Why it’s not a good time to buy a house in San Diego!

[millennial]

[quote=AN][quote=millennial]It really could be as simple as people just making more money due to raises, inflation, or investment income.[/quote]Inflation isn’t huge over just 5 years time frame. As for the rest, does it really how more households are making their money? As long as they make more money, I think that’s all that matters.[/quote] I guess what I meant was that those are rationales for why median income in an area might have nothing to do with new affluent people moving in…and probably way more likely. Not sure what % of your zip code moves in a year, but I doubt it’s more than 3%. I

[millennial]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=Rich Toscano]
From 2010 to 2015, nominal per capita income increased by over 21%. (Per capita is different from median household, but in terms of growth rates they are extremely similar).

To argue that nominal incomes from 2010-2015 increased less than 2% (no_such_reality) or that they decreased (AN) is way off base.[/quote]

Rich, you’re confusing Average (Mean) and Median.

Per Capita is average income per person. i.e. Total aggregate income divided by number of people.

Median is income is 547001st household making.[/quote]
I think he gets it. I think he’s misreading

[millennial]

[quote=AN][quote=millennial]I think NSR had 8.7% increase and AN said that inflation adjusted medians decreased[/quote]8.7% is the inflation rate over the 5 years between 2010 to 2015. $63069 * 1.087 = $68556.[/quote]

Yes that’s what I said

[an]

[quote=Rich Toscano]To put some perspective on it, go look at the BLS per capita income data, which is not inflation adjusted.

From 2010 to 2015, nominal per capita income increased by over 21%. (Per capita is different from median household, but in terms of growth rates they are extremely similar).

To argue that nominal incomes from 2010-2015 increased less than 2% (no_such_reality) or that they decreased (AN) is way off base.[/quote]Why can’t you have both flat median household income and increasing per capita income?

[an]

[quote=millennial][quote=AN][quote=millennial]It really could be as simple as people just making more money due to raises, inflation, or investment income.[/quote]Inflation isn’t huge over just 5 years time frame. As for the rest, does it really how more households are making their money? As long as they make more money, I think that’s all that matters.[/quote] I guess what I meant was that those are rationales for why median income in an area might have nothing to do with new affluent people moving in…and probably way more likely. Not sure what % of your zip code moves in a year, but I doubt it’s more than 3%. I[/quote]Off the cuff calculation, ~11% of household changed hands over 5 years give or take a few %. Which is a little less than 3%/year.

I never said median income have anything to do with more affluent people moving in. However, data showing more affluent families increasing while less affluent families decreasing in # does say exactly that.

[millennial]

[quote=AN][quote=millennial][quote=AN][quote=millennial]It really could be as simple as people just making more money due to raises, inflation, or investment income.[/quote]Inflation isn’t huge over just 5 years time frame. As for the rest, does it really how more households are making their money? As long as they make more money, I think that’s all that matters.[/quote] I guess what I meant was that those are rationales for why median income in an area might have nothing to do with new affluent people moving in…and probably way more likely. Not sure what % of your zip code moves in a year, but I doubt it’s more than 3%. I[/quote]Off the cuff calculation, ~11% of household changed hands over 5 years give or take a few %. Which is a little less than 3%/year.

I never said median income have anything to do with more affluent people moving in. However, data showing more affluent families increasing while less affluent families decreasing in # does say exactly that.[/quote]

If that 11% is correct then it probably means exactly that. Still not sure how it relates to higher property values. I think it may also have to do with older people moving out and younger families moving in

[millennial]

[quote=AN][quote=Rich Toscano]To put some perspective on it, go look at the BLS per capita income data, which is not inflation adjusted.

From 2010 to 2015, nominal per capita income increased by over 21%. (Per capita is different from median household, but in terms of growth rates they are extremely similar).

To argue that nominal incomes from 2010-2015 increased less than 2% (no_such_reality) or that they decreased (AN) is way off base.[/quote]Why can’t you have both flat median household income and increasing per capita income?[/quote] you can if the bottom half doesn’t improve and the top half does

[an]

[quote=millennial]If that 11% is correct then it probably means exactly that. Still not sure how it relates to higher property values. I think it may also have to do with older people moving out and younger families moving in[/quote]It’s related by more affluent people can afford higher home price. It would be more worrisome if less affluent people move in AND price went up. Now, that would be recipe for disaster. More affluent people can afford more. Age doesn’t matter. $100k income is $100k income, regardless if you’re 25 or 65.

[millennial]

[quote=AN][quote=millennial]If that 11% is correct then it probably means exactly that. Still not sure how it relates to higher property values. I think it may also have to do with older people moving out and younger families moving in[/quote]It’s related by more affluent people can afford higher home price. It would be more worrisome if less affluent people move in AND price went up. Now, that would be recipe for disaster. More affluent people can afford more. Age doesn’t matter. $100k income is $100k income, regardless if you’re 25 or 65.[/quote]
Age does matter. If you have someone who’s old and bought the house in 1970 and have a dual income earning family move in you just increased the household income from 35k to 150k

[an]

[quote=millennial][quote=AN][quote=millennial]If that 11% is correct then it probably means exactly that. Still not sure how it relates to higher property values. I think it may also have to do with older people moving out and younger families moving in[/quote]It’s related by more affluent people can afford higher home price. It would be more worrisome if less affluent people move in AND price went up. Now, that would be recipe for disaster. More affluent people can afford more. Age doesn’t matter. $100k income is $100k income, regardless if you’re 25 or 65.[/quote]
Age does matter. If you have someone who’s old and bought the house in 1970 and have a dual income earning family move in you may move per capita income for the new homeowner from 35k to 150k.[/quote]Does it matter less if the young couple moving out make $35k and a baby boomer couple moving in making $150k?

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=AN][quote=Rich Toscano]To put some perspective on it, go look at the BLS per capita income data, which is not inflation adjusted.

From 2010 to 2015, nominal per capita income increased by over 21%. (Per capita is different from median household, but in terms of growth rates they are extremely similar).

To argue that nominal incomes from 2010-2015 increased less than 2% (no_such_reality) or that they decreased (AN) is way off base.[/quote]Why can’t you have both flat median household income and increasing per capita income?[/quote]

Guys, thank you, I’m aware of the difference between the mean and the median, as hard as that seems to be for everyone to believe. (Really: you think I managed to have this website the whole time without knowing what means and medians are?)

The issue is that it defies all other data points, and common sense, to claim that from 2010-2015, San Diego median hh income was flat (or negative!) in nominal terms.

But that’s what’s being claimed here. And you are digging in and stubbornly defending this claim, based entirely on ambiguous wording on a single website, when a little further poking around would show that it’s wrong.

So as I said, I’m not going to spend any more time trying to change your mind. You can figure it out on your own, or just believe what you want.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Folks…

Today is pi day. In celebration of pi day, I am endeavoring to brush up on some math.

So, here’s a word problem:

If inflation adjusted incomes go up from 63K to 64k over a 5-year period where cumulative inflation was 8.7%, what is the increase in nominal incomes over that same period:

A) 1.6%
B) -7.1%
C) > 10%
D) Prices are inversely proportional to rates because of stealth inventory.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

.. gonna put that question above to a poll …

[no_such_reality]

Yes, I will agree that obviously there is something amiss with the census data. I suspect the table on the 5-yr ACS is in error in saying 2010 Dollars when they appear to be constant 2015 dollars.

Together it makes more sense when combined with the BLS numbers and the Census quintile share of income numbers.

The census typically under reports income.

[utcsox]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=AN][quote=Rich Toscano]To put some perspective on it, go look at the BLS per capita income data, which is not inflation adjusted.

From 2010 to 2015, nominal per capita income increased by over 21%. (Per capita is different from median household, but in terms of growth rates they are extremely similar).

To argue that nominal incomes from 2010-2015 increased less than 2% (no_such_reality) or that they decreased (AN) is way off base.[/quote]Why can’t you have both flat median household income and increasing per capita income?[/quote]

Guys, thank you, I’m aware of the difference between the mean and the median, as hard as that seems to be for everyone to believe. (Really: you think I managed to have this website the whole time without knowing what means and medians are?)

The issue is that it defies all other data points, and common sense, to claim that from 2010-2015, San Diego median hh income was flat (or negative!) in nominal terms.

But that’s what’s being claimed here. And you are digging in and stubbornly defending this claim, based entirely on ambiguous wording on a single website, when a little further poking around would show that it’s wrong.

So as I said, I’m not going to spend any more time trying to change your mind. You can figure it out on your own, or just believe what you want.[/quote]

Touche! It looks like your site has a lot fans of alternate data, sad!

[Author]

Posts