 1300-2000 sq footer for that, easily. But the formula cannot be carried to coastal S.D., Hawaii, and other areas, because there is a hell of a lot more to R/E than pure ratios.

Avoid the Bear kool-aid and the Bull kool-aid, drink water!

Good luck with that 165k in S.D.

[temeculaguy]

Rt. 66, it is not a 100 year proven affordability index and you wouldn’t chop off the top third (the ultra-rich do not represent any more than the top 1%). I’ll try an analogy. Let’s say you are at the river and you drive past a boat with 10 women wearing bikinis. The six women with fake boobs who are most proud of their investment decide to flash you. You decide to use those six to determine the average breast size of the women on the boat, therefore your average cup size is flawed. This is the reason pollsters only look at likely voters, not the population as a whole.

You are trying to use the numbers to determine a price based on ALL PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO BUY A HOUSE, the fact is, not all people buy homes.

BTW, ask around, many of us believed a Temecula home in the 2500 sq ft range would hit low to mid 2’s, because in 1998 that house was being sold for 170-190k, using a variety of formulas (not just the sky is falling ones) it was easy to see. It is also easy to see that the 65k median income of Temecula puts a median house in the 150-170 range, using your affordability parameters, and you know what, you can get a 1300-2000 sq footer for that, easily. But the formula cannot be carried to coastal S.D., Hawaii, and other areas, because there is a hell of a lot more to R/E than pure ratios.

Avoid the Bear kool-aid and the Bull kool-aid, drink water!

Good luck with that 165k in S.D.

[temeculaguy]

Rt. 66, it is not a 100 year proven affordability index and you wouldn’t chop off the top third (the ultra-rich do not represent any more than the top 1%). I’ll try an analogy. Let’s say you are at the river and you drive past a boat with 10 women wearing bikinis. The six women with fake boobs who are most proud of their investment decide to flash you. You decide to use those six to determine the average breast size of the women on the boat, therefore your average cup size is flawed. This is the reason pollsters only look at likely voters, not the population as a whole.

You are trying to use the numbers to determine a price based on ALL PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO BUY A HOUSE, the fact is, not all people buy homes.

BTW, ask around, many of us believed a Temecula home in the 2500 sq ft range would hit low to mid 2’s, because in 1998 that house was being sold for 170-190k, using a variety of formulas (not just the sky is falling ones) it was easy to see. It is also easy to see that the 65k median income of Temecula puts a median house in the 150-170 range, using your affordability parameters, and you know what, you can get a 1300-2000 sq footer for that, easily. But the formula cannot be carried to coastal S.D., Hawaii, and other areas, because there is a hell of a lot more to R/E than pure ratios.

Avoid the Bear kool-aid and the Bull kool-aid, drink water!

Good luck with that 165k in S.D.

[temeculaguy]

Rt. 66, it is not a 100 year proven affordability index and you wouldn’t chop off the top third (the ultra-rich do not represent any more than the top 1%). I’ll try an analogy. Let’s say you are at the river and you drive past a boat with 10 women wearing bikinis. The six women with fake boobs who are most proud of their investment decide to flash you. You decide to use those six to determine the average breast size of the women on the boat, therefore your average cup size is flawed. This is the reason pollsters only look at likely voters, not the population as a whole.

You are trying to use the numbers to determine a price based on ALL PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO BUY A HOUSE, the fact is, not all people buy homes.

BTW, ask around, many of us believed a Temecula home in the 2500 sq ft range would hit low to mid 2’s, because in 1998 that house was being sold for 170-190k, using a variety of formulas (not just the sky is falling ones) it was easy to see. It is also easy to see that the 65k median income of Temecula puts a median house in the 150-170 range, using your affordability parameters, and you know what, you can get a 1300-2000 sq footer for that, easily. But the formula cannot be carried to coastal S.D., Hawaii, and other areas, because there is a hell of a lot more to R/E than pure ratios.

Avoid the Bear kool-aid and the Bull kool-aid, drink water!

Good luck with that 165k in S.D.

[Author]

Posts