[bearishgurl]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=bearishgurl]
You must remember that it was *unheard of* for a “boomer” to make even $70K++ annually for a “non-supervisorial” (tech) position, as Gen X/Y does today, as these positions did not exist when boomers were in their “working prime.”[/quote]

Complete and utter bunk. The first of the BB’s turned 65 in 2011! For those non-managerial tech jobs, their peak earning years are 45-54. When was that? The DotCom boom! That was 1990-2000[/quote]

nsr, that “dotCom boom” you speak of here was actually between 1997 and 2000, culminating in March of 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

And that “boomer” turning 65 in 2011 was 54 years old in 2000. They were NOT in their “prime earning years,” ESPECIALLY if they worked in SD and their continuing employment was not “protected” by Civil Service Rules or a collective bargaining agreement. SD has not only historically been lower-paying than other regions of the US, it has also been a region that favors young employees over old and young applicants over older, no matter WHAT their qualifications (or lack thereof) were. The over-50 employees in “unprotected positions” were routinely riffed and otherwise “turned out to pasture.”

The “mean” household income in So Cal in 1974-75 (within that boomer’s family-raising years) was actually $12,893: (wait to load and see numbered page 2 of document)

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-100.pdf

Numbered pages 3-17 extrapolate the income data further using other criteria.

The page numbered 24 shows how the data was compiled in the bottom RH corner.

Even in the ‘90’s, a Dept Head of a SD local government (in charge of 300+ employees) only made $120-$150K annually!

It is also interesting to note that fixed-rate conventional mortgages carried an 8.4% – 10% interest rate in ’74-’75!

http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.htm

Why am I mentioning all of this here? Because I read almost daily here that many of these (Gen Y?) Piggs (working in tech positions that didn’t exist before the “Dot.com boom”) state that they are making in excess of $80K per year (just starting out?). Some are likely making well over $100K per year and a few over $200K per yr. For the last 3+ years, fixed-rate mortgage money has been offered at 4% or less for borrowers with good credit.

We’ve had a lot of “whining” going on here about “lack of inventory” and “prices rising” of late. I’m guessing that the majority of those “whiners” could have already made a deal but, in any case, they didn’t. Why?? They were overly picky and ended up cutting off their nose to spite their faces, lol. These “perpetual home-shoppers” have no doubt watched some of their “colleagues” buy “move-up” or “luxury homes” in the past with easy-qual mortgages (which are no longer available) and want ONLY those types of properties. Hardly any of them can “see themselves” living in a “regular home” in SD and that is why they are still renting, IMHO.

In my mind, the currently-employed-FT cohort of Gen Y has it GREAT right now! And their ability to buy a home or investment property is stretched MUCH further with the current historically-low mortgages interest rates.

Gen Y really has nothing to complain about. IMO, today’s young buyers need to quit whining and get out on the street and start making offers forthwith until they are successful.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
By chance, flyer is the home/land your MIL paid ~$70K for (in the thirties/forties?) the same home today that is presumably worth $2M? Or did she have it built/enlarged herself?[/quote]

I’m gonna guess it was more like the early 60’s, when the average cost of homes in SD was probably in the $20K range. $70K was an extraordinarily
expensive home then.[/quote]

You could very well be right on this, SK. flyer hasn’t gotten back to us but he has posted that he had relatives who owned homes in Sunset Cliffs and, specifically, Armada Terrace (92106). None of these properties would be “run-of-the-mill” SD properties as Armada Terrace is one of the best streets in SD (ESP the south side, with sit-down expansive views of the SD skyline from inside the homes).

I am guessing that flyer’s MIL bought it (wherever it is) in the late ’50’s/early ’60’s as a ~1400 sf 3/2/2 for $70K and today it is a ~2800 sf 4/3/2. I had several friends and co-workers back in the day who grew up in “Roseville” (92106) (facing east or west and not quite high enough for a view of dtn) and KNOW their parents paid $40-$50K in the same time frame for 1700-2000 sf homes. Their locations were very much inferior to Armada Terrace (using that street for an example).

Everyone is forgetting that the “downtown skyline” from La Playa back then consisted of 2-4 quonset huts, sailboats (on nice days), at least one aircraft carrier and maybe TWO six-story bldgs and the Coronado Ferry moving back and forth in “Dtn SD” in the distance. The interior of the foot of PL (now Naval Sub Base SD) had just been taken over by the Navy and was still dirt :=0

These folks living on AT, for example, didn’t have a ~$300K? “sit-down view” like they (apparently) do today. There was no Harbor or Shelter Island or Coronado Bridge. SD was a “sleepy town” and that’s the way its residents liked it 🙂

Even as late as ’94, when I was looking for fixers in the area, a sit-down view was worth $100k – $150K. Now it seems a view from that same angle could command ~$300K. I’m surmising this is due to the further development of dtn SD since then.

Yes, the “run-of-the-mill” 1400-1500 sf homes in the Serra Mesas and (non-rim) Normal Heights of the world cost ~$20K back then.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flyer]…What I meant was, because of when they came into the market, by virtue of their age, most younger buyers did/do not have the option of buying properties like my MIL’s home for $70K many years ago, which is now valued at $2M+–and that’s just one of the many properties in this category in the family.

I was just pointing out how much things have changed with regard to real estate values in San Diego over the years…[/quote]

flyer, your MIL was no doubt of the WWII “Silent” or “Greatest Generation.” YOU, a “boomer” could not buy that property for $70K, not even during your “prime” buying years.

If we’re going to discuss those earlier generations, they actually had it much harder than “boomers” in many ways and you must admit that ~70 years ago, SD wasn’t the city it is now. Thus, its properties weren’t worth anywhere near what they are now.

By chance, flyer is the home/land your MIL paid ~$70K for (in the thirties/forties?) the same home today that is presumably worth $2M? Or did she have it built/enlarged herself?

[bearishgurl]

Think of it as having an “AA buddy,” UCGal. They can each support the other to refrain from posting while they hold each other’s “crack” for “safekeeping.” 😀

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flyer]…As far as comparing what people today are paying for their homes, vs. those who purchased homes here 40+ years ago–IMO, that’s a very difficult comparison to make–because no one chooses when they were born, and, consequently, younger people would never have been able to make those choices…[/quote]

Ahh, flyer, I beg to differ. Gen X/Y CAN choose!

They can choose to buy the property in my ChulaV link (or a similar one in SD Co) for ~$350K instead of a comparable one (on half the lot size, lol) for $700K+ in CarmelV, and (eventually) put the difference towards retirement.

You must remember that it was *unheard of* for a “boomer” to make even $70K++ annually for a “non-supervisorial” (tech) position, as Gen X/Y does today, as these positions did not exist when boomers were in their “working prime.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=earlyretirement]Me personally no I wouldn’t have interest in that house in Chula Vista you posted. However, I think the vast majority of retires out there would jump at the chance to live in that house.

But that is part of my argument. A huge percentage of future retires will never have the chance to retire in a house like that in an area as great as San Diego. Yes, lots did pay off their homes but there is a huge disparity in the USA of people in all generations that aren’t adequately prepared for a comfortable retirement.

And I’m in TOTAL agreement with you on the “I want it ALL” attitude of many Gen X and Y of today. Yes, many are living beyond their means. I see it daily and with friends and former college classmates.

I think we can all agree that a HUGE number of people in the future won’t be able to comfortably retire by our definition above without tremendous support from family members or friends.[/quote]

ER, I was wrong on the math on my ChulaV retirement link. The current annual taxes are actually ~$850. And, it has a view of TJ and the Coronado Islands from the backyard. Don’t think that’s enough? Would it interest you to know that “TJ” has a population of 3M, and the attendant “city lights” to go with that??

That “disparity” you speak of here is “self-made” by the members of Gen X/Y.

Gen-X and Y WILL eventually be able to retire. But to do so, most of them will have to cut their (voluntary) living expenses by at least $1500 month and put that towards retirement accounts, in order to retire in CA coastal counties. On average, they make far more annually than “boomers” did {ESP early on in their “careers”), so they can well afford to do this, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=earlyretirement][quote=flyer]
Looking at some of the stats, I’m just guessing that around 50% of BB’s will be in a position to retire comfortably–and the upper 20%, very well. I think most of us here, regardless of age, have planned to be in that top 20%.

As far as selling off assets–specifically properties–in the future as needed. I think a lot of that success or failure will depend on where those assets are. If one selected wisely, and as global demand continues to increase in certain geographic areas, I don’t think that will pose a problem for those who hold assets in those areas.

Going forward, perhaps “retirement,” may be reserved for a far more select few–only time will tell.[/quote]

I totally agree with you flyer. The key word being “comfortably”. My definition of comfortable isn’t even anything luxurious or doing exciting things or seeing exciting places. My definition of “comfortable” in retirement would be simple things like having a comfortable roof over your head without any worries in the city that you actually want to live in, getting adequate medical care in your home country without having to worry about getting excellent medical care, being able to not have to worry about eating a diet that is nutritious and not having to think about putting something back on the grocery shelf because you can’t afford it or it’s too expensive. Not having to worry about turning off the heat in the winter (not everyone lives in SD..lol), not having to worry about turning the AC on in the summer. The occasional meal out in favorite restaurants, being able to enjoy a hobby or take an occasional trip/vacation.[/quote]

ER, we are in agreement here about what “retirement” means. But I have a $64M dollar question for you. “Do you, personally, have any `worry’ about living in this home in `retirement?'”

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120057870-183_E_Millan_St_Chula_Vista_CA_91910

What if I told you that you paid ~$35K for it in 1980 (before the SD Co recorder began their “online records archival”) and raised your kids in it and you current taxes for it were ~$1800 annually?

[quote=earlyretirement][quote=flyer]Unfortunately I truly believe that many people won’t even be able to do these things above. I’m not so much worried about the boomers compared to other later generations however.[/quote]And yes, on selling off assets. I agree with you flyer… that it all comes down to location, location, location. I don’t think it matters which city/country you are in. The most desirable neighborhoods will always have people that are interested and have $$$$ to either buy or rent. Even in economic down cycles.[/quote]

Agree to this, but depending on what was actually paid for the RE in question, this concept applies to MANY micro areas of SD, not just CarmelV (where flyer has posted he owned rental homes).

IOW, while flyer paid ~275K in 1992 for a smallish rental home in Carmel V, Joe Q. Retiree (from Rohr Industries) paid $112K for the same size rental home in 1992 in Chula V. It’s ALL RELATIVE, ER!

[quote=earlyretirement][quote=livinincali]I honestly think going forward many boomers and even current retirees aren’t going to be retiring comfortably.[/quote]Yep. I totally agree with you there livinincali. The numbers and statistics don’t look too good to me.

BG, to play the devil’s advocate…what do you think about today’s retirees or future retirees that do NOT have pensions of any kind. Do you think they will be comfortable as well as a whole group nationwide? Are you optimistic for tomorrow’s future retirees that can’t count on a pension?[/quote]

ER, let’s focus on “near-future retirees” (Gen X). Some of these workers DID and DO have a defined benefit plan. And a VERY LARGE PORTION of them had MORE education than “boomers” did. If Gen X is not able to save (via retirement plans, either sponsored by an employer, or not), then if they are “college educated” and “working in their field of major,” they are wasting money on:

-new vehicles every few years;

-utilities on a larger house than their family actually needs;

-*newer* construction with MR/HOA when they could have purchased in an older community;

-all *new* furniture when they could have EASILY purchased used (a LOT of it on “consignment,” in pristine condition); and

-chose to commute to work 25+ miles one way when they could have lived ~10 miles or less from work.

It’s as simple as that.

All of these “choices,” collectively, add up to over $1000 in “expenses” every month and maybe close to $2000.

Gen X, and to a greater extent, most of Gen Y, are “hell bent” on having the newest and latest of everything.

That is Gen X/Y’s “downfall” in reaching their retirement goals, IMO. If they are not able to reach these goals with their “expensive, lofty educations,” then the problem must lie with their choices in life.

I seriously doubt the “Gen X/Y’s of the world” (is ER on the “cusp” of Gen X/Y, perhaps??) would be “willing to retire” in the above-linked “boomer-retiree” property.

And there, you have it. Everyone makes their choices and then has to sleep in the beds they made. It is what it is.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flyer] . . . Looking at some of the stats, I’m just guessing that around 50% of BB’s will be in a position to retire comfortably–and the upper 20%, very well. I think most of us here, regardless of age, have planned to be in that top 20%.

-snip-

Going forward, perhaps “retirement,” may be reserved for a far more select few–only time will tell.[/quote]

For CA boomers, I disagree with your 50% assumption, flyer. At least for those boomers who have worked here for decades. CA’s defined benefit (both public and industrial) pensions pay more and sometimes much more than most other states’ DB pensions. This is due to the proliferation of unions in CA over the last 50+ years (both public and trade) which fought tooth and nail for our pensions (yours and mine and everyone’s).

The boomers you may have seen try to attempt a life they couldn’t afford and went “bust” may not have been longtime workers here and either may have already left the state or will do so when they retire.

A 30 yr+ worker who has a DB pension is going to be fine. Ditto for the 25 yr+ worker with a DB pension and other investments or a 20 yr+ worker with a ~$500K net worth (exclusive of home equity) and/or spouse who also has a DB pension.

You might be SHOCKED at the sheer number of retirees or near-retirees in SD who fit into one or more of the above four categories.

All of these folks will be fine if they are financially prudent, take care of their health and keep themselves medically insured, IMO.

And there is nothing stopping ANY retiree from earning a little money with a part-time job, as well … if only to keep a little busier.

[bearishgurl]

The “key word” here is “comfortably” which means different things to different people.

Millions of boomers and beyond are perfectly happy with retiring in a house is SD County that is worth $250-$400K today (no matter how much THEY paid for it).

Millions of “retirees” are also perfectly happy:

-driving a 15+ year-old vehicle

-spending $200 or less mo per person for food

-spending their vacations in an RV or in relative’s houses (no hotel bills)

-using an HMO for health plan or their Medicare Part B or using an HDHP for their health plan

-going to Mexico for the dentist and prescriptions

They’re happy basically just living the life they ALWAYS did, even while raising children.

That’s why the vast majority of them will be fine. Most don’t have the “expectation” of retiring in 3000 sf+ with HOA/MR … or in a condo with golf privileges

There is a such a thing as a having a good mechanic, being active in one’s church, going to the the farmers market, gardening and growing one’s own food, joining local dog-walking groups and other clubs, watching one’s grandchildren during the business day, having and visiting garage sales, etc.

Lots of “seniors” (incl “boomers”) have always lived a simple life … and they’re still up and outside every early a.m. to tell everyone about it.

It doesn’t take “millions of dollars” to retire simply. Not even in SD.

[bearishgurl]

I gotta take a break myself, lol. I need to fill some yard waste cans before the rain comes :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=no_such_reality] . . . Here’s the fine living in San Fran.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-supervisors-back-micro-apartments-4055493.php

…[/quote]

Concern about rents

The micro-units are estimated to go for $1,300 to $1,500 a month. The average studio apartment in San Francisco rents at $2,075 a month, according to real estate service RealFacts.

“It’s not a lot of space for $1,500,” Campos said, adding that he was concerned it could raise rents across the city. “If 220 square feet is going to rent for $1,500, what does that do for the rest of the places in San Francisco?”

Supervisor John Avalos was the lone vote against the proposal, arguing that the city should be more focused on keeping families from moving.

“This doesn’t make a lot of sense for the San Francisco I know,” he said.

Mayor Ed Lee, who still must sign the measure, told reporters after his monthly question-time session before the board that he hadn’t taken a position on micro-apartments yet…

The micro-apt idea is ridiculous. They are nothing but glorified hotel rooms. One can just rent a(n older) hotel room by the month there and work out a deal. Yes, the older hotels there have kitchenettes. The 330 sf version of the “micro-apt” has two twin bed heads separated by a five foot wall. LOL. There are no doors to these beds and they are out in the open visible from everyday living space. How is this “private” for individuals who can’t afford to live alone? It’s like a college dorm room, lol….

The average apt (flat) size in SF is 1750-1800 sf. They did not build them small back in the day. A renter gets a lot of bang for the buck, ESP if they have a view 🙂

“Enterprising” tenants in SF can trade labor and offer to not bother the LL except in cases of emergency in exchange for a multi-year long-term lease of below-market rent. These LL’s can do this because their bldg(s) are frequently paid off and they have low property taxes. Most of them still live in the city so manage their units themselves. But they want to be able to freely travel without having to worry about tenant problems or pay mgmt fees. So they make these kinds of deals to stable tenants who take care of the premises and will never move. This is commonplace.

It is also not uncommon to find a 4 br, 2 ba rental flat in SF of over 2000 sf. Therefore, a tenant could feasibly have 3 roommates to help them with rent.

Whoever is paying “$2075 mo” for the “average studio apt” in SF is a fool …. that is unless that studio is 900+ sf …. also not uncommon.

As usual, the “whole story” is not getting told in this article. SF is a “special” market with “special” properties not found anywhere else in the country. It has always had a “captive audience” of renters/buyers and this will never change.

That “micro apt” idea will surely fail. No one wants to live like that permanently and certainly not if sharing a room with an unrelated roommate. That’s too much money to spend converting viable rental units into micro spaces which won’t have any value (except as hotel rooms) in the years to come.

nsr: here is a link to hotels with large rooms and kitchenettes where one can stay by the day, week or month:

Beresford Arms | San Francisco Hotel

There are many more …

[bearishgurl]

ER, Mayor Mo’s story could be a compelling book or made-for-TV movie due to she and her family having very “humble” roots. Even her fmr Chief of Staff and other longtime professional colleagues are having a very hard time believing what they are reading about her today!

Perhaps she could find an interested collaborator/ghost writer to work with her after all this is over, assuming she is still alive and coherent enough to tell her story.

[bearishgurl]

flu, if it turns out to be not worth it to “upgrade” your primary residence, you can just “remodel” the one you have to suit you. I don’t see you losing money on that, unless you put in a pool … and maybe not even then.

The bottom line is, your kid(s) live in the attendance area of the “highly-acclaimed” TPHS. That’s as good as it gets there in CarmelV. You aren’t going to get better schools by buying a house in the same area which costs $200K + more than yours will sell for.

Schools ARE the reason why you wanted to live there in the first place, right?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=earlyretirement]…I was reading around on some message blogs and it seems like the “retirement plan” for many seems to be possibly suicide which is depressing but probably a reality for many Americans.[/quote]

I don’t know who these people are (or, more importantly, their age group) who are writing into blogs claiming they will “commit suicide” when they get old.

Almost all the folks I know over age 55 are doing fine and will do fine (myself incl).

In San Diego, the vast majority of “boomers” are living in their paid-off homes or owe very little on them. A large portion have very low property taxes. Another large portion (inclusive of the low-property-tax group) have defined benefit pensions. Some have already started collecting SS or will apply within the year. Some are eligible for Medicare. Most are NOT primarily living off their IRA’s/401K’s if they are eligible to withdraw from them. That is just traveling money, home improvement money or a small income supplement (to temporarily pay healthcare premiums, for example, until Medicare-qualified).

Perhaps it is the currently-overextended Gen X crowd who is vocal about their future plans for “suicide” on the blogs. You know … the ones approaching age 50 in the coming years who have spent themselves down the drain for decades?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SD Realtor]Shoveler that is a good point about the contractors. If anything that is where there may be some effect. However at this point inventory is so darned constrained it is really a tough nut to crack. Now we see large reductions at Titan, Viasat, Hughes, SPAWAR then we may see some hikes in inventory. However I think that they will be short lived. The result may be a slowdown in the slope of the price movements however because of how they would be staggered over time I just don’t see a substantial change in the way things go. Like you said, we will see how it goes however I don’t see this touching places like 4S Ranch in the least.[/quote]

The longtime workers of these contractors mostly live and own their homes nearby. I think this group likely has their homes paid off or are close to paying them off. If “cutbacks” cause some of them to “retire” early, they will do so and just call it a day. Most likely won’t be picking up and selling as their current property taxes are very low.

That’s the way its always been in SD.

[Author]

Posts