Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SDEngineer
Participant[quote=Rt.66]
So a proven 100 year old housing affordability ratio (price x average wages) is no longer accurate because we have a new dynamic called renters and low earners to contend with?
If you chop off the bottom 1/3 won’t you logically chop off the top 1/3 as well? SD especially has lots of millionaires and even billionaires that throw the average way up.
Millionaires and billionaires are not players in the housing reality we live in but their houses and incomes are included in ratios.
Those apartment dwellers and renters are future first time buyers, a group housing cannot survive without. You can’t move up if others below are not moving up. So they most certainly are to be considered in housing affordability.
So Cal has gotten around historical affordability ratios with housing bubbles. No more though.
2.5-3 times earnings is a historically proven AFFORDABILITY gage. Meaning people can actually make their payments at those ratios.SD average wage of $61k is probably high and even if not; wage deflation will probably bring it into the $50ks. Even 3x earnings at $55k aver. earnings is $165k for SD housing. So the HIGH end of affordability will probably be $165k.
Unbelievable? In 2006 how people would have thought you could buy a 2500 sq’ house in Temecula for $220k in 2009? Not many, and most would have thought the idea completely absurd. That rushed cut in prices was just the quick fall to “regular” prices. Now the discounts begin.
[/quote]
The 2.5-3x median household income to median price is a national average and has NEVER been true in So Cal (at least not since the WW II era) – and it’s not because of bubbles – it’s because this is one of the most desirable areas in the U.S. to live.
It’s also the reason why there are so many renters in So Cal – and always have been – this isn’t a new trend, this is a multidecade trend again going back as long as records continue. It’s EXPENSIVE to buy in So Cal and always has been – bubble years or not. Instead of only about 2/3 of people being able to affordably buy a house (like in much of the U.S.), historically only a little over 55% of the people in So Cal can afford to buy a house. Only Hawaii and New York have a lower homeownership rate compared to California. Check this table out:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html
The HIGHEST homeownership percentage ever reached in CA was at 58%, in the 1960 Census. And this is for all of CA.
It’s simply a case of supply and demand – all other things being equal, more people would want to live here than in, say, Louisville. So all other things aren’t equal – the desirability of So Cal pushes the prices up. Detroit suffers from the exact opposite – relatively few people would consider Detroit a desirable city to live in, and so their ratio is much LOWER than the national average.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]
So a proven 100 year old housing affordability ratio (price x average wages) is no longer accurate because we have a new dynamic called renters and low earners to contend with?
If you chop off the bottom 1/3 won’t you logically chop off the top 1/3 as well? SD especially has lots of millionaires and even billionaires that throw the average way up.
Millionaires and billionaires are not players in the housing reality we live in but their houses and incomes are included in ratios.
Those apartment dwellers and renters are future first time buyers, a group housing cannot survive without. You can’t move up if others below are not moving up. So they most certainly are to be considered in housing affordability.
So Cal has gotten around historical affordability ratios with housing bubbles. No more though.
2.5-3 times earnings is a historically proven AFFORDABILITY gage. Meaning people can actually make their payments at those ratios.SD average wage of $61k is probably high and even if not; wage deflation will probably bring it into the $50ks. Even 3x earnings at $55k aver. earnings is $165k for SD housing. So the HIGH end of affordability will probably be $165k.
Unbelievable? In 2006 how people would have thought you could buy a 2500 sq’ house in Temecula for $220k in 2009? Not many, and most would have thought the idea completely absurd. That rushed cut in prices was just the quick fall to “regular” prices. Now the discounts begin.
[/quote]
The 2.5-3x median household income to median price is a national average and has NEVER been true in So Cal (at least not since the WW II era) – and it’s not because of bubbles – it’s because this is one of the most desirable areas in the U.S. to live.
It’s also the reason why there are so many renters in So Cal – and always have been – this isn’t a new trend, this is a multidecade trend again going back as long as records continue. It’s EXPENSIVE to buy in So Cal and always has been – bubble years or not. Instead of only about 2/3 of people being able to affordably buy a house (like in much of the U.S.), historically only a little over 55% of the people in So Cal can afford to buy a house. Only Hawaii and New York have a lower homeownership rate compared to California. Check this table out:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html
The HIGHEST homeownership percentage ever reached in CA was at 58%, in the 1960 Census. And this is for all of CA.
It’s simply a case of supply and demand – all other things being equal, more people would want to live here than in, say, Louisville. So all other things aren’t equal – the desirability of So Cal pushes the prices up. Detroit suffers from the exact opposite – relatively few people would consider Detroit a desirable city to live in, and so their ratio is much LOWER than the national average.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]
So a proven 100 year old housing affordability ratio (price x average wages) is no longer accurate because we have a new dynamic called renters and low earners to contend with?
If you chop off the bottom 1/3 won’t you logically chop off the top 1/3 as well? SD especially has lots of millionaires and even billionaires that throw the average way up.
Millionaires and billionaires are not players in the housing reality we live in but their houses and incomes are included in ratios.
Those apartment dwellers and renters are future first time buyers, a group housing cannot survive without. You can’t move up if others below are not moving up. So they most certainly are to be considered in housing affordability.
So Cal has gotten around historical affordability ratios with housing bubbles. No more though.
2.5-3 times earnings is a historically proven AFFORDABILITY gage. Meaning people can actually make their payments at those ratios.SD average wage of $61k is probably high and even if not; wage deflation will probably bring it into the $50ks. Even 3x earnings at $55k aver. earnings is $165k for SD housing. So the HIGH end of affordability will probably be $165k.
Unbelievable? In 2006 how people would have thought you could buy a 2500 sq’ house in Temecula for $220k in 2009? Not many, and most would have thought the idea completely absurd. That rushed cut in prices was just the quick fall to “regular” prices. Now the discounts begin.
[/quote]
The 2.5-3x median household income to median price is a national average and has NEVER been true in So Cal (at least not since the WW II era) – and it’s not because of bubbles – it’s because this is one of the most desirable areas in the U.S. to live.
It’s also the reason why there are so many renters in So Cal – and always have been – this isn’t a new trend, this is a multidecade trend again going back as long as records continue. It’s EXPENSIVE to buy in So Cal and always has been – bubble years or not. Instead of only about 2/3 of people being able to affordably buy a house (like in much of the U.S.), historically only a little over 55% of the people in So Cal can afford to buy a house. Only Hawaii and New York have a lower homeownership rate compared to California. Check this table out:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html
The HIGHEST homeownership percentage ever reached in CA was at 58%, in the 1960 Census. And this is for all of CA.
It’s simply a case of supply and demand – all other things being equal, more people would want to live here than in, say, Louisville. So all other things aren’t equal – the desirability of So Cal pushes the prices up. Detroit suffers from the exact opposite – relatively few people would consider Detroit a desirable city to live in, and so their ratio is much LOWER than the national average.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]
So a proven 100 year old housing affordability ratio (price x average wages) is no longer accurate because we have a new dynamic called renters and low earners to contend with?
If you chop off the bottom 1/3 won’t you logically chop off the top 1/3 as well? SD especially has lots of millionaires and even billionaires that throw the average way up.
Millionaires and billionaires are not players in the housing reality we live in but their houses and incomes are included in ratios.
Those apartment dwellers and renters are future first time buyers, a group housing cannot survive without. You can’t move up if others below are not moving up. So they most certainly are to be considered in housing affordability.
So Cal has gotten around historical affordability ratios with housing bubbles. No more though.
2.5-3 times earnings is a historically proven AFFORDABILITY gage. Meaning people can actually make their payments at those ratios.SD average wage of $61k is probably high and even if not; wage deflation will probably bring it into the $50ks. Even 3x earnings at $55k aver. earnings is $165k for SD housing. So the HIGH end of affordability will probably be $165k.
Unbelievable? In 2006 how people would have thought you could buy a 2500 sq’ house in Temecula for $220k in 2009? Not many, and most would have thought the idea completely absurd. That rushed cut in prices was just the quick fall to “regular” prices. Now the discounts begin.
[/quote]
The 2.5-3x median household income to median price is a national average and has NEVER been true in So Cal (at least not since the WW II era) – and it’s not because of bubbles – it’s because this is one of the most desirable areas in the U.S. to live.
It’s also the reason why there are so many renters in So Cal – and always have been – this isn’t a new trend, this is a multidecade trend again going back as long as records continue. It’s EXPENSIVE to buy in So Cal and always has been – bubble years or not. Instead of only about 2/3 of people being able to affordably buy a house (like in much of the U.S.), historically only a little over 55% of the people in So Cal can afford to buy a house. Only Hawaii and New York have a lower homeownership rate compared to California. Check this table out:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html
The HIGHEST homeownership percentage ever reached in CA was at 58%, in the 1960 Census. And this is for all of CA.
It’s simply a case of supply and demand – all other things being equal, more people would want to live here than in, say, Louisville. So all other things aren’t equal – the desirability of So Cal pushes the prices up. Detroit suffers from the exact opposite – relatively few people would consider Detroit a desirable city to live in, and so their ratio is much LOWER than the national average.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]
So a proven 100 year old housing affordability ratio (price x average wages) is no longer accurate because we have a new dynamic called renters and low earners to contend with?
If you chop off the bottom 1/3 won’t you logically chop off the top 1/3 as well? SD especially has lots of millionaires and even billionaires that throw the average way up.
Millionaires and billionaires are not players in the housing reality we live in but their houses and incomes are included in ratios.
Those apartment dwellers and renters are future first time buyers, a group housing cannot survive without. You can’t move up if others below are not moving up. So they most certainly are to be considered in housing affordability.
So Cal has gotten around historical affordability ratios with housing bubbles. No more though.
2.5-3 times earnings is a historically proven AFFORDABILITY gage. Meaning people can actually make their payments at those ratios.SD average wage of $61k is probably high and even if not; wage deflation will probably bring it into the $50ks. Even 3x earnings at $55k aver. earnings is $165k for SD housing. So the HIGH end of affordability will probably be $165k.
Unbelievable? In 2006 how people would have thought you could buy a 2500 sq’ house in Temecula for $220k in 2009? Not many, and most would have thought the idea completely absurd. That rushed cut in prices was just the quick fall to “regular” prices. Now the discounts begin.
[/quote]
The 2.5-3x median household income to median price is a national average and has NEVER been true in So Cal (at least not since the WW II era) – and it’s not because of bubbles – it’s because this is one of the most desirable areas in the U.S. to live.
It’s also the reason why there are so many renters in So Cal – and always have been – this isn’t a new trend, this is a multidecade trend again going back as long as records continue. It’s EXPENSIVE to buy in So Cal and always has been – bubble years or not. Instead of only about 2/3 of people being able to affordably buy a house (like in much of the U.S.), historically only a little over 55% of the people in So Cal can afford to buy a house. Only Hawaii and New York have a lower homeownership rate compared to California. Check this table out:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html
The HIGHEST homeownership percentage ever reached in CA was at 58%, in the 1960 Census. And this is for all of CA.
It’s simply a case of supply and demand – all other things being equal, more people would want to live here than in, say, Louisville. So all other things aren’t equal – the desirability of So Cal pushes the prices up. Detroit suffers from the exact opposite – relatively few people would consider Detroit a desirable city to live in, and so their ratio is much LOWER than the national average.
Participant[quote=deadzone]Sdengineer, what company do you work for? I know a couple local software engineers who are recently layed off, the job market is difficult right now for engineers in San Diego (and probably everywhere).
I recruited at a high tech job fair a few months ago here in town and it was shocking how many people were looking for work, and how few companies were represented at the fair. The difference from a couple years ago was startling.
I have to disagree that there is enough work to employee all engineers in the US. The fact is in a down economy with severe credit problems, it is difficult for companies, particulaly start ups to get any kind of venture capital. Without funding, there is no jobs.
This may only be temporary but the fact is, the job market is bad right onw, and getting worse. Engineers are not immune.[/quote]
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that engineers were completely immune. The fact is that most companies right now are in a hiring freeze, which impacts new job seekers. Few companies that I’m aware of, however, are actively laying engineers off. During a downturn, this seems to be normal behavior for most companies (excluding tech led recessions like the dot com bust).
I work for a hospital equipment manufacturer in San Diego. Won’t say which one, but there are several companies fitting this description in San Diego, and I know that ALL of us are hiring engineers right now (for specific needs). What we are not doing right now is hiring newly degreed engineers – that is, unfortunately, something that happens during pretty much all downturns. New college graduates unfortunately get the short end of the stick in every recession.
Those degrees, however, are not useless – on the next uptick, expect all of them to be hired relatively quickly.
No job category is completely immune, but what is outside of medical professions? During normal economic conditions, engineering probably has one of the lowest unemployment rates around, and even during recessions in most cases engineering jobs (once landed anyway) are typically fairly recession proof.
I’d wager that the high proportion of engineering and other high tech/biotech jobs, as well as the military, are the reasons San Diego is doing much better compared to the rest of CA in terms of unemployment rate.
Participant[quote=deadzone]Sdengineer, what company do you work for? I know a couple local software engineers who are recently layed off, the job market is difficult right now for engineers in San Diego (and probably everywhere).
I recruited at a high tech job fair a few months ago here in town and it was shocking how many people were looking for work, and how few companies were represented at the fair. The difference from a couple years ago was startling.
I have to disagree that there is enough work to employee all engineers in the US. The fact is in a down economy with severe credit problems, it is difficult for companies, particulaly start ups to get any kind of venture capital. Without funding, there is no jobs.
This may only be temporary but the fact is, the job market is bad right onw, and getting worse. Engineers are not immune.[/quote]
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that engineers were completely immune. The fact is that most companies right now are in a hiring freeze, which impacts new job seekers. Few companies that I’m aware of, however, are actively laying engineers off. During a downturn, this seems to be normal behavior for most companies (excluding tech led recessions like the dot com bust).
I work for a hospital equipment manufacturer in San Diego. Won’t say which one, but there are several companies fitting this description in San Diego, and I know that ALL of us are hiring engineers right now (for specific needs). What we are not doing right now is hiring newly degreed engineers – that is, unfortunately, something that happens during pretty much all downturns. New college graduates unfortunately get the short end of the stick in every recession.
Those degrees, however, are not useless – on the next uptick, expect all of them to be hired relatively quickly.
No job category is completely immune, but what is outside of medical professions? During normal economic conditions, engineering probably has one of the lowest unemployment rates around, and even during recessions in most cases engineering jobs (once landed anyway) are typically fairly recession proof.
I’d wager that the high proportion of engineering and other high tech/biotech jobs, as well as the military, are the reasons San Diego is doing much better compared to the rest of CA in terms of unemployment rate.
Participant[quote=deadzone]Sdengineer, what company do you work for? I know a couple local software engineers who are recently layed off, the job market is difficult right now for engineers in San Diego (and probably everywhere).
I recruited at a high tech job fair a few months ago here in town and it was shocking how many people were looking for work, and how few companies were represented at the fair. The difference from a couple years ago was startling.
I have to disagree that there is enough work to employee all engineers in the US. The fact is in a down economy with severe credit problems, it is difficult for companies, particulaly start ups to get any kind of venture capital. Without funding, there is no jobs.
This may only be temporary but the fact is, the job market is bad right onw, and getting worse. Engineers are not immune.[/quote]
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that engineers were completely immune. The fact is that most companies right now are in a hiring freeze, which impacts new job seekers. Few companies that I’m aware of, however, are actively laying engineers off. During a downturn, this seems to be normal behavior for most companies (excluding tech led recessions like the dot com bust).
I work for a hospital equipment manufacturer in San Diego. Won’t say which one, but there are several companies fitting this description in San Diego, and I know that ALL of us are hiring engineers right now (for specific needs). What we are not doing right now is hiring newly degreed engineers – that is, unfortunately, something that happens during pretty much all downturns. New college graduates unfortunately get the short end of the stick in every recession.
Those degrees, however, are not useless – on the next uptick, expect all of them to be hired relatively quickly.
No job category is completely immune, but what is outside of medical professions? During normal economic conditions, engineering probably has one of the lowest unemployment rates around, and even during recessions in most cases engineering jobs (once landed anyway) are typically fairly recession proof.
I’d wager that the high proportion of engineering and other high tech/biotech jobs, as well as the military, are the reasons San Diego is doing much better compared to the rest of CA in terms of unemployment rate.
Participant[quote=deadzone]Sdengineer, what company do you work for? I know a couple local software engineers who are recently layed off, the job market is difficult right now for engineers in San Diego (and probably everywhere).
I recruited at a high tech job fair a few months ago here in town and it was shocking how many people were looking for work, and how few companies were represented at the fair. The difference from a couple years ago was startling.
I have to disagree that there is enough work to employee all engineers in the US. The fact is in a down economy with severe credit problems, it is difficult for companies, particulaly start ups to get any kind of venture capital. Without funding, there is no jobs.
This may only be temporary but the fact is, the job market is bad right onw, and getting worse. Engineers are not immune.[/quote]
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that engineers were completely immune. The fact is that most companies right now are in a hiring freeze, which impacts new job seekers. Few companies that I’m aware of, however, are actively laying engineers off. During a downturn, this seems to be normal behavior for most companies (excluding tech led recessions like the dot com bust).
I work for a hospital equipment manufacturer in San Diego. Won’t say which one, but there are several companies fitting this description in San Diego, and I know that ALL of us are hiring engineers right now (for specific needs). What we are not doing right now is hiring newly degreed engineers – that is, unfortunately, something that happens during pretty much all downturns. New college graduates unfortunately get the short end of the stick in every recession.
Those degrees, however, are not useless – on the next uptick, expect all of them to be hired relatively quickly.
No job category is completely immune, but what is outside of medical professions? During normal economic conditions, engineering probably has one of the lowest unemployment rates around, and even during recessions in most cases engineering jobs (once landed anyway) are typically fairly recession proof.
I’d wager that the high proportion of engineering and other high tech/biotech jobs, as well as the military, are the reasons San Diego is doing much better compared to the rest of CA in terms of unemployment rate.
Participant[quote=deadzone]Sdengineer, what company do you work for? I know a couple local software engineers who are recently layed off, the job market is difficult right now for engineers in San Diego (and probably everywhere).
I recruited at a high tech job fair a few months ago here in town and it was shocking how many people were looking for work, and how few companies were represented at the fair. The difference from a couple years ago was startling.
I have to disagree that there is enough work to employee all engineers in the US. The fact is in a down economy with severe credit problems, it is difficult for companies, particulaly start ups to get any kind of venture capital. Without funding, there is no jobs.
This may only be temporary but the fact is, the job market is bad right onw, and getting worse. Engineers are not immune.[/quote]
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that engineers were completely immune. The fact is that most companies right now are in a hiring freeze, which impacts new job seekers. Few companies that I’m aware of, however, are actively laying engineers off. During a downturn, this seems to be normal behavior for most companies (excluding tech led recessions like the dot com bust).
I work for a hospital equipment manufacturer in San Diego. Won’t say which one, but there are several companies fitting this description in San Diego, and I know that ALL of us are hiring engineers right now (for specific needs). What we are not doing right now is hiring newly degreed engineers – that is, unfortunately, something that happens during pretty much all downturns. New college graduates unfortunately get the short end of the stick in every recession.
Those degrees, however, are not useless – on the next uptick, expect all of them to be hired relatively quickly.
No job category is completely immune, but what is outside of medical professions? During normal economic conditions, engineering probably has one of the lowest unemployment rates around, and even during recessions in most cases engineering jobs (once landed anyway) are typically fairly recession proof.
I’d wager that the high proportion of engineering and other high tech/biotech jobs, as well as the military, are the reasons San Diego is doing much better compared to the rest of CA in terms of unemployment rate.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]
India is graduating 450,000 engineers each year? Wow, can that be right?
http://machinedesign.com/article/engineering-in-india-1108
Hope your company can’t use google well.
Seriously though, good for you man. I hope your good fortune continues, but surely you can’t think the postition you are in is typical or any indicator to wages going forward into GD2?
[/quote]Flu is quite right in his answer.
The fact is, my company does use Indian engineers for some purposes. I supervise 6 of them myself. We use them for routine stuff – maintenance and testing mostly. In total, our company employs about as many Indian engineers as U.S. engineers.
For innovation, that’s done here. For mission critical coding, also done here. The fact of the matter is that being half a world away, theres less accountability to the home office, and typically their code isn’t quite up to what US trained engineers generate. There are quite a few really good Indian engineers – but they command a premium.
Software is advancing in size and complexity so quickly that we could employ every Indian engineer that graduates (actually, between the U.S. and Europe, we pretty much do) and STILL have jobs for all the American engineers as well.
The areas where outsourcing hurts tech jobs mostly is in very routine stuff that is NOT engineering – stuff like manual testing.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]
India is graduating 450,000 engineers each year? Wow, can that be right?
http://machinedesign.com/article/engineering-in-india-1108
Hope your company can’t use google well.
Seriously though, good for you man. I hope your good fortune continues, but surely you can’t think the postition you are in is typical or any indicator to wages going forward into GD2?
[/quote]Flu is quite right in his answer.
The fact is, my company does use Indian engineers for some purposes. I supervise 6 of them myself. We use them for routine stuff – maintenance and testing mostly. In total, our company employs about as many Indian engineers as U.S. engineers.
For innovation, that’s done here. For mission critical coding, also done here. The fact of the matter is that being half a world away, theres less accountability to the home office, and typically their code isn’t quite up to what US trained engineers generate. There are quite a few really good Indian engineers – but they command a premium.
Software is advancing in size and complexity so quickly that we could employ every Indian engineer that graduates (actually, between the U.S. and Europe, we pretty much do) and STILL have jobs for all the American engineers as well.
The areas where outsourcing hurts tech jobs mostly is in very routine stuff that is NOT engineering – stuff like manual testing.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]
India is graduating 450,000 engineers each year? Wow, can that be right?
http://machinedesign.com/article/engineering-in-india-1108
Hope your company can’t use google well.
Seriously though, good for you man. I hope your good fortune continues, but surely you can’t think the postition you are in is typical or any indicator to wages going forward into GD2?
[/quote]Flu is quite right in his answer.
The fact is, my company does use Indian engineers for some purposes. I supervise 6 of them myself. We use them for routine stuff – maintenance and testing mostly. In total, our company employs about as many Indian engineers as U.S. engineers.
For innovation, that’s done here. For mission critical coding, also done here. The fact of the matter is that being half a world away, theres less accountability to the home office, and typically their code isn’t quite up to what US trained engineers generate. There are quite a few really good Indian engineers – but they command a premium.
Software is advancing in size and complexity so quickly that we could employ every Indian engineer that graduates (actually, between the U.S. and Europe, we pretty much do) and STILL have jobs for all the American engineers as well.
The areas where outsourcing hurts tech jobs mostly is in very routine stuff that is NOT engineering – stuff like manual testing.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]
India is graduating 450,000 engineers each year? Wow, can that be right?
http://machinedesign.com/article/engineering-in-india-1108
Hope your company can’t use google well.
Seriously though, good for you man. I hope your good fortune continues, but surely you can’t think the postition you are in is typical or any indicator to wages going forward into GD2?
[/quote]Flu is quite right in his answer.
The fact is, my company does use Indian engineers for some purposes. I supervise 6 of them myself. We use them for routine stuff – maintenance and testing mostly. In total, our company employs about as many Indian engineers as U.S. engineers.
For innovation, that’s done here. For mission critical coding, also done here. The fact of the matter is that being half a world away, theres less accountability to the home office, and typically their code isn’t quite up to what US trained engineers generate. There are quite a few really good Indian engineers – but they command a premium.
Software is advancing in size and complexity so quickly that we could employ every Indian engineer that graduates (actually, between the U.S. and Europe, we pretty much do) and STILL have jobs for all the American engineers as well.
The areas where outsourcing hurts tech jobs mostly is in very routine stuff that is NOT engineering – stuff like manual testing.
-
AuthorPosts
