Shadow inventory finally being released ?

[sdrealtor]

CAR
No snark intended but we now live in a place that is very different than it was a few decades ago. Hell its different than it was a decade ago. The profile of relative desireability of the NCC has gone up exponentially since you were a kid. We have discussed this over the years ad naseum. If you are not willing to accept that reality you will have to stay where you, which isn’t exactly a bad place. Nothing that you have described about yourself and your lifestyle entitles you to the house you want. It is all driven by supply and demand.

This weekend I met with some new clients in their mid 50’s. They got re-married a few years ago and both have very good incomes bigger than your DH. Her house is owned free and clear. They will rent that one out for a year or two because the income will be great and then sell within the 2 out of 5 years rule. His house is on the edge but rent just about covers PITI. As soon as they can sell without paying anything out of pocket they will get rid of that one. They have enough to buy a couple houses all cash but only want one and will finance because rates are so good. They are looking for pretty much what you are. There are plenty of others just like them. That is your competition. And they have better representation;)

[bearishgurl]

Nice chart, AN, but edit it to say 1990 🙂

[bearishgurl]

Nice chart, AN, but edit it to say 1990 🙂

[bearishgurl]

Nice chart, AN, but edit it to say 1990 🙂

[bearishgurl]

Nice chart, AN, but edit it to say 1990 🙂

[bearishgurl]

Nice chart, AN, but edit it to say 1990 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]. . . Elizabeth Warren explains here why the dual-income household has not benefitted us nearly as much as people would like to think. As a matter of fact, the prevalence of two-income households constrains people’s options because now prices are set by those with multiple incomes per household — forcing EVERYONE to take on multiple (paying) jobs per household if they just want to keep up.

Here’s her book, The Two-Income Trap, which goes into more detail:

A write up about it:

The Two-Income Trap

[/quote]

. . . I listened to Warren’s long video at UCB. She seemed a little nervous but passionate about what she believes in. She blamed the price of housing for families on the competition for schools. She stated, in effect, that if there wasn’t stiff competition for housing based upon school attendance area then housing would be much cheaper. She further stated that families who homeschool and families with real wealth didn’t care a whit about public schools and moved into the best neighborhoods regardless. She stated the prices of houses in good school attendance areas are bid up by parents (w/o regard to actual quality or REAL value) who want their children to have the right to attend certain public schools above all else. Towards the end, she even went so far as to state that “In San Diego, parents will even buy their family homes on or near a toxic (former) dump site in order to be situated in a particular school attendance area.”

Sound familiar, Piggs??

By DEBORAH SULLIVAN BRENNAN – [email protected] | Posted: Saturday, March 5, 2011 7:20 pm

…Since the seven landfills —- in Bonsall, Valley Center, Poway, San Marcos, Oceanside and Carlsbad —- closed more than a decade ago, an airport, parks, schools and homes have been built on or near the sites…

see:

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_e6f8dde5-da4c-54fc-b8ee-fe358795ea8c.html

http://www.flatironcorp.com/index.asp?w=pages&r=5&pid=27&project=19

I got from the lecture that parents nationwide are being sold a bill of goods when they drastically overpay for housing in metropolitan areas in which comparable or better housing could be obtained much cheaper in a nearby area of the same city and/or county. Acc to Warren, many parents stick their neck out so far financially to purchase a property in the “right” area (under the guise of overextending themselves for “their children’s education”) that they end up eventually bankrupting themselves in the process.

I also skimmed thru the 11 pages of book reviews on “The Two-Income Trap” last night. The vast majority of reviewers stated that the authors (the Warrens) over-victimized the families who found themselves having to file for BK and didn’t undertake a study of their actual “consumption” habits. Most also stated that they were not sympathetic to a parent buying a house for the sole purpose of school attendance area and that the authors didn’t come up with any solutions to these seemingly “intractable” problems in their book. Some reviewers gave their locations as areas in SoCal. The reviewers from the Northeast had starkly different opinions about how much it really costs to raise a family. Some reviewers gave their locations as Midwest and Southwest and wondered why the families discussed in the book couldn’t live within their means. These reviewers didn’t feel the book pertained to them, only those who lived on the coasts.

The book was written in 2007 and the lecture was in early 2008 but overall, I got from the reviews that citizens nationwide are fed up with persons who have good jobs and can’t live within their means (parent or not).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]. . . Elizabeth Warren explains here why the dual-income household has not benefitted us nearly as much as people would like to think. As a matter of fact, the prevalence of two-income households constrains people’s options because now prices are set by those with multiple incomes per household — forcing EVERYONE to take on multiple (paying) jobs per household if they just want to keep up.

Here’s her book, The Two-Income Trap, which goes into more detail:

A write up about it:

The Two-Income Trap

[/quote]

. . . I listened to Warren’s long video at UCB. She seemed a little nervous but passionate about what she believes in. She blamed the price of housing for families on the competition for schools. She stated, in effect, that if there wasn’t stiff competition for housing based upon school attendance area then housing would be much cheaper. She further stated that families who homeschool and families with real wealth didn’t care a whit about public schools and moved into the best neighborhoods regardless. She stated the prices of houses in good school attendance areas are bid up by parents (w/o regard to actual quality or REAL value) who want their children to have the right to attend certain public schools above all else. Towards the end, she even went so far as to state that “In San Diego, parents will even buy their family homes on or near a toxic (former) dump site in order to be situated in a particular school attendance area.”

Sound familiar, Piggs??

By DEBORAH SULLIVAN BRENNAN – [email protected] | Posted: Saturday, March 5, 2011 7:20 pm

…Since the seven landfills —- in Bonsall, Valley Center, Poway, San Marcos, Oceanside and Carlsbad —- closed more than a decade ago, an airport, parks, schools and homes have been built on or near the sites…

see:

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_e6f8dde5-da4c-54fc-b8ee-fe358795ea8c.html

http://www.flatironcorp.com/index.asp?w=pages&r=5&pid=27&project=19

I got from the lecture that parents nationwide are being sold a bill of goods when they drastically overpay for housing in metropolitan areas in which comparable or better housing could be obtained much cheaper in a nearby area of the same city and/or county. Acc to Warren, many parents stick their neck out so far financially to purchase a property in the “right” area (under the guise of overextending themselves for “their children’s education”) that they end up eventually bankrupting themselves in the process.

I also skimmed thru the 11 pages of book reviews on “The Two-Income Trap” last night. The vast majority of reviewers stated that the authors (the Warrens) over-victimized the families who found themselves having to file for BK and didn’t undertake a study of their actual “consumption” habits. Most also stated that they were not sympathetic to a parent buying a house for the sole purpose of school attendance area and that the authors didn’t come up with any solutions to these seemingly “intractable” problems in their book. Some reviewers gave their locations as areas in SoCal. The reviewers from the Northeast had starkly different opinions about how much it really costs to raise a family. Some reviewers gave their locations as Midwest and Southwest and wondered why the families discussed in the book couldn’t live within their means. These reviewers didn’t feel the book pertained to them, only those who lived on the coasts.

The book was written in 2007 and the lecture was in early 2008 but overall, I got from the reviews that citizens nationwide are fed up with persons who have good jobs and can’t live within their means (parent or not).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]. . . Elizabeth Warren explains here why the dual-income household has not benefitted us nearly as much as people would like to think. As a matter of fact, the prevalence of two-income households constrains people’s options because now prices are set by those with multiple incomes per household — forcing EVERYONE to take on multiple (paying) jobs per household if they just want to keep up.

Here’s her book, The Two-Income Trap, which goes into more detail:

A write up about it:

The Two-Income Trap

[/quote]

. . . I listened to Warren’s long video at UCB. She seemed a little nervous but passionate about what she believes in. She blamed the price of housing for families on the competition for schools. She stated, in effect, that if there wasn’t stiff competition for housing based upon school attendance area then housing would be much cheaper. She further stated that families who homeschool and families with real wealth didn’t care a whit about public schools and moved into the best neighborhoods regardless. She stated the prices of houses in good school attendance areas are bid up by parents (w/o regard to actual quality or REAL value) who want their children to have the right to attend certain public schools above all else. Towards the end, she even went so far as to state that “In San Diego, parents will even buy their family homes on or near a toxic (former) dump site in order to be situated in a particular school attendance area.”

Sound familiar, Piggs??

By DEBORAH SULLIVAN BRENNAN – [email protected] | Posted: Saturday, March 5, 2011 7:20 pm

…Since the seven landfills —- in Bonsall, Valley Center, Poway, San Marcos, Oceanside and Carlsbad —- closed more than a decade ago, an airport, parks, schools and homes have been built on or near the sites…

see:

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_e6f8dde5-da4c-54fc-b8ee-fe358795ea8c.html

http://www.flatironcorp.com/index.asp?w=pages&r=5&pid=27&project=19

I got from the lecture that parents nationwide are being sold a bill of goods when they drastically overpay for housing in metropolitan areas in which comparable or better housing could be obtained much cheaper in a nearby area of the same city and/or county. Acc to Warren, many parents stick their neck out so far financially to purchase a property in the “right” area (under the guise of overextending themselves for “their children’s education”) that they end up eventually bankrupting themselves in the process.

I also skimmed thru the 11 pages of book reviews on “The Two-Income Trap” last night. The vast majority of reviewers stated that the authors (the Warrens) over-victimized the families who found themselves having to file for BK and didn’t undertake a study of their actual “consumption” habits. Most also stated that they were not sympathetic to a parent buying a house for the sole purpose of school attendance area and that the authors didn’t come up with any solutions to these seemingly “intractable” problems in their book. Some reviewers gave their locations as areas in SoCal. The reviewers from the Northeast had starkly different opinions about how much it really costs to raise a family. Some reviewers gave their locations as Midwest and Southwest and wondered why the families discussed in the book couldn’t live within their means. These reviewers didn’t feel the book pertained to them, only those who lived on the coasts.

The book was written in 2007 and the lecture was in early 2008 but overall, I got from the reviews that citizens nationwide are fed up with persons who have good jobs and can’t live within their means (parent or not).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]. . . Elizabeth Warren explains here why the dual-income household has not benefitted us nearly as much as people would like to think. As a matter of fact, the prevalence of two-income households constrains people’s options because now prices are set by those with multiple incomes per household — forcing EVERYONE to take on multiple (paying) jobs per household if they just want to keep up.

Here’s her book, The Two-Income Trap, which goes into more detail:

A write up about it:

The Two-Income Trap

[/quote]

. . . I listened to Warren’s long video at UCB. She seemed a little nervous but passionate about what she believes in. She blamed the price of housing for families on the competition for schools. She stated, in effect, that if there wasn’t stiff competition for housing based upon school attendance area then housing would be much cheaper. She further stated that families who homeschool and families with real wealth didn’t care a whit about public schools and moved into the best neighborhoods regardless. She stated the prices of houses in good school attendance areas are bid up by parents (w/o regard to actual quality or REAL value) who want their children to have the right to attend certain public schools above all else. Towards the end, she even went so far as to state that “In San Diego, parents will even buy their family homes on or near a toxic (former) dump site in order to be situated in a particular school attendance area.”

Sound familiar, Piggs??

By DEBORAH SULLIVAN BRENNAN – [email protected] | Posted: Saturday, March 5, 2011 7:20 pm

…Since the seven landfills —- in Bonsall, Valley Center, Poway, San Marcos, Oceanside and Carlsbad —- closed more than a decade ago, an airport, parks, schools and homes have been built on or near the sites…

see:

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_e6f8dde5-da4c-54fc-b8ee-fe358795ea8c.html

http://www.flatironcorp.com/index.asp?w=pages&r=5&pid=27&project=19

I got from the lecture that parents nationwide are being sold a bill of goods when they drastically overpay for housing in metropolitan areas in which comparable or better housing could be obtained much cheaper in a nearby area of the same city and/or county. Acc to Warren, many parents stick their neck out so far financially to purchase a property in the “right” area (under the guise of overextending themselves for “their children’s education”) that they end up eventually bankrupting themselves in the process.

I also skimmed thru the 11 pages of book reviews on “The Two-Income Trap” last night. The vast majority of reviewers stated that the authors (the Warrens) over-victimized the families who found themselves having to file for BK and didn’t undertake a study of their actual “consumption” habits. Most also stated that they were not sympathetic to a parent buying a house for the sole purpose of school attendance area and that the authors didn’t come up with any solutions to these seemingly “intractable” problems in their book. Some reviewers gave their locations as areas in SoCal. The reviewers from the Northeast had starkly different opinions about how much it really costs to raise a family. Some reviewers gave their locations as Midwest and Southwest and wondered why the families discussed in the book couldn’t live within their means. These reviewers didn’t feel the book pertained to them, only those who lived on the coasts.

The book was written in 2007 and the lecture was in early 2008 but overall, I got from the reviews that citizens nationwide are fed up with persons who have good jobs and can’t live within their means (parent or not).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]. . . Elizabeth Warren explains here why the dual-income household has not benefitted us nearly as much as people would like to think. As a matter of fact, the prevalence of two-income households constrains people’s options because now prices are set by those with multiple incomes per household — forcing EVERYONE to take on multiple (paying) jobs per household if they just want to keep up.

Here’s her book, The Two-Income Trap, which goes into more detail:

A write up about it:

The Two-Income Trap

[/quote]

. . . I listened to Warren’s long video at UCB. She seemed a little nervous but passionate about what she believes in. She blamed the price of housing for families on the competition for schools. She stated, in effect, that if there wasn’t stiff competition for housing based upon school attendance area then housing would be much cheaper. She further stated that families who homeschool and families with real wealth didn’t care a whit about public schools and moved into the best neighborhoods regardless. She stated the prices of houses in good school attendance areas are bid up by parents (w/o regard to actual quality or REAL value) who want their children to have the right to attend certain public schools above all else. Towards the end, she even went so far as to state that “In San Diego, parents will even buy their family homes on or near a toxic (former) dump site in order to be situated in a particular school attendance area.”

Sound familiar, Piggs??

By DEBORAH SULLIVAN BRENNAN – [email protected] | Posted: Saturday, March 5, 2011 7:20 pm

…Since the seven landfills —- in Bonsall, Valley Center, Poway, San Marcos, Oceanside and Carlsbad —- closed more than a decade ago, an airport, parks, schools and homes have been built on or near the sites…

see:

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_e6f8dde5-da4c-54fc-b8ee-fe358795ea8c.html

http://www.flatironcorp.com/index.asp?w=pages&r=5&pid=27&project=19

I got from the lecture that parents nationwide are being sold a bill of goods when they drastically overpay for housing in metropolitan areas in which comparable or better housing could be obtained much cheaper in a nearby area of the same city and/or county. Acc to Warren, many parents stick their neck out so far financially to purchase a property in the “right” area (under the guise of overextending themselves for “their children’s education”) that they end up eventually bankrupting themselves in the process.

I also skimmed thru the 11 pages of book reviews on “The Two-Income Trap” last night. The vast majority of reviewers stated that the authors (the Warrens) over-victimized the families who found themselves having to file for BK and didn’t undertake a study of their actual “consumption” habits. Most also stated that they were not sympathetic to a parent buying a house for the sole purpose of school attendance area and that the authors didn’t come up with any solutions to these seemingly “intractable” problems in their book. Some reviewers gave their locations as areas in SoCal. The reviewers from the Northeast had starkly different opinions about how much it really costs to raise a family. Some reviewers gave their locations as Midwest and Southwest and wondered why the families discussed in the book couldn’t live within their means. These reviewers didn’t feel the book pertained to them, only those who lived on the coasts.

The book was written in 2007 and the lecture was in early 2008 but overall, I got from the reviews that citizens nationwide are fed up with persons who have good jobs and can’t live within their means (parent or not).

[an]

Here are the data for 2010, 2000, and 1990.

2010:
Median income – 62.7k
median housing price = 328k
median housing price/median income = 5.22

2000:
Median income – 47.2k
median housing price = 223k
median housing price/median income = 4.725

1990:
Median income – 35k
median housing price = 188k
median housing price/median income = 5.36

So, we’re worse off than 2000 but better off than 1990. This does not account for interest rate at all.

[an]

Here are the data for 2010, 2000, and 1990.

2010:
Median income – 62.7k
median housing price = 328k
median housing price/median income = 5.22

2000:
Median income – 47.2k
median housing price = 223k
median housing price/median income = 4.725

1990:
Median income – 35k
median housing price = 188k
median housing price/median income = 5.36

So, we’re worse off than 2000 but better off than 1990. This does not account for interest rate at all.

[an]

Here are the data for 2010, 2000, and 1990.

2010:
Median income – 62.7k
median housing price = 328k
median housing price/median income = 5.22

2000:
Median income – 47.2k
median housing price = 223k
median housing price/median income = 4.725

1990:
Median income – 35k
median housing price = 188k
median housing price/median income = 5.36

So, we’re worse off than 2000 but better off than 1990. This does not account for interest rate at all.

[an]

Here are the data for 2010, 2000, and 1990.

2010:
Median income – 62.7k
median housing price = 328k
median housing price/median income = 5.22

2000:
Median income – 47.2k
median housing price = 223k
median housing price/median income = 4.725

1990:
Median income – 35k
median housing price = 188k
median housing price/median income = 5.36

So, we’re worse off than 2000 but better off than 1990. This does not account for interest rate at all.

[Author]

Posts