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

[an]

Census = alternative data.
BLS uses Census data to calculate their data.
Rich uses BLS data to prove his point.

LoL

[utcsox]

[quote=AN]Census = alternative data.
BLS uses Census data to calculate their data.
Rich uses BLS data to prove his point.

LoL[/quote]

To be fair, BLS, Rich and most Piggs know how to calculate the nominal change of inflation-adjusted incomes go from 63k to 64k over a period where cumulative inflation is 8.7% using BLS data. And yes in case you wonder, we do know the difference between median and mean.

[Escoguy]

We bought four short sales in 2013-2014.

Banks were selling but you needed to figure out how to do it.

Once you find a formula that works, it was wash rinse repeat.

Given it took a lot of equity with an average of 25% down-payments. So doing this took 500K cash even this for four properties.

I’d suggest anyone who is only focused on SD to look north at LA. That’s where the prices are insane. Anything decent is 1.7M plus in certain areas which would be 600-650K here. So no I don’t see much of a drop coming any time soon.

It’s early in the rental spring market but will be interesting to see how quickly homes go this year.

[an]

INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2015 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
vs
INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2010 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)

I guess that where I misunderstood. If both said:
INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
or
INCOME AND BENEFITS (INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)

then I wouldn’t make the mistake I did. But if both # are 2017 inflation adjusted $, then I think there are A LOT more people in my area making A LOT more $ than I thought compare to the people around here just 7 years ago. AWESOME. Makes me even more positive on the strength of the hands of the owners.

[Anonymous]

Yelling the same thing over and over doesn’t really help.

[an]

[quote=harvey]Yelling the same thing over and over doesn’t really help.[/quote]Help what exactly?

[Anonymous]

That is the question.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=AN]INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2015 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
vs
INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2010 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)

I guess that where I misunderstood. If both said:
INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
or
INCOME AND BENEFITS (INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)

then I wouldn’t make the mistake I did. But if both # are 2017 inflation adjusted $, then I think there are A LOT more people in my area making A LOT more $ than I thought compare to the people around here just 7 years ago. AWESOME. Makes me even more positive on the strength of the hands of the owners.[/quote]

AN, the issue is as you noted that the individual sub-tables are labeled wrong in the 5 Yr ACS survey. The Table link itself is labeled as in 2015 inflation adjusted dollars. The issue isn’t doing inflation backwards, it’s applying inflation twice.

If you trace the numbers through the individual 1 yr ACS surveys, you see the difference. The 5 Yr ACS is acknowledge as the most accurate of the three ACS surveys

The one year ACS shows 2015 median income at $67,320 +/-$1448, the 5 yr corrects it to $64,309 +/- $514. (Yes, I recognize those don’t overlap). Likewise the 2010 5 YR shows $63,089 +/-$464 in 2015 dollar (note accessing the table directly removes the mislabeling) The 1 Yr shows it as $59,923 +/-$1075.

The BEA attempts to explain the differences between the surveys here.

Although I’m not even going to try an rationalize the Census reporting aggregate income in 2015 of $100B for the county, while the BEA reports $175B or why one shows a 20% nominal growth from 2010 to 2015 and the other 28%.

My original basic point was that upper income group is growing dynamically and that housing build out isn’t. Leaving motivated high income people to fight or aging dated stock.

[no_such_reality]

Found the explanation of CPS versus BEA data here

[Anonymous]

[quote=no_such_reality]
My original basic point was that upper income group is growing dynamically and that housing build out isn’t. Leaving motivated high income people to fight or aging dated stock.[/quote]

The data posted on this thread is a bit of a mess, but it does seem to point in that direction.

[mixxalot]

Yup I decided to rent and buy out of state where my cash goes much further. Places like Oregon (except Portland) and Utah are far more affordable. Rather bank and invest the rest compared to what 500k-2MM get you in Sandy Eggo.

Plus it is getting way more crowded and traffic is bad all the time now.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=Escoguy]
I’d suggest anyone who is only focused on SD to look north at LA. That’s where the prices are insane. Anything decent is 1.7M plus in certain areas which would be 600-650K here. So no I don’t see much of a drop coming any time soon.
[/quote]

You aren’t kidding about LA. We track both markets (own a rental in SD and own a home in LA). Once the nest is empty, we plan to move back to San Diego where things are less expensive. Especially property.

[flyer]

no_such_reality wrote:

“My original basic point was that upper income group is growing dynamically and that housing build out isn’t. Leaving motivated high income people to fight or aging dated stock.”

Completely agree. With our rentals, etc., we see more and more people interested in living in SAN for jobs, retirement–you name it–and less and less buildable land, so it’s no wonder some are predicting a housing crisis here.

[The-Shoveler]

The housing shortage is completely self inflicted by zoning .

Secondly there is a construction worker shortage mainly because Millennials don’t seem to want to commit to learning construction trades.

Takes 3-5 years of dedication believe it or not to learn a trade.

[flyer]

Good points, TS. It will be interesting to see if those issues can be solved or not.

[Author]

Posts