Skip to content

75 Comments

  1. jpinpb
    May 1, 2009 @ 10:18 AM

    I guess there was no bubble
    I guess there was no bubble in the rental market ๐Ÿ˜‰

  2. ybitz
    May 1, 2009 @ 11:03 AM

    Any idea what the numbers
    Any idea what the numbers look like for nation-wide average? Is San Diego substantially higher or about the same? I know median rent is much higher in SD than average US value, but income is higher too.

    • Rich Toscano
      May 1, 2009 @ 2:55 PM

      ybitz wrote:Any idea what the
      [quote=ybitz]Any idea what the numbers look like for nation-wide average? Is San Diego substantially higher or about the same? I know median rent is much higher in SD than average US value, but income is higher too.[/quote]

      I don’t know where the nationwide data is offhand but you can probably find it by clicking around here (which is the regional data page): http://www.bea.gov/regional/REMDchart/default.cfm#chart_top

      I’d be shocked if the ratio wasn’t substantially higher for SD than for nationwide… per the “sunshine tax” expression.

      Let us know what you find out…

      Rich

      • briansd1
        May 1, 2009 @ 7:38 PM

        Don’t know about other areas
        Don’t know about other areas but Downtown you’re getting more for the money.

        I would imagine that in areas such as Eastlake, renters are also getting more for their money, thanks to all the new inventory.

        You can buy a 2009 Toyota Camry for the same nominal, out the door price as a 2003 Camry. More the same amount of money (technically less in this case if you adjust for inflation).

  3. Eugene
    May 1, 2009 @ 1:16 PM

    It should be pointed out that
    It should be pointed out that the chart shows median rent vs. median income of ALL households (including homeowner households). Median renter household income was consistently 65-70% of median household income during 2001-2007. If we divide apples to apples, we find that a median renter household would spend 31-33% of their gross income renting a median property – not 21-23% as the graph suggests.

    But that only changes the scaling, because the basic conclusion is still correct – rent to income ratios have not changed much since 2001.

    • Rich Toscano
      May 1, 2009 @ 2:43 PM

      Eugene wrote:It should be
      [quote=Eugene]It should be pointed out that the chart shows median rent vs. median income of ALL households (including homeowner households). Median renter household income was consistently 65-70% of median household income during 2001-2007. If we divide apples to apples, we find that a median renter household would spend 31-33% of their gross income renting a median property – not 21-23% as the graph suggests.

      But that only changes the scaling, because the basic conclusion is still correct – rent to income ratios have not changed much since 2001.[/quote]

      Yes, agreed on all counts… I should have made that distinction in the article. But the point wasn’t the level itself, just the change in the level. (As you note).

      Rich

  4. no_such_reality
    May 2, 2009 @ 9:39 AM

    Depending on incomes in 2009
    Depending on incomes in 2009 and 2010 we’ll see if there is a bubble.

    The chart is nice and flat, but median income increased 31% over the period, inflation is only 19% over the period.

    • CricketOnTheHearth
      May 2, 2009 @ 4:42 PM

      I wish my income had gone up
      I wish my income had gone up 31% over the period; it has in fact stayed virtually flat (in nominal terms). I wonder how many others have experienced the same… I know we have not seen raises in my immediate work group since 2001, not even cost-of-living increases.

      Whose income in San Diego increased that much, I wonder?

      • sdrealtor
        May 2, 2009 @ 10:45 PM

        ๐Ÿ™‚
        ๐Ÿ™‚

      • Eugene
        May 2, 2009 @ 11:08 PM

        CricketOnTheHearth wrote:I
        [quote=CricketOnTheHearth]I wish my income had gone up 31% over the period; it has in fact stayed virtually flat (in nominal terms). I wonder how many others have experienced the same… I know we have not seen raises in my immediate work group since 2001, not even cost-of-living increases.

        Whose income in San Diego increased that much, I wonder?[/quote]

        My income went up 79% between 2001 and 2008.

      • CA renter
        May 2, 2009 @ 11:43 PM

        Numbers speak louder than
        Numbers speak louder than words, I suppose.

        Doesn’t fit with what I’m seeing in “real life,” but I definitely trust your numbers, and defer to your statistics, Rich. Maybe I’m just too bearish after all????

        Thanks for putting this together.

      • peterb
        May 3, 2009 @ 11:10 AM

        It makes sense that rental
        It makes sense that rental rates should be much more stable. It’s a far more free market due to lack of govt intervention and ease of movement for the renters. As long as there’s not a strong shift in the supply/demand ratio, rents/income should be a very stable ratio over time. Fairly sticky numbers.

  5. DWCAP
    May 4, 2009 @ 3:36 PM

    Just wondering what all the
    Just wondering what all the pigs think about the following site. It seems pretty straight forward, though I didnt see much on how they came up with their numbers. Doesnt mean they are right or wrong, means I didnt see it. Sometimes we all need a second opinion, and that is just what I am looking for. And yes I got this from a link on patrick.net.

    Looks like housing compared to income tracks very closly to each other till 2001 then housing goes boom and we all know/lived the rest. Insightful in where we are in relation to incomes and the bubble in RE. For laughs, compare the 2001-now bubble with the 90’s bubble.

    It only goes through to Jan 09, though I doubt much has changed drastically in the past 3 months.

    http://www.zoyzoy.com/realestate/ofheo.php?msa=41740

    So fire away, where are the problems in their numbers?

    • Eugene
      May 4, 2009 @ 6:20 PM

      the most obvious one is that
      the most obvious one is that their housing price index shows much higher appreciation since 2000 than Case-Shiller. Case-Shiller shows a 45-50% change since January 2000. Their index shows a 83% change (January 2000 index: 130, January 2009 index: 238).

  6. drunkle
    May 4, 2009 @ 9:40 PM

    what’s the point of rent vs
    what’s the point of rent vs income? people rent by necessity or choice. people buy purely by choice.

    show me the rent vs occupancy numbers. that, to me, is worth more than rent vs median income. i make plenty and yet the home purchase prices rose far too high as we all know. rents rose as well, but a rent vs income ratio does disservice to those of us who remained renters out of conservative values rather than buying with the mania.

    if anything, the static ratio between rents and wages is a reflection of the rental robbery index rather than affordability. robbery was maintained at a constant level, yes.

    note. i don’t mean to come off as *jackass*. i surely and most definately appreciate your (rich’s) work. i just sound like a jackass right now because i’ve been stewing on this topic for a few and i chose to comment on it while drunk. hmm…. not quite the unusual circumstance…

Leave a Reply