- This topic has 80 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
an.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 7, 2009 at 6:55 PM #427363July 7, 2009 at 7:00 PM #427368
Nor-LA-SD-guy
ParticipantI would surmise that if you expect home prices to continue to decline into 2011 in the two biggest home markets NY/SoCal.
Being that The interpretation is that housing in SD in 1Q 2009 was significantly more affordable than in 1995 .
Then you would also expect the economy to continue to decline into 2011.
My guess the equation would look a little like below:
(bigger decline home values) == (bigger decline economy)
Just some food for thought.
I just don’t think you can have a broad economic recovery without at least stabilization in housing.
July 7, 2009 at 7:00 PM #427134ParticipantI would surmise that if you expect home prices to continue to decline into 2011 in the two biggest home markets NY/SoCal.
Being that The interpretation is that housing in SD in 1Q 2009 was significantly more affordable than in 1995 .
Then you would also expect the economy to continue to decline into 2011.
My guess the equation would look a little like below:
(bigger decline home values) == (bigger decline economy)
Just some food for thought.
I just don’t think you can have a broad economic recovery without at least stabilization in housing.
July 7, 2009 at 7:00 PM #426622ParticipantI would surmise that if you expect home prices to continue to decline into 2011 in the two biggest home markets NY/SoCal.
Being that The interpretation is that housing in SD in 1Q 2009 was significantly more affordable than in 1995 .
Then you would also expect the economy to continue to decline into 2011.
My guess the equation would look a little like below:
(bigger decline home values) == (bigger decline economy)
Just some food for thought.
I just don’t think you can have a broad economic recovery without at least stabilization in housing.
July 7, 2009 at 7:00 PM #427206ParticipantI would surmise that if you expect home prices to continue to decline into 2011 in the two biggest home markets NY/SoCal.
Being that The interpretation is that housing in SD in 1Q 2009 was significantly more affordable than in 1995 .
Then you would also expect the economy to continue to decline into 2011.
My guess the equation would look a little like below:
(bigger decline home values) == (bigger decline economy)
Just some food for thought.
I just don’t think you can have a broad economic recovery without at least stabilization in housing.
July 7, 2009 at 7:00 PM #426847ParticipantI would surmise that if you expect home prices to continue to decline into 2011 in the two biggest home markets NY/SoCal.
Being that The interpretation is that housing in SD in 1Q 2009 was significantly more affordable than in 1995 .
Then you would also expect the economy to continue to decline into 2011.
My guess the equation would look a little like below:
(bigger decline home values) == (bigger decline economy)
Just some food for thought.
I just don’t think you can have a broad economic recovery without at least stabilization in housing.
July 7, 2009 at 7:05 PM #427378Participant[quote=patientrenter][quote=FormerSanDiegan]…..There are other interesting things in their report.
Their affordability index for San Diego for 1Q 2009 is 131*. This index is based on affordability relative to 1995. The interpretation is that housing in SD in 1Q 2009 was significantly more affordable than in 1995…..[/quote]
Affordability as measured here can be misleading. Prices are higher than in 1995, even when compared to wages. So homes are less affordable for cash buyers. But if you’re paying using other people’s money, and don’t plan to repay it any time soon, then lower interest rates makes a purchase more affordable.[/quote]
While I think what you are saying is probably true for a good part of SD, I would not say that for all SoCal, especially in places like TV where I think you are getting a lot more for your money than you did in 1995 (again minimum wage does not count, My wage has tripled since 1995 minimum wage has not).
July 7, 2009 at 7:05 PM #427216Participant[quote=patientrenter][quote=FormerSanDiegan]…..There are other interesting things in their report.
Their affordability index for San Diego for 1Q 2009 is 131*. This index is based on affordability relative to 1995. The interpretation is that housing in SD in 1Q 2009 was significantly more affordable than in 1995…..[/quote]
Affordability as measured here can be misleading. Prices are higher than in 1995, even when compared to wages. So homes are less affordable for cash buyers. But if you’re paying using other people’s money, and don’t plan to repay it any time soon, then lower interest rates makes a purchase more affordable.[/quote]
While I think what you are saying is probably true for a good part of SD, I would not say that for all SoCal, especially in places like TV where I think you are getting a lot more for your money than you did in 1995 (again minimum wage does not count, My wage has tripled since 1995 minimum wage has not).
July 7, 2009 at 7:05 PM #426857Participant[quote=patientrenter][quote=FormerSanDiegan]…..There are other interesting things in their report.
Their affordability index for San Diego for 1Q 2009 is 131*. This index is based on affordability relative to 1995. The interpretation is that housing in SD in 1Q 2009 was significantly more affordable than in 1995…..[/quote]
Affordability as measured here can be misleading. Prices are higher than in 1995, even when compared to wages. So homes are less affordable for cash buyers. But if you’re paying using other people’s money, and don’t plan to repay it any time soon, then lower interest rates makes a purchase more affordable.[/quote]
While I think what you are saying is probably true for a good part of SD, I would not say that for all SoCal, especially in places like TV where I think you are getting a lot more for your money than you did in 1995 (again minimum wage does not count, My wage has tripled since 1995 minimum wage has not).
July 7, 2009 at 7:05 PM #427144Participant[quote=patientrenter][quote=FormerSanDiegan]…..There are other interesting things in their report.
Their affordability index for San Diego for 1Q 2009 is 131*. This index is based on affordability relative to 1995. The interpretation is that housing in SD in 1Q 2009 was significantly more affordable than in 1995…..[/quote]
Affordability as measured here can be misleading. Prices are higher than in 1995, even when compared to wages. So homes are less affordable for cash buyers. But if you’re paying using other people’s money, and don’t plan to repay it any time soon, then lower interest rates makes a purchase more affordable.[/quote]
While I think what you are saying is probably true for a good part of SD, I would not say that for all SoCal, especially in places like TV where I think you are getting a lot more for your money than you did in 1995 (again minimum wage does not count, My wage has tripled since 1995 minimum wage has not).
July 7, 2009 at 7:05 PM #426632Participant[quote=patientrenter][quote=FormerSanDiegan]…..There are other interesting things in their report.
Their affordability index for San Diego for 1Q 2009 is 131*. This index is based on affordability relative to 1995. The interpretation is that housing in SD in 1Q 2009 was significantly more affordable than in 1995…..[/quote]
Affordability as measured here can be misleading. Prices are higher than in 1995, even when compared to wages. So homes are less affordable for cash buyers. But if you’re paying using other people’s money, and don’t plan to repay it any time soon, then lower interest rates makes a purchase more affordable.[/quote]
While I think what you are saying is probably true for a good part of SD, I would not say that for all SoCal, especially in places like TV where I think you are getting a lot more for your money than you did in 1995 (again minimum wage does not count, My wage has tripled since 1995 minimum wage has not).
July 7, 2009 at 9:22 PM #427224patientrenter
ParticipantAgree about TV, Nor-LA-SD-guy. But disagree about incomes tripling. My income has tripled since 1995 also, but I know that’s higher than the average. When we talk about affordability, we don’t mean for Warren Buffett, or other individuals who aren’t close to averages. I don’t think most incomes have tripled since 1995.
July 7, 2009 at 9:22 PM #427295ParticipantAgree about TV, Nor-LA-SD-guy. But disagree about incomes tripling. My income has tripled since 1995 also, but I know that’s higher than the average. When we talk about affordability, we don’t mean for Warren Buffett, or other individuals who aren’t close to averages. I don’t think most incomes have tripled since 1995.
July 7, 2009 at 9:22 PM #427458ParticipantAgree about TV, Nor-LA-SD-guy. But disagree about incomes tripling. My income has tripled since 1995 also, but I know that’s higher than the average. When we talk about affordability, we don’t mean for Warren Buffett, or other individuals who aren’t close to averages. I don’t think most incomes have tripled since 1995.
July 7, 2009 at 9:22 PM #426937ParticipantAgree about TV, Nor-LA-SD-guy. But disagree about incomes tripling. My income has tripled since 1995 also, but I know that’s higher than the average. When we talk about affordability, we don’t mean for Warren Buffett, or other individuals who aren’t close to averages. I don’t think most incomes have tripled since 1995.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.