[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.
[/quote]

I think that in general, most folks in the US are not “much worse off today than they were decades ago.” I think a LOT of folks are not measurably better off than they were decades ago… but that’s a very different statement.

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). Child care I have no idea about… but one chooses to have children. As far as I’m concerned, children are a luxury good and should be thought of as such – but you already know my position on this issue. Education – and I think we’re mainly talking about college here – is very expensive at the most competitive schools, but is pretty reasonable at the Community College and State schools. In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. The College Competitiveness which permeates many of today’s upwardly mobile parents is largely about… Keeping up with the Joneses… not about true educational attainment.

Having said all that, there’s a contrary view of your perception of our current relative standard of living (today versus the “Halcyon Days” – just to pick a term – of yore). Perhaps… the Halcyon Days (pick your decades) were the exception – and to be celebrated for their exceptionalism – and today is the “norm.” That is, instead of bemoaning how difficult things are today (in your perception) – which is the “norm” – perhaps we should just be happy that the Halcyon Days ever existed at all – that is, perhaps they were the exception, never meant to return again. That’s the glass-is-half-full view of things. It’s kind of like comparing stock returns over different periods. People bemoan the fact that the decades of 15%+ annualized returns aren’t returning… when instead they should be happy with 7% and just be glad that the 15%+ years ever existed at all… it’s all a matter of perspective. And, of course, we all suffer from reference bias, which is that our views of the present are biased by our views from some reference point in the past… which may have NOTHING to do with anything.

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.
[/quote]

I think that in general, most folks in the US are not “much worse off today than they were decades ago.” I think a LOT of folks are not measurably better off than they were decades ago… but that’s a very different statement.

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). Child care I have no idea about… but one chooses to have children. As far as I’m concerned, children are a luxury good and should be thought of as such – but you already know my position on this issue. Education – and I think we’re mainly talking about college here – is very expensive at the most competitive schools, but is pretty reasonable at the Community College and State schools. In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. The College Competitiveness which permeates many of today’s upwardly mobile parents is largely about… Keeping up with the Joneses… not about true educational attainment.

Having said all that, there’s a contrary view of your perception of our current relative standard of living (today versus the “Halcyon Days” – just to pick a term – of yore). Perhaps… the Halcyon Days (pick your decades) were the exception – and to be celebrated for their exceptionalism – and today is the “norm.” That is, instead of bemoaning how difficult things are today (in your perception) – which is the “norm” – perhaps we should just be happy that the Halcyon Days ever existed at all – that is, perhaps they were the exception, never meant to return again. That’s the glass-is-half-full view of things. It’s kind of like comparing stock returns over different periods. People bemoan the fact that the decades of 15%+ annualized returns aren’t returning… when instead they should be happy with 7% and just be glad that the 15%+ years ever existed at all… it’s all a matter of perspective. And, of course, we all suffer from reference bias, which is that our views of the present are biased by our views from some reference point in the past… which may have NOTHING to do with anything.

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.
[/quote]

I think that in general, most folks in the US are not “much worse off today than they were decades ago.” I think a LOT of folks are not measurably better off than they were decades ago… but that’s a very different statement.

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). Child care I have no idea about… but one chooses to have children. As far as I’m concerned, children are a luxury good and should be thought of as such – but you already know my position on this issue. Education – and I think we’re mainly talking about college here – is very expensive at the most competitive schools, but is pretty reasonable at the Community College and State schools. In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. The College Competitiveness which permeates many of today’s upwardly mobile parents is largely about… Keeping up with the Joneses… not about true educational attainment.

Having said all that, there’s a contrary view of your perception of our current relative standard of living (today versus the “Halcyon Days” – just to pick a term – of yore). Perhaps… the Halcyon Days (pick your decades) were the exception – and to be celebrated for their exceptionalism – and today is the “norm.” That is, instead of bemoaning how difficult things are today (in your perception) – which is the “norm” – perhaps we should just be happy that the Halcyon Days ever existed at all – that is, perhaps they were the exception, never meant to return again. That’s the glass-is-half-full view of things. It’s kind of like comparing stock returns over different periods. People bemoan the fact that the decades of 15%+ annualized returns aren’t returning… when instead they should be happy with 7% and just be glad that the 15%+ years ever existed at all… it’s all a matter of perspective. And, of course, we all suffer from reference bias, which is that our views of the present are biased by our views from some reference point in the past… which may have NOTHING to do with anything.

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.
[/quote]

I think that in general, most folks in the US are not “much worse off today than they were decades ago.” I think a LOT of folks are not measurably better off than they were decades ago… but that’s a very different statement.

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). Child care I have no idea about… but one chooses to have children. As far as I’m concerned, children are a luxury good and should be thought of as such – but you already know my position on this issue. Education – and I think we’re mainly talking about college here – is very expensive at the most competitive schools, but is pretty reasonable at the Community College and State schools. In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. The College Competitiveness which permeates many of today’s upwardly mobile parents is largely about… Keeping up with the Joneses… not about true educational attainment.

Having said all that, there’s a contrary view of your perception of our current relative standard of living (today versus the “Halcyon Days” – just to pick a term – of yore). Perhaps… the Halcyon Days (pick your decades) were the exception – and to be celebrated for their exceptionalism – and today is the “norm.” That is, instead of bemoaning how difficult things are today (in your perception) – which is the “norm” – perhaps we should just be happy that the Halcyon Days ever existed at all – that is, perhaps they were the exception, never meant to return again. That’s the glass-is-half-full view of things. It’s kind of like comparing stock returns over different periods. People bemoan the fact that the decades of 15%+ annualized returns aren’t returning… when instead they should be happy with 7% and just be glad that the 15%+ years ever existed at all… it’s all a matter of perspective. And, of course, we all suffer from reference bias, which is that our views of the present are biased by our views from some reference point in the past… which may have NOTHING to do with anything.

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett]Back in the 1950 and 1960, the median home price was roughly just below TWO times the median household income – which was then predominantly ONE income.

Nowadays, the median home price is roughly THREE times the median household income – which is at least 1.5 full-time incomes, if not close to TWO incomes. In San Diego that ratio is probably even larger.
[/quote]

As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

[quote=CA renter]
Dave,

You’ve often made these snarky comments, assuming that you know what people think they “deserve” out of life. You’ve made this comment to me as well, though you have no idea what we are looking for, nor do you know what our resources are. Sorry, buy you’re out of line on this.

In our case, we are looking for homes in older neighborhoods, homes that are comparable in size and quality to what we grew up in. We don’t drive fancy cars (drive our cars into the ground, and buy the next one for cash), and don’t wear fancy clothing, go on exotic vacations, etc. We are extremely simple people looking for a house near work, for all the reasons Scarlett mentioned above.
[/quote]

“Extremely simple” is subjective and relative to the times in which you live. I have a feeling that folks living in 1960 would not find your lifestyle “extremely simple,” although perhaps by today’s standards it is.

Your exact size requirements for your “extremely simple” house are conspicuously absent. How many square feet are we talking about here (as I don’t know what size house you grew up in)? Inquiring minds and all… I’m betting it’s not 1200 square feet.

[quote=CA renter]
People in my husband’s profession — with the same employer, doing the same job (actually fewer requirements back then) — were able to buy “normal” homes near work on a single income a couple of decades ago. Now, people who work there are not able to buy those *same* homes on two incomes. When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.

There is no need for you to always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults. Can’t you just debate the topic without being snarky and arrogant? I know you’re smart enough to do it, so why fall into the habits of those who can’t hold their own in a debate?[/quote]

I was unaware that I “always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults.” You sure about that? Please, reference specific posts where I’ve engaged in ad hominem and not brought specific data to the table. Now, I do like to point out hypocrisy – of which there is plenty – when I see it (and I quite enjoy the “snarky” – as you put it – riposte in that regard)… but I don’t consider those insults. I also like to point out when someone simply has no clue as to what they think they’re talking about (and, as you’re aware, I provide detailed analysis to back these instances up) – plenty of that as well. But if one is insulted by data and logical inconsistencies unveiled… then there’s nothing I can do about that. So, I doubt you’re going to get much support on your view here.

Where your beef with SoCal housing is concerned, I think the *real* problem is that housing in Shiller’s so-called glamour markets (e.g., the attractive parts of SoCal) has increased in real terms at a faster rate than in the other, more mundane markets (e.g., Cleveland and St. Louis) over time. So, while it may have been easier for Average Joe to live in NCC – to use just one example – 30 years ago… now it ain’t. Now, it’s just as easy for Average Joe to live in Cleveland as it has ever been… but we’re talking SoCal, which is where YOU want to live. And, maybe just maybe, you’ll always be priced out of the market based on what you’re *willing* to spend – because it’s simply not enough relative to what others are willing to spend. So, I think the real problem is not that there’s not plenty of affordable housing out there, in general – even relative to the halcyon days of “decades ago” – but rather that you don’t want to live in the places where this affordable housing exists.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett]Back in the 1950 and 1960, the median home price was roughly just below TWO times the median household income – which was then predominantly ONE income.

Nowadays, the median home price is roughly THREE times the median household income – which is at least 1.5 full-time incomes, if not close to TWO incomes. In San Diego that ratio is probably even larger.
[/quote]

As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

[quote=CA renter]
Dave,

You’ve often made these snarky comments, assuming that you know what people think they “deserve” out of life. You’ve made this comment to me as well, though you have no idea what we are looking for, nor do you know what our resources are. Sorry, buy you’re out of line on this.

In our case, we are looking for homes in older neighborhoods, homes that are comparable in size and quality to what we grew up in. We don’t drive fancy cars (drive our cars into the ground, and buy the next one for cash), and don’t wear fancy clothing, go on exotic vacations, etc. We are extremely simple people looking for a house near work, for all the reasons Scarlett mentioned above.
[/quote]

“Extremely simple” is subjective and relative to the times in which you live. I have a feeling that folks living in 1960 would not find your lifestyle “extremely simple,” although perhaps by today’s standards it is.

Your exact size requirements for your “extremely simple” house are conspicuously absent. How many square feet are we talking about here (as I don’t know what size house you grew up in)? Inquiring minds and all… I’m betting it’s not 1200 square feet.

[quote=CA renter]
People in my husband’s profession — with the same employer, doing the same job (actually fewer requirements back then) — were able to buy “normal” homes near work on a single income a couple of decades ago. Now, people who work there are not able to buy those *same* homes on two incomes. When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.

There is no need for you to always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults. Can’t you just debate the topic without being snarky and arrogant? I know you’re smart enough to do it, so why fall into the habits of those who can’t hold their own in a debate?[/quote]

I was unaware that I “always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults.” You sure about that? Please, reference specific posts where I’ve engaged in ad hominem and not brought specific data to the table. Now, I do like to point out hypocrisy – of which there is plenty – when I see it (and I quite enjoy the “snarky” – as you put it – riposte in that regard)… but I don’t consider those insults. I also like to point out when someone simply has no clue as to what they think they’re talking about (and, as you’re aware, I provide detailed analysis to back these instances up) – plenty of that as well. But if one is insulted by data and logical inconsistencies unveiled… then there’s nothing I can do about that. So, I doubt you’re going to get much support on your view here.

Where your beef with SoCal housing is concerned, I think the *real* problem is that housing in Shiller’s so-called glamour markets (e.g., the attractive parts of SoCal) has increased in real terms at a faster rate than in the other, more mundane markets (e.g., Cleveland and St. Louis) over time. So, while it may have been easier for Average Joe to live in NCC – to use just one example – 30 years ago… now it ain’t. Now, it’s just as easy for Average Joe to live in Cleveland as it has ever been… but we’re talking SoCal, which is where YOU want to live. And, maybe just maybe, you’ll always be priced out of the market based on what you’re *willing* to spend – because it’s simply not enough relative to what others are willing to spend. So, I think the real problem is not that there’s not plenty of affordable housing out there, in general – even relative to the halcyon days of “decades ago” – but rather that you don’t want to live in the places where this affordable housing exists.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett]Back in the 1950 and 1960, the median home price was roughly just below TWO times the median household income – which was then predominantly ONE income.

Nowadays, the median home price is roughly THREE times the median household income – which is at least 1.5 full-time incomes, if not close to TWO incomes. In San Diego that ratio is probably even larger.
[/quote]

As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

[quote=CA renter]
Dave,

You’ve often made these snarky comments, assuming that you know what people think they “deserve” out of life. You’ve made this comment to me as well, though you have no idea what we are looking for, nor do you know what our resources are. Sorry, buy you’re out of line on this.

In our case, we are looking for homes in older neighborhoods, homes that are comparable in size and quality to what we grew up in. We don’t drive fancy cars (drive our cars into the ground, and buy the next one for cash), and don’t wear fancy clothing, go on exotic vacations, etc. We are extremely simple people looking for a house near work, for all the reasons Scarlett mentioned above.
[/quote]

“Extremely simple” is subjective and relative to the times in which you live. I have a feeling that folks living in 1960 would not find your lifestyle “extremely simple,” although perhaps by today’s standards it is.

Your exact size requirements for your “extremely simple” house are conspicuously absent. How many square feet are we talking about here (as I don’t know what size house you grew up in)? Inquiring minds and all… I’m betting it’s not 1200 square feet.

[quote=CA renter]
People in my husband’s profession — with the same employer, doing the same job (actually fewer requirements back then) — were able to buy “normal” homes near work on a single income a couple of decades ago. Now, people who work there are not able to buy those *same* homes on two incomes. When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.

There is no need for you to always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults. Can’t you just debate the topic without being snarky and arrogant? I know you’re smart enough to do it, so why fall into the habits of those who can’t hold their own in a debate?[/quote]

I was unaware that I “always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults.” You sure about that? Please, reference specific posts where I’ve engaged in ad hominem and not brought specific data to the table. Now, I do like to point out hypocrisy – of which there is plenty – when I see it (and I quite enjoy the “snarky” – as you put it – riposte in that regard)… but I don’t consider those insults. I also like to point out when someone simply has no clue as to what they think they’re talking about (and, as you’re aware, I provide detailed analysis to back these instances up) – plenty of that as well. But if one is insulted by data and logical inconsistencies unveiled… then there’s nothing I can do about that. So, I doubt you’re going to get much support on your view here.

Where your beef with SoCal housing is concerned, I think the *real* problem is that housing in Shiller’s so-called glamour markets (e.g., the attractive parts of SoCal) has increased in real terms at a faster rate than in the other, more mundane markets (e.g., Cleveland and St. Louis) over time. So, while it may have been easier for Average Joe to live in NCC – to use just one example – 30 years ago… now it ain’t. Now, it’s just as easy for Average Joe to live in Cleveland as it has ever been… but we’re talking SoCal, which is where YOU want to live. And, maybe just maybe, you’ll always be priced out of the market based on what you’re *willing* to spend – because it’s simply not enough relative to what others are willing to spend. So, I think the real problem is not that there’s not plenty of affordable housing out there, in general – even relative to the halcyon days of “decades ago” – but rather that you don’t want to live in the places where this affordable housing exists.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett]Back in the 1950 and 1960, the median home price was roughly just below TWO times the median household income – which was then predominantly ONE income.

Nowadays, the median home price is roughly THREE times the median household income – which is at least 1.5 full-time incomes, if not close to TWO incomes. In San Diego that ratio is probably even larger.
[/quote]

As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

[quote=CA renter]
Dave,

You’ve often made these snarky comments, assuming that you know what people think they “deserve” out of life. You’ve made this comment to me as well, though you have no idea what we are looking for, nor do you know what our resources are. Sorry, buy you’re out of line on this.

In our case, we are looking for homes in older neighborhoods, homes that are comparable in size and quality to what we grew up in. We don’t drive fancy cars (drive our cars into the ground, and buy the next one for cash), and don’t wear fancy clothing, go on exotic vacations, etc. We are extremely simple people looking for a house near work, for all the reasons Scarlett mentioned above.
[/quote]

“Extremely simple” is subjective and relative to the times in which you live. I have a feeling that folks living in 1960 would not find your lifestyle “extremely simple,” although perhaps by today’s standards it is.

Your exact size requirements for your “extremely simple” house are conspicuously absent. How many square feet are we talking about here (as I don’t know what size house you grew up in)? Inquiring minds and all… I’m betting it’s not 1200 square feet.

[quote=CA renter]
People in my husband’s profession — with the same employer, doing the same job (actually fewer requirements back then) — were able to buy “normal” homes near work on a single income a couple of decades ago. Now, people who work there are not able to buy those *same* homes on two incomes. When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.

There is no need for you to always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults. Can’t you just debate the topic without being snarky and arrogant? I know you’re smart enough to do it, so why fall into the habits of those who can’t hold their own in a debate?[/quote]

I was unaware that I “always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults.” You sure about that? Please, reference specific posts where I’ve engaged in ad hominem and not brought specific data to the table. Now, I do like to point out hypocrisy – of which there is plenty – when I see it (and I quite enjoy the “snarky” – as you put it – riposte in that regard)… but I don’t consider those insults. I also like to point out when someone simply has no clue as to what they think they’re talking about (and, as you’re aware, I provide detailed analysis to back these instances up) – plenty of that as well. But if one is insulted by data and logical inconsistencies unveiled… then there’s nothing I can do about that. So, I doubt you’re going to get much support on your view here.

Where your beef with SoCal housing is concerned, I think the *real* problem is that housing in Shiller’s so-called glamour markets (e.g., the attractive parts of SoCal) has increased in real terms at a faster rate than in the other, more mundane markets (e.g., Cleveland and St. Louis) over time. So, while it may have been easier for Average Joe to live in NCC – to use just one example – 30 years ago… now it ain’t. Now, it’s just as easy for Average Joe to live in Cleveland as it has ever been… but we’re talking SoCal, which is where YOU want to live. And, maybe just maybe, you’ll always be priced out of the market based on what you’re *willing* to spend – because it’s simply not enough relative to what others are willing to spend. So, I think the real problem is not that there’s not plenty of affordable housing out there, in general – even relative to the halcyon days of “decades ago” – but rather that you don’t want to live in the places where this affordable housing exists.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett]Back in the 1950 and 1960, the median home price was roughly just below TWO times the median household income – which was then predominantly ONE income.

Nowadays, the median home price is roughly THREE times the median household income – which is at least 1.5 full-time incomes, if not close to TWO incomes. In San Diego that ratio is probably even larger.
[/quote]

As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

[quote=CA renter]
Dave,

You’ve often made these snarky comments, assuming that you know what people think they “deserve” out of life. You’ve made this comment to me as well, though you have no idea what we are looking for, nor do you know what our resources are. Sorry, buy you’re out of line on this.

In our case, we are looking for homes in older neighborhoods, homes that are comparable in size and quality to what we grew up in. We don’t drive fancy cars (drive our cars into the ground, and buy the next one for cash), and don’t wear fancy clothing, go on exotic vacations, etc. We are extremely simple people looking for a house near work, for all the reasons Scarlett mentioned above.
[/quote]

“Extremely simple” is subjective and relative to the times in which you live. I have a feeling that folks living in 1960 would not find your lifestyle “extremely simple,” although perhaps by today’s standards it is.

Your exact size requirements for your “extremely simple” house are conspicuously absent. How many square feet are we talking about here (as I don’t know what size house you grew up in)? Inquiring minds and all… I’m betting it’s not 1200 square feet.

[quote=CA renter]
People in my husband’s profession — with the same employer, doing the same job (actually fewer requirements back then) — were able to buy “normal” homes near work on a single income a couple of decades ago. Now, people who work there are not able to buy those *same* homes on two incomes. When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.

There is no need for you to always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults. Can’t you just debate the topic without being snarky and arrogant? I know you’re smart enough to do it, so why fall into the habits of those who can’t hold their own in a debate?[/quote]

I was unaware that I “always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults.” You sure about that? Please, reference specific posts where I’ve engaged in ad hominem and not brought specific data to the table. Now, I do like to point out hypocrisy – of which there is plenty – when I see it (and I quite enjoy the “snarky” – as you put it – riposte in that regard)… but I don’t consider those insults. I also like to point out when someone simply has no clue as to what they think they’re talking about (and, as you’re aware, I provide detailed analysis to back these instances up) – plenty of that as well. But if one is insulted by data and logical inconsistencies unveiled… then there’s nothing I can do about that. So, I doubt you’re going to get much support on your view here.

Where your beef with SoCal housing is concerned, I think the *real* problem is that housing in Shiller’s so-called glamour markets (e.g., the attractive parts of SoCal) has increased in real terms at a faster rate than in the other, more mundane markets (e.g., Cleveland and St. Louis) over time. So, while it may have been easier for Average Joe to live in NCC – to use just one example – 30 years ago… now it ain’t. Now, it’s just as easy for Average Joe to live in Cleveland as it has ever been… but we’re talking SoCal, which is where YOU want to live. And, maybe just maybe, you’ll always be priced out of the market based on what you’re *willing* to spend – because it’s simply not enough relative to what others are willing to spend. So, I think the real problem is not that there’s not plenty of affordable housing out there, in general – even relative to the halcyon days of “decades ago” – but rather that you don’t want to live in the places where this affordable housing exists.

[davelj]

[quote=Scarlett][quote=davelj] As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

You are dreaming. The size might be cut in half, but it still would be much more expensive relative to the income than how it was then. My house expectation is below 1900 sf, probably more like 1700-1800 sf. for 4 people. Don’t consider that huge. How can you can cut that in half??? Maybe we could squeeze in 1500 sf. I am not keeping up with any Joneses, FYI. Not even close. Let them have the McMansions and BMWs and other toys.[/quote]

The typical family of four lived in a 1200 square foot home in 1960. I will grant you that even that size house in SAN DIEGO might be more expensive on a relative scale than it was 50 years ago, but… in most of the country it is not. You’ve simply chosen to live in a “glamour market” (as Robert Shiller calls it)… with all that entails, sacrifices and all.

[davelj]

[quote=Scarlett][quote=davelj] As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

You are dreaming. The size might be cut in half, but it still would be much more expensive relative to the income than how it was then. My house expectation is below 1900 sf, probably more like 1700-1800 sf. for 4 people. Don’t consider that huge. How can you can cut that in half??? Maybe we could squeeze in 1500 sf. I am not keeping up with any Joneses, FYI. Not even close. Let them have the McMansions and BMWs and other toys.[/quote]

The typical family of four lived in a 1200 square foot home in 1960. I will grant you that even that size house in SAN DIEGO might be more expensive on a relative scale than it was 50 years ago, but… in most of the country it is not. You’ve simply chosen to live in a “glamour market” (as Robert Shiller calls it)… with all that entails, sacrifices and all.

[davelj]

[quote=Scarlett][quote=davelj] As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

You are dreaming. The size might be cut in half, but it still would be much more expensive relative to the income than how it was then. My house expectation is below 1900 sf, probably more like 1700-1800 sf. for 4 people. Don’t consider that huge. How can you can cut that in half??? Maybe we could squeeze in 1500 sf. I am not keeping up with any Joneses, FYI. Not even close. Let them have the McMansions and BMWs and other toys.[/quote]

The typical family of four lived in a 1200 square foot home in 1960. I will grant you that even that size house in SAN DIEGO might be more expensive on a relative scale than it was 50 years ago, but… in most of the country it is not. You’ve simply chosen to live in a “glamour market” (as Robert Shiller calls it)… with all that entails, sacrifices and all.

[davelj]

[quote=Scarlett][quote=davelj] As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

You are dreaming. The size might be cut in half, but it still would be much more expensive relative to the income than how it was then. My house expectation is below 1900 sf, probably more like 1700-1800 sf. for 4 people. Don’t consider that huge. How can you can cut that in half??? Maybe we could squeeze in 1500 sf. I am not keeping up with any Joneses, FYI. Not even close. Let them have the McMansions and BMWs and other toys.[/quote]

The typical family of four lived in a 1200 square foot home in 1960. I will grant you that even that size house in SAN DIEGO might be more expensive on a relative scale than it was 50 years ago, but… in most of the country it is not. You’ve simply chosen to live in a “glamour market” (as Robert Shiller calls it)… with all that entails, sacrifices and all.

[davelj]

[quote=Scarlett][quote=davelj] As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

You are dreaming. The size might be cut in half, but it still would be much more expensive relative to the income than how it was then. My house expectation is below 1900 sf, probably more like 1700-1800 sf. for 4 people. Don’t consider that huge. How can you can cut that in half??? Maybe we could squeeze in 1500 sf. I am not keeping up with any Joneses, FYI. Not even close. Let them have the McMansions and BMWs and other toys.[/quote]

The typical family of four lived in a 1200 square foot home in 1960. I will grant you that even that size house in SAN DIEGO might be more expensive on a relative scale than it was 50 years ago, but… in most of the country it is not. You’ve simply chosen to live in a “glamour market” (as Robert Shiller calls it)… with all that entails, sacrifices and all.

[davelj]

[quote=Scarlett]

Let see then in our case what that would mean. ONe income = 75K. 3 x that. $225K. Can you tell me what kind of decent house we can buy with that in lets say UC (older, non-tract houses, stable retiree neighborhood), or in PQ or in SR? That’s right. ZERO. No, it would buy a 2 bdr small apt. A 3 bdr 1500 sf house is about TWICE that, at least. Which is why we need to spend both incomes. q.e.d.[/quote]

Plenty available down in Chula Vista – a very middle class community – in your price range. Or perhaps there’s something about Chula Vista that you find objectionable…

The word “decent” when applied to almost anything is quite subjective, yes?

[Author]

Posts