[jstoesz]

[quote=sdrealtor]I think it is comical when people beleive the forces fo supply and demand do not impact prices.[/quote]

Have I stated the contrary? I willingly admit that they are at work. Free or nearly free money, combined with no compulsion to repay, and a vast sea of lemmings to hold the bag has sent the supply curve way to the right of saner markets.

Yup it is not supply and demand I am frustrated with. It is with the financial irresponsibility of my peers. And that has not even begun to correct.

[jstoesz]

[quote=sdrealtor]I think it is comical when people beleive the forces fo supply and demand do not impact prices.[/quote]

Have I stated the contrary? I willingly admit that they are at work. Free or nearly free money, combined with no compulsion to repay, and a vast sea of lemmings to hold the bag has sent the supply curve way to the right of saner markets.

Yup it is not supply and demand I am frustrated with. It is with the financial irresponsibility of my peers. And that has not even begun to correct.

[jstoesz]

[quote=Rustico][quote=bearishgurl][quote=Rustico]
One other point of consideration, if you filter the lower income earning, crap apartment dwelling households from 92117, are you going to get a different household income? How much? It would be interesting to know how that changes the comparison to Jstoez home zipcode.
[/quote]

I would love to play this game! what zip do you suggest?

People always want to filter the data. In engineering it is called “tuning the model.”

[jstoesz]

[quote=Rustico][quote=bearishgurl][quote=Rustico]
One other point of consideration, if you filter the lower income earning, crap apartment dwelling households from 92117, are you going to get a different household income? How much? It would be interesting to know how that changes the comparison to Jstoez home zipcode.
[/quote]

I would love to play this game! what zip do you suggest?

People always want to filter the data. In engineering it is called “tuning the model.”

[jstoesz]

[quote=Rustico][quote=bearishgurl][quote=Rustico]
One other point of consideration, if you filter the lower income earning, crap apartment dwelling households from 92117, are you going to get a different household income? How much? It would be interesting to know how that changes the comparison to Jstoez home zipcode.
[/quote]

I would love to play this game! what zip do you suggest?

People always want to filter the data. In engineering it is called “tuning the model.”

[jstoesz]

[quote=Rustico][quote=bearishgurl][quote=Rustico]
One other point of consideration, if you filter the lower income earning, crap apartment dwelling households from 92117, are you going to get a different household income? How much? It would be interesting to know how that changes the comparison to Jstoez home zipcode.
[/quote]

I would love to play this game! what zip do you suggest?

People always want to filter the data. In engineering it is called “tuning the model.”

[jstoesz]

[quote=Rustico][quote=bearishgurl][quote=Rustico]
One other point of consideration, if you filter the lower income earning, crap apartment dwelling households from 92117, are you going to get a different household income? How much? It would be interesting to know how that changes the comparison to Jstoez home zipcode.
[/quote]

I would love to play this game! what zip do you suggest?

People always want to filter the data. In engineering it is called “tuning the model.”

[jstoesz]

The minneapolis metro area is well over 3 million. The city of minneapolis is relatively small with most of the homes built before WW2. It was completely subdivided and developed to the borders prior to WW2. The only reason it has grown in recent years is due to high density urban condo projects. There are many densely populated suburbs the have grown, but minneapolis proper ran out of land 100 years ago…

Growth maybe the reason for home prices, but I doubt it. There are many communities that have grown vastly which are not so expensive.

To the old people turn over issue. If there are less old people selling the paid off home (something I am far from convinced of, lets see the data), there are less people buying a new one. So by the numbers it should be a wash.

I think it comical when people believe the S. California prices are justified. There is no good reason outside of widespread and long standing fiscal irresponsibility.

[jstoesz]

The minneapolis metro area is well over 3 million. The city of minneapolis is relatively small with most of the homes built before WW2. It was completely subdivided and developed to the borders prior to WW2. The only reason it has grown in recent years is due to high density urban condo projects. There are many densely populated suburbs the have grown, but minneapolis proper ran out of land 100 years ago…

Growth maybe the reason for home prices, but I doubt it. There are many communities that have grown vastly which are not so expensive.

To the old people turn over issue. If there are less old people selling the paid off home (something I am far from convinced of, lets see the data), there are less people buying a new one. So by the numbers it should be a wash.

I think it comical when people believe the S. California prices are justified. There is no good reason outside of widespread and long standing fiscal irresponsibility.

[jstoesz]

The minneapolis metro area is well over 3 million. The city of minneapolis is relatively small with most of the homes built before WW2. It was completely subdivided and developed to the borders prior to WW2. The only reason it has grown in recent years is due to high density urban condo projects. There are many densely populated suburbs the have grown, but minneapolis proper ran out of land 100 years ago…

Growth maybe the reason for home prices, but I doubt it. There are many communities that have grown vastly which are not so expensive.

To the old people turn over issue. If there are less old people selling the paid off home (something I am far from convinced of, lets see the data), there are less people buying a new one. So by the numbers it should be a wash.

I think it comical when people believe the S. California prices are justified. There is no good reason outside of widespread and long standing fiscal irresponsibility.

[jstoesz]

The minneapolis metro area is well over 3 million. The city of minneapolis is relatively small with most of the homes built before WW2. It was completely subdivided and developed to the borders prior to WW2. The only reason it has grown in recent years is due to high density urban condo projects. There are many densely populated suburbs the have grown, but minneapolis proper ran out of land 100 years ago…

Growth maybe the reason for home prices, but I doubt it. There are many communities that have grown vastly which are not so expensive.

To the old people turn over issue. If there are less old people selling the paid off home (something I am far from convinced of, lets see the data), there are less people buying a new one. So by the numbers it should be a wash.

I think it comical when people believe the S. California prices are justified. There is no good reason outside of widespread and long standing fiscal irresponsibility.

[jstoesz]

The minneapolis metro area is well over 3 million. The city of minneapolis is relatively small with most of the homes built before WW2. It was completely subdivided and developed to the borders prior to WW2. The only reason it has grown in recent years is due to high density urban condo projects. There are many densely populated suburbs the have grown, but minneapolis proper ran out of land 100 years ago…

Growth maybe the reason for home prices, but I doubt it. There are many communities that have grown vastly which are not so expensive.

To the old people turn over issue. If there are less old people selling the paid off home (something I am far from convinced of, lets see the data), there are less people buying a new one. So by the numbers it should be a wash.

I think it comical when people believe the S. California prices are justified. There is no good reason outside of widespread and long standing fiscal irresponsibility.

[jstoesz]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=jstoesz]you guys were talking about a neighborhood…rich’s charts are county wide.

Now have the incomes of those living in that neighborhood of clairemont gone up? That is harder data to find…

Here is the current.

http://realestate.aol.com/92117-neighborhood

Wow 7.7X annual household income…that’s real affordable![/quote]

I am not disagreeing with your charts at all. I am just saying that a lot has changed

I pointed out Rich’s graph and you made the point that it was county-wide and not really relevant. I simply picked a neghborhood that is pretty well characterized by the charts, since it tends to be pretty close to the median over the past 20 years (maybe slightly above).

It’s not complicated. These areas are more affordable today than they were in the mid 1990’s or anytime in the past 33+ years.[/quote]

I guess people 30 years ago where cool with overpriced housing too. Or SD as a whole has gotten a lot worse. In addition, 30 years ago interest wasn’t at 3.5% either. Remember, never over pay for something no matter how cheap the money is.

My only rational justification follows.

Lets take this chosen at random closing.

home. http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100051052-5321_Peyton_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92117

Its 86 price in today’s dollars is 233k…it just closed for 485k.

So either San Diego got a whole lot crappier thus making Clairemont a more attractive neighborhood by comparison to all the other parts or everyone in SD makes a lot more inflation adjusted money money thereby doubling the value of everyone’s home, yet not improving the quality of the homes (a dubious supposition). Either that or that chart is not representative of Clairemont…

[jstoesz]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=jstoesz]you guys were talking about a neighborhood…rich’s charts are county wide.

Now have the incomes of those living in that neighborhood of clairemont gone up? That is harder data to find…

Here is the current.

http://realestate.aol.com/92117-neighborhood

Wow 7.7X annual household income…that’s real affordable![/quote]

I am not disagreeing with your charts at all. I am just saying that a lot has changed

I pointed out Rich’s graph and you made the point that it was county-wide and not really relevant. I simply picked a neghborhood that is pretty well characterized by the charts, since it tends to be pretty close to the median over the past 20 years (maybe slightly above).

It’s not complicated. These areas are more affordable today than they were in the mid 1990’s or anytime in the past 33+ years.[/quote]

I guess people 30 years ago where cool with overpriced housing too. Or SD as a whole has gotten a lot worse. In addition, 30 years ago interest wasn’t at 3.5% either. Remember, never over pay for something no matter how cheap the money is.

My only rational justification follows.

Lets take this chosen at random closing.

home. http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100051052-5321_Peyton_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92117

Its 86 price in today’s dollars is 233k…it just closed for 485k.

So either San Diego got a whole lot crappier thus making Clairemont a more attractive neighborhood by comparison to all the other parts or everyone in SD makes a lot more inflation adjusted money money thereby doubling the value of everyone’s home, yet not improving the quality of the homes (a dubious supposition). Either that or that chart is not representative of Clairemont…

[jstoesz]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=jstoesz]you guys were talking about a neighborhood…rich’s charts are county wide.

Now have the incomes of those living in that neighborhood of clairemont gone up? That is harder data to find…

Here is the current.

http://realestate.aol.com/92117-neighborhood

Wow 7.7X annual household income…that’s real affordable![/quote]

I am not disagreeing with your charts at all. I am just saying that a lot has changed

I pointed out Rich’s graph and you made the point that it was county-wide and not really relevant. I simply picked a neghborhood that is pretty well characterized by the charts, since it tends to be pretty close to the median over the past 20 years (maybe slightly above).

It’s not complicated. These areas are more affordable today than they were in the mid 1990’s or anytime in the past 33+ years.[/quote]

I guess people 30 years ago where cool with overpriced housing too. Or SD as a whole has gotten a lot worse. In addition, 30 years ago interest wasn’t at 3.5% either. Remember, never over pay for something no matter how cheap the money is.

My only rational justification follows.

Lets take this chosen at random closing.

home. http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100051052-5321_Peyton_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92117

Its 86 price in today’s dollars is 233k…it just closed for 485k.

So either San Diego got a whole lot crappier thus making Clairemont a more attractive neighborhood by comparison to all the other parts or everyone in SD makes a lot more inflation adjusted money money thereby doubling the value of everyone’s home, yet not improving the quality of the homes (a dubious supposition). Either that or that chart is not representative of Clairemont…

[Author]

Posts