- This topic has 430 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
Nor-LA-SD-guy.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 16, 2009 at 1:06 PM #367703March 16, 2009 at 1:21 PM #367114
Nor-LA-SD-guy
ParticipantSome of you guy’s are starting to remind me of what I hear on almost every radio commercial these day’s
You know …
In these difficult times when money is tight it is good to know ________
(you fill in the plank).
March 16, 2009 at 1:21 PM #367402ParticipantSome of you guy’s are starting to remind me of what I hear on almost every radio commercial these day’s
You know …
In these difficult times when money is tight it is good to know ________
(you fill in the plank).
March 16, 2009 at 1:21 PM #367569ParticipantSome of you guy’s are starting to remind me of what I hear on almost every radio commercial these day’s
You know …
In these difficult times when money is tight it is good to know ________
(you fill in the plank).
March 16, 2009 at 1:21 PM #367606ParticipantSome of you guy’s are starting to remind me of what I hear on almost every radio commercial these day’s
You know …
In these difficult times when money is tight it is good to know ________
(you fill in the plank).
March 16, 2009 at 1:21 PM #367718ParticipantSome of you guy’s are starting to remind me of what I hear on almost every radio commercial these day’s
You know …
In these difficult times when money is tight it is good to know ________
(you fill in the plank).
March 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM #367159carlsbadworker
Participant[quote=Scarlet]FIRE economy is dead, on this we all agree? What is on the horizon to replace those jobs? The average household income in Temecula WAS around $50k, what is it now that unemployment is a rose colored glasses, 10%? The FIRE economy allowed people without degrees to make really good money.
[/quote]Where is your source of the income data? (In God we trust, everyone else brings data) I posted mine from census bereau earlier in the thread which shows that the current price is justified:
In addition, the price to income ratio is always above 3 here in San Diego in all previous recessions. In addition, such kind of calculation conveniently ignore the impact of low mortgage rate.
However, I agree with peterb’s point of view that this is not a normal recession. So the previous yardsticks may not hold. So just like in other thread TG posted about 1985 pricing, I think most piggs (even all the “cheer-leaders”) still agree that it may not be a good time to invest yet, but buying a primary residence has a lot of emotional factors invovled so one has to decide for his own family. It definitely has much less downside risk now comparing to even just one year ago.
March 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM #367448Participant[quote=Scarlet]FIRE economy is dead, on this we all agree? What is on the horizon to replace those jobs? The average household income in Temecula WAS around $50k, what is it now that unemployment is a rose colored glasses, 10%? The FIRE economy allowed people without degrees to make really good money.
[/quote]Where is your source of the income data? (In God we trust, everyone else brings data) I posted mine from census bereau earlier in the thread which shows that the current price is justified:
In addition, the price to income ratio is always above 3 here in San Diego in all previous recessions. In addition, such kind of calculation conveniently ignore the impact of low mortgage rate.
However, I agree with peterb’s point of view that this is not a normal recession. So the previous yardsticks may not hold. So just like in other thread TG posted about 1985 pricing, I think most piggs (even all the “cheer-leaders”) still agree that it may not be a good time to invest yet, but buying a primary residence has a lot of emotional factors invovled so one has to decide for his own family. It definitely has much less downside risk now comparing to even just one year ago.
March 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM #367614Participant[quote=Scarlet]FIRE economy is dead, on this we all agree? What is on the horizon to replace those jobs? The average household income in Temecula WAS around $50k, what is it now that unemployment is a rose colored glasses, 10%? The FIRE economy allowed people without degrees to make really good money.
[/quote]Where is your source of the income data? (In God we trust, everyone else brings data) I posted mine from census bereau earlier in the thread which shows that the current price is justified:
In addition, the price to income ratio is always above 3 here in San Diego in all previous recessions. In addition, such kind of calculation conveniently ignore the impact of low mortgage rate.
However, I agree with peterb’s point of view that this is not a normal recession. So the previous yardsticks may not hold. So just like in other thread TG posted about 1985 pricing, I think most piggs (even all the “cheer-leaders”) still agree that it may not be a good time to invest yet, but buying a primary residence has a lot of emotional factors invovled so one has to decide for his own family. It definitely has much less downside risk now comparing to even just one year ago.
March 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM #367651Participant[quote=Scarlet]FIRE economy is dead, on this we all agree? What is on the horizon to replace those jobs? The average household income in Temecula WAS around $50k, what is it now that unemployment is a rose colored glasses, 10%? The FIRE economy allowed people without degrees to make really good money.
[/quote]Where is your source of the income data? (In God we trust, everyone else brings data) I posted mine from census bereau earlier in the thread which shows that the current price is justified:
In addition, the price to income ratio is always above 3 here in San Diego in all previous recessions. In addition, such kind of calculation conveniently ignore the impact of low mortgage rate.
However, I agree with peterb’s point of view that this is not a normal recession. So the previous yardsticks may not hold. So just like in other thread TG posted about 1985 pricing, I think most piggs (even all the “cheer-leaders”) still agree that it may not be a good time to invest yet, but buying a primary residence has a lot of emotional factors invovled so one has to decide for his own family. It definitely has much less downside risk now comparing to even just one year ago.
March 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM #367762Participant[quote=Scarlet]FIRE economy is dead, on this we all agree? What is on the horizon to replace those jobs? The average household income in Temecula WAS around $50k, what is it now that unemployment is a rose colored glasses, 10%? The FIRE economy allowed people without degrees to make really good money.
[/quote]Where is your source of the income data? (In God we trust, everyone else brings data) I posted mine from census bereau earlier in the thread which shows that the current price is justified:
In addition, the price to income ratio is always above 3 here in San Diego in all previous recessions. In addition, such kind of calculation conveniently ignore the impact of low mortgage rate.
However, I agree with peterb’s point of view that this is not a normal recession. So the previous yardsticks may not hold. So just like in other thread TG posted about 1985 pricing, I think most piggs (even all the “cheer-leaders”) still agree that it may not be a good time to invest yet, but buying a primary residence has a lot of emotional factors invovled so one has to decide for his own family. It definitely has much less downside risk now comparing to even just one year ago.
March 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM #367175Participant[quote=peterb]I just did a quick scan of 3 bedroom homes for rent in Temecula for $2000 and under on Craiglist. There were 443 of them available. I did the same thing for the city of SD. SD had 645 of them. SD has 1.1M people and is an employment center. What is Temecula’s population and employment capabilities? Does it warrent being 2/3 of the city of SD?
I dont know, just asking. Seems high to me. But I dont honestly know. Maybe Temecula is just a lot cheaper place to live? Probably. For people who live there, does 443 sound like a lot?[/quote]While I agree with most of your points, I don’t agree with the number here. You have a flawed research method in your study.
First, the absolute total number, everybody knows that some people posted very frequently on craigslist for the same property because it doesn’t cost them anything to post a new one. As a result, I bet there’re tons of duplicates in the listings that you mentioned. The Temecula city has over 20K housing unit, and 8K rental units. So the number is definitely not surprisingly high.
Second, the comparison between TV and SD, you do know that Temecula valley is a cheaper place to live, do you? By limiting the price to $2K, you are distorting the experiment. I bet if you try it in Irvine, you will find even less 3B houses renting for less than $2K, what does it prove? Your research method doesn’t prove that TV has more vacant properties, only it has more cheaper rentals.March 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM #367463Participant[quote=peterb]I just did a quick scan of 3 bedroom homes for rent in Temecula for $2000 and under on Craiglist. There were 443 of them available. I did the same thing for the city of SD. SD had 645 of them. SD has 1.1M people and is an employment center. What is Temecula’s population and employment capabilities? Does it warrent being 2/3 of the city of SD?
I dont know, just asking. Seems high to me. But I dont honestly know. Maybe Temecula is just a lot cheaper place to live? Probably. For people who live there, does 443 sound like a lot?[/quote]While I agree with most of your points, I don’t agree with the number here. You have a flawed research method in your study.
First, the absolute total number, everybody knows that some people posted very frequently on craigslist for the same property because it doesn’t cost them anything to post a new one. As a result, I bet there’re tons of duplicates in the listings that you mentioned. The Temecula city has over 20K housing unit, and 8K rental units. So the number is definitely not surprisingly high.
Second, the comparison between TV and SD, you do know that Temecula valley is a cheaper place to live, do you? By limiting the price to $2K, you are distorting the experiment. I bet if you try it in Irvine, you will find even less 3B houses renting for less than $2K, what does it prove? Your research method doesn’t prove that TV has more vacant properties, only it has more cheaper rentals.March 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM #367629Participant[quote=peterb]I just did a quick scan of 3 bedroom homes for rent in Temecula for $2000 and under on Craiglist. There were 443 of them available. I did the same thing for the city of SD. SD had 645 of them. SD has 1.1M people and is an employment center. What is Temecula’s population and employment capabilities? Does it warrent being 2/3 of the city of SD?
I dont know, just asking. Seems high to me. But I dont honestly know. Maybe Temecula is just a lot cheaper place to live? Probably. For people who live there, does 443 sound like a lot?[/quote]While I agree with most of your points, I don’t agree with the number here. You have a flawed research method in your study.
First, the absolute total number, everybody knows that some people posted very frequently on craigslist for the same property because it doesn’t cost them anything to post a new one. As a result, I bet there’re tons of duplicates in the listings that you mentioned. The Temecula city has over 20K housing unit, and 8K rental units. So the number is definitely not surprisingly high.
Second, the comparison between TV and SD, you do know that Temecula valley is a cheaper place to live, do you? By limiting the price to $2K, you are distorting the experiment. I bet if you try it in Irvine, you will find even less 3B houses renting for less than $2K, what does it prove? Your research method doesn’t prove that TV has more vacant properties, only it has more cheaper rentals.March 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM #367666Participant[quote=peterb]I just did a quick scan of 3 bedroom homes for rent in Temecula for $2000 and under on Craiglist. There were 443 of them available. I did the same thing for the city of SD. SD had 645 of them. SD has 1.1M people and is an employment center. What is Temecula’s population and employment capabilities? Does it warrent being 2/3 of the city of SD?
I dont know, just asking. Seems high to me. But I dont honestly know. Maybe Temecula is just a lot cheaper place to live? Probably. For people who live there, does 443 sound like a lot?[/quote]While I agree with most of your points, I don’t agree with the number here. You have a flawed research method in your study.
First, the absolute total number, everybody knows that some people posted very frequently on craigslist for the same property because it doesn’t cost them anything to post a new one. As a result, I bet there’re tons of duplicates in the listings that you mentioned. The Temecula city has over 20K housing unit, and 8K rental units. So the number is definitely not surprisingly high.
Second, the comparison between TV and SD, you do know that Temecula valley is a cheaper place to live, do you? By limiting the price to $2K, you are distorting the experiment. I bet if you try it in Irvine, you will find even less 3B houses renting for less than $2K, what does it prove? Your research method doesn’t prove that TV has more vacant properties, only it has more cheaper rentals. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.