Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SDEngineer
ParticipantAgree. I’ve done several back-of-the-napkin calculations using several different measurements (household income to historical house price ratio, FMV rent to house price ratio, and wage inflation applied as house price inflation over the past decade or so), and they all tend to wind up in the 300k-330k region for what a normal trendline median price should be today. That matches very well with what a lot of the housing bears were saying at the peak of the market in ’05 when the bears arguing for a return to trend said the market had to lose about 40% of its value to return to normal. We’ve only seen about 25% of that value lost – less in the more desireable areas (though according to the Case-Shiller index they were less inflated anyway, so the drop will be less severe overall with them).
SDEngineer
ParticipantAgree. I’ve done several back-of-the-napkin calculations using several different measurements (household income to historical house price ratio, FMV rent to house price ratio, and wage inflation applied as house price inflation over the past decade or so), and they all tend to wind up in the 300k-330k region for what a normal trendline median price should be today. That matches very well with what a lot of the housing bears were saying at the peak of the market in ’05 when the bears arguing for a return to trend said the market had to lose about 40% of its value to return to normal. We’ve only seen about 25% of that value lost – less in the more desireable areas (though according to the Case-Shiller index they were less inflated anyway, so the drop will be less severe overall with them).
SDEngineer
ParticipantAgree. I’ve done several back-of-the-napkin calculations using several different measurements (household income to historical house price ratio, FMV rent to house price ratio, and wage inflation applied as house price inflation over the past decade or so), and they all tend to wind up in the 300k-330k region for what a normal trendline median price should be today. That matches very well with what a lot of the housing bears were saying at the peak of the market in ’05 when the bears arguing for a return to trend said the market had to lose about 40% of its value to return to normal. We’ve only seen about 25% of that value lost – less in the more desireable areas (though according to the Case-Shiller index they were less inflated anyway, so the drop will be less severe overall with them).
SDEngineer
ParticipantAgree. I’ve done several back-of-the-napkin calculations using several different measurements (household income to historical house price ratio, FMV rent to house price ratio, and wage inflation applied as house price inflation over the past decade or so), and they all tend to wind up in the 300k-330k region for what a normal trendline median price should be today. That matches very well with what a lot of the housing bears were saying at the peak of the market in ’05 when the bears arguing for a return to trend said the market had to lose about 40% of its value to return to normal. We’ve only seen about 25% of that value lost – less in the more desireable areas (though according to the Case-Shiller index they were less inflated anyway, so the drop will be less severe overall with them).
SDEngineer
ParticipantAgree. I’ve done several back-of-the-napkin calculations using several different measurements (household income to historical house price ratio, FMV rent to house price ratio, and wage inflation applied as house price inflation over the past decade or so), and they all tend to wind up in the 300k-330k region for what a normal trendline median price should be today. That matches very well with what a lot of the housing bears were saying at the peak of the market in ’05 when the bears arguing for a return to trend said the market had to lose about 40% of its value to return to normal. We’ve only seen about 25% of that value lost – less in the more desireable areas (though according to the Case-Shiller index they were less inflated anyway, so the drop will be less severe overall with them).
SDEngineer
ParticipantAh, the link to the Money magazine article was to a poll. It wasn’t a ranking of cities, but a selection screen for ranking them.
While I don’t place a whole lot of faith in polls, if you’ll click the “Show Results” tab on the poll, San Diego is currently ranked #1.
San Diego median household income is ~67K (I believe that was the 2006 figure, so may be a little higher now, I’ve seen 72K thrown around before for a more recent figure). However, So Cal in general is (and always has been) highly concentrated with permanent renters – San Diego, LA, and other coastal cities here have always had a premium to buy (though not nearly as bad as the recent bubble). SD/LA is basically 50/50 renter/owner households. If you back the median renter household income (~43K) out of the median household income, San Diego has a median homeowners household income of just about 95K/yr. Just a few more data points, but it does support a somewhat higher home valuation than, for example, a midwest city with a 66/33 homeowner/renter median.
SDEngineer
ParticipantAh, the link to the Money magazine article was to a poll. It wasn’t a ranking of cities, but a selection screen for ranking them.
While I don’t place a whole lot of faith in polls, if you’ll click the “Show Results” tab on the poll, San Diego is currently ranked #1.
San Diego median household income is ~67K (I believe that was the 2006 figure, so may be a little higher now, I’ve seen 72K thrown around before for a more recent figure). However, So Cal in general is (and always has been) highly concentrated with permanent renters – San Diego, LA, and other coastal cities here have always had a premium to buy (though not nearly as bad as the recent bubble). SD/LA is basically 50/50 renter/owner households. If you back the median renter household income (~43K) out of the median household income, San Diego has a median homeowners household income of just about 95K/yr. Just a few more data points, but it does support a somewhat higher home valuation than, for example, a midwest city with a 66/33 homeowner/renter median.
SDEngineer
ParticipantAh, the link to the Money magazine article was to a poll. It wasn’t a ranking of cities, but a selection screen for ranking them.
While I don’t place a whole lot of faith in polls, if you’ll click the “Show Results” tab on the poll, San Diego is currently ranked #1.
San Diego median household income is ~67K (I believe that was the 2006 figure, so may be a little higher now, I’ve seen 72K thrown around before for a more recent figure). However, So Cal in general is (and always has been) highly concentrated with permanent renters – San Diego, LA, and other coastal cities here have always had a premium to buy (though not nearly as bad as the recent bubble). SD/LA is basically 50/50 renter/owner households. If you back the median renter household income (~43K) out of the median household income, San Diego has a median homeowners household income of just about 95K/yr. Just a few more data points, but it does support a somewhat higher home valuation than, for example, a midwest city with a 66/33 homeowner/renter median.
SDEngineer
ParticipantAh, the link to the Money magazine article was to a poll. It wasn’t a ranking of cities, but a selection screen for ranking them.
While I don’t place a whole lot of faith in polls, if you’ll click the “Show Results” tab on the poll, San Diego is currently ranked #1.
San Diego median household income is ~67K (I believe that was the 2006 figure, so may be a little higher now, I’ve seen 72K thrown around before for a more recent figure). However, So Cal in general is (and always has been) highly concentrated with permanent renters – San Diego, LA, and other coastal cities here have always had a premium to buy (though not nearly as bad as the recent bubble). SD/LA is basically 50/50 renter/owner households. If you back the median renter household income (~43K) out of the median household income, San Diego has a median homeowners household income of just about 95K/yr. Just a few more data points, but it does support a somewhat higher home valuation than, for example, a midwest city with a 66/33 homeowner/renter median.
SDEngineer
ParticipantAh, the link to the Money magazine article was to a poll. It wasn’t a ranking of cities, but a selection screen for ranking them.
While I don’t place a whole lot of faith in polls, if you’ll click the “Show Results” tab on the poll, San Diego is currently ranked #1.
San Diego median household income is ~67K (I believe that was the 2006 figure, so may be a little higher now, I’ve seen 72K thrown around before for a more recent figure). However, So Cal in general is (and always has been) highly concentrated with permanent renters – San Diego, LA, and other coastal cities here have always had a premium to buy (though not nearly as bad as the recent bubble). SD/LA is basically 50/50 renter/owner households. If you back the median renter household income (~43K) out of the median household income, San Diego has a median homeowners household income of just about 95K/yr. Just a few more data points, but it does support a somewhat higher home valuation than, for example, a midwest city with a 66/33 homeowner/renter median.
SDEngineer
ParticipantYou can absolutely make biofuels out of wood. The problem is renewing that source. Trees grow slowly. Corn grows really fast.
SDEngineer
ParticipantYou can absolutely make biofuels out of wood. The problem is renewing that source. Trees grow slowly. Corn grows really fast.
SDEngineer
ParticipantYou can absolutely make biofuels out of wood. The problem is renewing that source. Trees grow slowly. Corn grows really fast.
SDEngineer
ParticipantYou can absolutely make biofuels out of wood. The problem is renewing that source. Trees grow slowly. Corn grows really fast.
-
AuthorPosts
