50% off is the regular price.

[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.

[Coronita]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Lol… Somehow I knew you’d find a way to relate boobs to SD home prices.

[Coronita]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Lol… Somehow I knew you’d find a way to relate boobs to SD home prices.

[Coronita]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Lol… Somehow I knew you’d find a way to relate boobs to SD home prices.

[Coronita]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Lol… Somehow I knew you’d find a way to relate boobs to SD home prices.

[Coronita]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Lol… Somehow I knew you’d find a way to relate boobs to SD home prices.

[jficquette]

Take the 1998 median price and add 3% a year to it and that is what houses would be had we not had the Mortgage fraud conducted by hundreds of thousands of buyers lying about their income.

Rather then get a hand out to keep their houses they should be prosecuted.

John

[jficquette]

Take the 1998 median price and add 3% a year to it and that is what houses would be had we not had the Mortgage fraud conducted by hundreds of thousands of buyers lying about their income.

Rather then get a hand out to keep their houses they should be prosecuted.

John

[jficquette]

Take the 1998 median price and add 3% a year to it and that is what houses would be had we not had the Mortgage fraud conducted by hundreds of thousands of buyers lying about their income.

Rather then get a hand out to keep their houses they should be prosecuted.

John

[jficquette]

Take the 1998 median price and add 3% a year to it and that is what houses would be had we not had the Mortgage fraud conducted by hundreds of thousands of buyers lying about their income.

Rather then get a hand out to keep their houses they should be prosecuted.

John

[jficquette]

Take the 1998 median price and add 3% a year to it and that is what houses would be had we not had the Mortgage fraud conducted by hundreds of thousands of buyers lying about their income.

Rather then get a hand out to keep their houses they should be prosecuted.

John

[Coronita]

[quote=deadzone]

I recruited at a high tech job fair a few months ago here in town and it was shocking how many people were looking for work, and how few companies were represented at the fair. The difference from a couple years ago was startling.

I have to disagree that there is enough work to employee all engineers in the US. The fact is in a down economy with severe credit problems, it is difficult for companies, particulaly start ups to get any kind of venture capital. Without funding, there is no jobs.

This may only be temporary but the fact is, the job market is bad right onw, and getting worse. Engineers are not immune.[/quote]

What’s their speciality? When were were looking for people a back yonder, we had a tough time with folks with the experience we wanted. Either folks were script kiddies or heavily embedded. No enterprise experience, nor mobile app experience.

[Coronita]

[quote=deadzone]

I recruited at a high tech job fair a few months ago here in town and it was shocking how many people were looking for work, and how few companies were represented at the fair. The difference from a couple years ago was startling.

I have to disagree that there is enough work to employee all engineers in the US. The fact is in a down economy with severe credit problems, it is difficult for companies, particulaly start ups to get any kind of venture capital. Without funding, there is no jobs.

This may only be temporary but the fact is, the job market is bad right onw, and getting worse. Engineers are not immune.[/quote]

What’s their speciality? When were were looking for people a back yonder, we had a tough time with folks with the experience we wanted. Either folks were script kiddies or heavily embedded. No enterprise experience, nor mobile app experience.

[Coronita]

[quote=deadzone]

I recruited at a high tech job fair a few months ago here in town and it was shocking how many people were looking for work, and how few companies were represented at the fair. The difference from a couple years ago was startling.

I have to disagree that there is enough work to employee all engineers in the US. The fact is in a down economy with severe credit problems, it is difficult for companies, particulaly start ups to get any kind of venture capital. Without funding, there is no jobs.

This may only be temporary but the fact is, the job market is bad right onw, and getting worse. Engineers are not immune.[/quote]

What’s their speciality? When were were looking for people a back yonder, we had a tough time with folks with the experience we wanted. Either folks were script kiddies or heavily embedded. No enterprise experience, nor mobile app experience.

[Coronita]

[quote=deadzone]

I recruited at a high tech job fair a few months ago here in town and it was shocking how many people were looking for work, and how few companies were represented at the fair. The difference from a couple years ago was startling.

I have to disagree that there is enough work to employee all engineers in the US. The fact is in a down economy with severe credit problems, it is difficult for companies, particulaly start ups to get any kind of venture capital. Without funding, there is no jobs.

This may only be temporary but the fact is, the job market is bad right onw, and getting worse. Engineers are not immune.[/quote]

What’s their speciality? When were were looking for people a back yonder, we had a tough time with folks with the experience we wanted. Either folks were script kiddies or heavily embedded. No enterprise experience, nor mobile app experience.

[Author]

Posts