[Scarlett]

[quote=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?[/quote]

No I don’t object to Chula Vista at all, and we even very briefly considered it (it was in an older thread), if it wouldn’t have been for the commute to LJ village. I have a coworker who does it at rush hour and hates it. But it’s close to their families.

BTW, by “decent” I meant not a major fixer upper for which we don’t have the money. I wasn’t refering to location, since that was already kind of implied before. I mentioned the UC, where BG thinks I should buy (again, older thread), and PQ where we’d think we should buy.

[Scarlett]

[quote=davelj]
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.[/quote]

Well, we’d move in another cheaper state in a heartbeat, believe me, but we couldn’t find jobs. Been looking.

They haven’t been building 1200 sf houses in the last 25+ years…. And today’s furniture would not fit in the 1200 sf house, LOL!

[Scarlett]

[quote=davelj]
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.[/quote]

Well, we’d move in another cheaper state in a heartbeat, believe me, but we couldn’t find jobs. Been looking.

They haven’t been building 1200 sf houses in the last 25+ years…. And today’s furniture would not fit in the 1200 sf house, LOL!

[Scarlett]

[quote=davelj]
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.[/quote]

Well, we’d move in another cheaper state in a heartbeat, believe me, but we couldn’t find jobs. Been looking.

They haven’t been building 1200 sf houses in the last 25+ years…. And today’s furniture would not fit in the 1200 sf house, LOL!

[Scarlett]

[quote=davelj]
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.[/quote]

Well, we’d move in another cheaper state in a heartbeat, believe me, but we couldn’t find jobs. Been looking.

They haven’t been building 1200 sf houses in the last 25+ years…. And today’s furniture would not fit in the 1200 sf house, LOL!

[Scarlett]

[quote=davelj]
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.[/quote]

Well, we’d move in another cheaper state in a heartbeat, believe me, but we couldn’t find jobs. Been looking.

They haven’t been building 1200 sf houses in the last 25+ years…. And today’s furniture would not fit in the 1200 sf house, LOL!

[Scarlett]

[quote=Ren]I was pondering the wealth-through-time question recently. We have more comforts and much cooler toys than a king of 1,000 years ago, even if we have far less “wealth”. I’ll take my flush toilet and memory foam over his treasure room (and his 40-year, disease and infection-ridden life) every day of the week.

I think we can safely throw any two-income rule out the window, as it all depends on the area. We live in Temecula and have two SD incomes, which makes us wealthy compared to many of our neighbors. That extra income is all savings. If we owned a comparable house near the coast, we would be living close to the edge of our means even with the two incomes, which I agree is the worst position to be in. Security first, material things second.[/quote]

Lucky for you, we don’t have a choice, as we are tied to our workplaces in La Jolla so automatically have to live within reasonable distance and much closer to the edge of our means.

[Scarlett]

[quote=Ren]I was pondering the wealth-through-time question recently. We have more comforts and much cooler toys than a king of 1,000 years ago, even if we have far less “wealth”. I’ll take my flush toilet and memory foam over his treasure room (and his 40-year, disease and infection-ridden life) every day of the week.

I think we can safely throw any two-income rule out the window, as it all depends on the area. We live in Temecula and have two SD incomes, which makes us wealthy compared to many of our neighbors. That extra income is all savings. If we owned a comparable house near the coast, we would be living close to the edge of our means even with the two incomes, which I agree is the worst position to be in. Security first, material things second.[/quote]

Lucky for you, we don’t have a choice, as we are tied to our workplaces in La Jolla so automatically have to live within reasonable distance and much closer to the edge of our means.

[Scarlett]

[quote=Ren]I was pondering the wealth-through-time question recently. We have more comforts and much cooler toys than a king of 1,000 years ago, even if we have far less “wealth”. I’ll take my flush toilet and memory foam over his treasure room (and his 40-year, disease and infection-ridden life) every day of the week.

I think we can safely throw any two-income rule out the window, as it all depends on the area. We live in Temecula and have two SD incomes, which makes us wealthy compared to many of our neighbors. That extra income is all savings. If we owned a comparable house near the coast, we would be living close to the edge of our means even with the two incomes, which I agree is the worst position to be in. Security first, material things second.[/quote]

Lucky for you, we don’t have a choice, as we are tied to our workplaces in La Jolla so automatically have to live within reasonable distance and much closer to the edge of our means.

[Scarlett]

[quote=Ren]I was pondering the wealth-through-time question recently. We have more comforts and much cooler toys than a king of 1,000 years ago, even if we have far less “wealth”. I’ll take my flush toilet and memory foam over his treasure room (and his 40-year, disease and infection-ridden life) every day of the week.

I think we can safely throw any two-income rule out the window, as it all depends on the area. We live in Temecula and have two SD incomes, which makes us wealthy compared to many of our neighbors. That extra income is all savings. If we owned a comparable house near the coast, we would be living close to the edge of our means even with the two incomes, which I agree is the worst position to be in. Security first, material things second.[/quote]

Lucky for you, we don’t have a choice, as we are tied to our workplaces in La Jolla so automatically have to live within reasonable distance and much closer to the edge of our means.

[Scarlett]

[quote=Ren]I was pondering the wealth-through-time question recently. We have more comforts and much cooler toys than a king of 1,000 years ago, even if we have far less “wealth”. I’ll take my flush toilet and memory foam over his treasure room (and his 40-year, disease and infection-ridden life) every day of the week.

I think we can safely throw any two-income rule out the window, as it all depends on the area. We live in Temecula and have two SD incomes, which makes us wealthy compared to many of our neighbors. That extra income is all savings. If we owned a comparable house near the coast, we would be living close to the edge of our means even with the two incomes, which I agree is the worst position to be in. Security first, material things second.[/quote]

Lucky for you, we don’t have a choice, as we are tied to our workplaces in La Jolla so automatically have to live within reasonable distance and much closer to the edge of our means.

[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. We don’t need them.

Now, if MANY would CHOOSE to spend HALF of what those houses cost – ah, then, that would bring the home prices down mighty quick. This needs to be done as a group.

[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. We don’t need them.

Now, if MANY would CHOOSE to spend HALF of what those houses cost – ah, then, that would bring the home prices down mighty quick. This needs to be done as a group.

[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. We don’t need them.

Now, if MANY would CHOOSE to spend HALF of what those houses cost – ah, then, that would bring the home prices down mighty quick. This needs to be done as a group.

[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. We don’t need them.

Now, if MANY would CHOOSE to spend HALF of what those houses cost – ah, then, that would bring the home prices down mighty quick. This needs to be done as a group.

[Author]

Posts