[flyer]

We considered Santa Barbara, along with The Bay Area, years ago, when housing in CA was still “affordable,” since we have family and friends in both locations.

Ultimately, we opted for Rancho Santa Fe, which is a better match for our preferred lifestyle–and appreciation in both areas has been great–so no complaints here, but, as has been mentioned, SoCal coastal towns can be challenging for new buyers.

[flyer]

+1 nj.

[flyer]

Hilarious. Sadly, for many future buyers, that scenario is probably not too far from the truth when it comes to CA real estate.

[flyer]

Don’t know exactly what is motivating quite a few people to sell now, but I do know that most people, like our family, who bought many years ago, know we could never replace what we have for the relatively small price we
paid–anywhere. Plus, there is nowhere else we’d rather live, so I hope those who are selling are going somewhere they really want to be.

[flyer]

[quote=flu]San Diego is probably not a bad place for retirees. The medical care here is pretty good. And if you really need specialized medicine, cedars Sinai and UCLA isn’t too far away.

Ive been around most of the hospitals in socal and up to Cleveland clinic (which is I say is still one of the best facilities). If you have something serious, you probably want to stay in a group with affiliation to research. For that reason, I prefer UCSD versus Scripps. Some of the doctors in Scripps frankly seemed more interested in cutting me open for $$$ then actually solving problems…[/quote]

Haven’t heard about or encountered that yet, flu, but will definitely keep that in mind if a situation arises.

[flyer]

Agree, flu. That’s one reason so many of our pilot friends are buying homes here even before they retire.

[flyer]

BG, I have no doubt your kids are doing well, and that you harbor no delusions. My comments concerned other people we have been discussing this with over the past few years.

[flyer]

As far as MD’s in San Diego go, I have heard many of the healthcare systems here are expanding and recruiting more physicians.

We’ve always tried to choose from the “bests” lists (US News and World Report, etc.) in whatever category we require treatment, and most of those seem to be at Scripps and UCSD here–some are older–others younger, but, they all have great credentials.

Overall, we prefer the Scripps system, but wouldn’t hesitate to see physicians at other facilities around the state or even in other states, if necessary.

[flyer]

BG, agree the job prospects for new grads here are more challenging than the housing situation–that is–if they are in a position to purchase their own home.

The parents we talk to who have younger kids, or those who have just started college, seem to be completely delusional about their kids job options here when they graduate, and then they wonder why they are so disappointed when reality becomes clear.

[flyer]

It’s interesting to try to figure out “why” San Diego and CA housing prices continue to escalate in desirable areas, but, that said, “it is what it is,” and potential buyers need to evaluate things based upon their personal situation, and decide if they want to get into the game or not.

The largest group of “whiners” we have been encountering on this topic are those who have kids who want to find jobs and buy homes here after college.

Most of these folks are thrilled that their property values have skyrocketed, but, for reasons that escape me, they don’t seem to be able to understand why their kids can’t just walk into the jobs and homes they want, where they want them. Apparently, they didn’t plan for this eventuality.

[flyer]

True, BG. To answer your questions. Yes, we do have properties throughout the state and elsewhere. The kids have kept the properties we gave them, and they are now rentals, because each of them wanted to purchase homes in other locations. As your kids, their career interests have taken them elsewhere–but they do visit often:)

[flyer]

Many articles indicate that fewer and fewer of the native-born population are able to buy homes, so the influx of foreign funds in certain housing markets like CA may end up being a sustaining force for housing prices in those areas longer term.

That’s a good thing for those who already have property–but not great for those who don’t–especially not for young people who would like to buy in the areas in which they were raised. We bought property for our kids years ago, but it’s a different world today.

[flyer]

Have lived in RSF for years, and, yes, there are a lot of homes for sale right now. As mentioned, many things could be going on, but, most people we know who have been here as long as we have or longer are fine, and never plan to move, but the nouveau riche do tend to come and go in cycles.

It does seem that many are unprepared to stay in San Diego through retirement, so it’s not too surprising to see this happening. We have investment properties here and elsewhere, and have noticed there does seem to be a growing demand in less expensive areas around the country.

[flyer]

[quote=harvey]A popular misconception is that the post WWII “Great Prosperity” is the definition of a “normal” or “good” economy.

It was good for the US, Japan, and a few Western European countries. But it was in no way “normal,” because there really is no normal.

It’s easy to to be fond of the good ol’ days of the 1950s and 1960s, especially if you were a middle class white American living in those times. But I have never seen any objective measure that shows economic prospects during the “Great Prosperity” were any better for the majority of the world’s population than they are today.

For just about everyone on the planet, 2015 is a better time than 1970 was.[/quote]

Agree most of these issues don’t apply to we Piggs who are in the top 10% or above, but, as the masses go, the majority of the population is struggling more than ever to secure the funds for an education, find a job in their field, buy a home, retire comfortably etc., etc.

Even though things may, in some ways, be generically better for all from an economic perspective in 2015 versus the past, imo, we still have huge challenges that threaten the sustainability of our economy. How long we can float the boat remains to be seen.

[flyer]

According to those “in the know” consumerism is rising but economic growth is slowing around the world. Some say increased consumerism without economic growth is unsustainable, and could lead to economic collapse. Why? Here’s one opinion from economist Robert Reich:

“Economic growth isn’t just about more stuff. Growth is different from consumerism. Growth is really about the capacity of a nation to produce everything that’s wanted and needed by its inhabitants. That includes better stewardship of the environment as well as improved public health and better schools. (The Gross Domestic Product is a crude way of gauging this but it’s a guide. Nations with high and growing GDPs have more overall capacity; those with low or slowing GDPs have less.)

Poorer countries tend to be more polluted than richer ones because they don’t have the capacity both to keep their people fed and clothed and also to keep their land, air and water clean. Infant mortality is higher and life spans shorter because they don’t have enough to immunize against diseases, prevent them from spreading, and cure the sick.

In their quest for resources rich nations (and corporations) have too often devastated poor ones – destroying their forests, eroding their land, and fouling their water. This is intolerable, but it isn’t an indictment of growth itself. Growth doesn’t depend on plunder. Rich nations have the capacity to extract resources responsibly. That they don’t is a measure of their irresponsibility and the weakness of international law.

How a nation chooses to use its productive capacity — how it defines its needs and wants — is a different matter.

Faster growth greases the way toward more equal opportunity and a wider distribution of gains. The wealthy more easily accept a smaller share of the gains because they can still come out ahead of where they were before. Simultaneously, the middle class more willingly pays taxes to support public improvements like a cleaner environment and stronger safety nets. It’s a virtuous cycle. We had one during the Great Prosperity that lasted from 1947 to the early 1970s.

Slower growth has the reverse effect. Because economic gains are small, the wealthy fight harder to maintain their share. The middle class, already burdened by high unemployment and flat or dropping wages, fights ever more furiously against any additional burdens, including tax increases to support public improvements. The poor are left worse off than before. It’s a vicious cycle. We’ve been in one most of the last 30 years.

No one should celebrate slow growth. If we’re entering into a period of even slower growth, the consequences could be worse.”

[Author]

Posts