Why I am leaving San Diego

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]. . . My point is that if that zip code has a lot of old people move in after they retired then the data is skewed with a lower median income with respect to home price. But there is no reason to suspect that given the median age.[/quote]

jstoesz, get a clue! No one “moved in” after they retired! They NEVER LEFT!!

After adding in SS, these household’s income is the same as it’s always been. Most were one-income households!

[jstoesz]

This is the statement that kicked off this fun fest…
[quote]So either the place is swimming with imported retirees which in Clairemont I highly *DOUBT*. [/quote]

You are killing me. My point is that 55419 is not a place that imports retirees either, many of its residences have been there for 40, 50 years too! NEITHER place imports retirees. The median age is the same! Therefore, your argument about old people living there does not compute. It is spurious because the both zips have similar age demographics. Just like every other neighborhood in the country, except the La Jolla’s and palm springs of the world. We are comparing apples to apples in terms of demographics…but one is twice as expensive.

In other words, old people are not why Clairemont is expensive.

[jstoesz]

This is the statement that kicked off this fun fest…
[quote]So either the place is swimming with imported retirees which in Clairemont I highly *DOUBT*. [/quote]

You are killing me. My point is that 55419 is not a place that imports retirees either, many of its residences have been there for 40, 50 years too! NEITHER place imports retirees. The median age is the same! Therefore, your argument about old people living there does not compute. It is spurious because the both zips have similar age demographics. Just like every other neighborhood in the country, except the La Jolla’s and palm springs of the world. We are comparing apples to apples in terms of demographics…but one is twice as expensive.

In other words, old people are not why Clairemont is expensive.

[jstoesz]

This is the statement that kicked off this fun fest…
[quote]So either the place is swimming with imported retirees which in Clairemont I highly *DOUBT*. [/quote]

You are killing me. My point is that 55419 is not a place that imports retirees either, many of its residences have been there for 40, 50 years too! NEITHER place imports retirees. The median age is the same! Therefore, your argument about old people living there does not compute. It is spurious because the both zips have similar age demographics. Just like every other neighborhood in the country, except the La Jolla’s and palm springs of the world. We are comparing apples to apples in terms of demographics…but one is twice as expensive.

In other words, old people are not why Clairemont is expensive.

[jstoesz]

This is the statement that kicked off this fun fest…
[quote]So either the place is swimming with imported retirees which in Clairemont I highly *DOUBT*. [/quote]

You are killing me. My point is that 55419 is not a place that imports retirees either, many of its residences have been there for 40, 50 years too! NEITHER place imports retirees. The median age is the same! Therefore, your argument about old people living there does not compute. It is spurious because the both zips have similar age demographics. Just like every other neighborhood in the country, except the La Jolla’s and palm springs of the world. We are comparing apples to apples in terms of demographics…but one is twice as expensive.

In other words, old people are not why Clairemont is expensive.

[jstoesz]

This is the statement that kicked off this fun fest…
[quote]So either the place is swimming with imported retirees which in Clairemont I highly *DOUBT*. [/quote]

You are killing me. My point is that 55419 is not a place that imports retirees either, many of its residences have been there for 40, 50 years too! NEITHER place imports retirees. The median age is the same! Therefore, your argument about old people living there does not compute. It is spurious because the both zips have similar age demographics. Just like every other neighborhood in the country, except the La Jolla’s and palm springs of the world. We are comparing apples to apples in terms of demographics…but one is twice as expensive.

In other words, old people are not why Clairemont is expensive.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]. . . In other words, old people are not why Clairemont is expensive.[/quote]

Agreed.

But is Clairemont “expensive” in relation to other SD neighborhoods?

If you think so, which neighborhoods do you think are a better buy??

Just curious…

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]. . . In other words, old people are not why Clairemont is expensive.[/quote]

Agreed.

But is Clairemont “expensive” in relation to other SD neighborhoods?

If you think so, which neighborhoods do you think are a better buy??

Just curious…

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]. . . In other words, old people are not why Clairemont is expensive.[/quote]

Agreed.

But is Clairemont “expensive” in relation to other SD neighborhoods?

If you think so, which neighborhoods do you think are a better buy??

Just curious…

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]. . . In other words, old people are not why Clairemont is expensive.[/quote]

Agreed.

But is Clairemont “expensive” in relation to other SD neighborhoods?

If you think so, which neighborhoods do you think are a better buy??

Just curious…

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]. . . In other words, old people are not why Clairemont is expensive.[/quote]

Agreed.

But is Clairemont “expensive” in relation to other SD neighborhoods?

If you think so, which neighborhoods do you think are a better buy??

Just curious…

[briansd1]

[quote=jstoesz]I think Occams razor applies here.

Californians on the aggregate are irresponsible with their money. It has been proven time and time again. The reason why Clairemont cost so much has nothing to do with the old fogies, or weather, or the beach, and everything to do with people willing to spend more of their income on a house than other parts of the country.[/quote]

I agree with you.

Values are based on what buyers are willing to pay (too much), not on owners who never plan to sell.

Californians have always been bailed out by rising values. But maybe not this time because, this time, the debts are too great.

I’m not predicting an implosion, but a long period of stagnation while the rest of the country catches up. Japan has had 20 years of stagnation while the rest of the world catches up.

[briansd1]

[quote=jstoesz]I think Occams razor applies here.

Californians on the aggregate are irresponsible with their money. It has been proven time and time again. The reason why Clairemont cost so much has nothing to do with the old fogies, or weather, or the beach, and everything to do with people willing to spend more of their income on a house than other parts of the country.[/quote]

I agree with you.

Values are based on what buyers are willing to pay (too much), not on owners who never plan to sell.

Californians have always been bailed out by rising values. But maybe not this time because, this time, the debts are too great.

I’m not predicting an implosion, but a long period of stagnation while the rest of the country catches up. Japan has had 20 years of stagnation while the rest of the world catches up.

[briansd1]

[quote=jstoesz]I think Occams razor applies here.

Californians on the aggregate are irresponsible with their money. It has been proven time and time again. The reason why Clairemont cost so much has nothing to do with the old fogies, or weather, or the beach, and everything to do with people willing to spend more of their income on a house than other parts of the country.[/quote]

I agree with you.

Values are based on what buyers are willing to pay (too much), not on owners who never plan to sell.

Californians have always been bailed out by rising values. But maybe not this time because, this time, the debts are too great.

I’m not predicting an implosion, but a long period of stagnation while the rest of the country catches up. Japan has had 20 years of stagnation while the rest of the world catches up.

[briansd1]

[quote=jstoesz]I think Occams razor applies here.

Californians on the aggregate are irresponsible with their money. It has been proven time and time again. The reason why Clairemont cost so much has nothing to do with the old fogies, or weather, or the beach, and everything to do with people willing to spend more of their income on a house than other parts of the country.[/quote]

I agree with you.

Values are based on what buyers are willing to pay (too much), not on owners who never plan to sell.

Californians have always been bailed out by rising values. But maybe not this time because, this time, the debts are too great.

I’m not predicting an implosion, but a long period of stagnation while the rest of the country catches up. Japan has had 20 years of stagnation while the rest of the world catches up.

[Author]

Posts