Home Values

ISUCyclones2015

Doesn't wipe standing up
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 19, 2010
13,970
9,484
113
Chicago, IL
Until people provide actual reliable data, these claims are just hyperbole. Moreover, the data must be apples to apples comparisons.

Seems to me many here just want to bag on California, mostly for (perceived) cultural differences--most of which are hyperbole as well. Go to any old 10-year old Saturday little league game in suburban CA, and it'll feel pretty much like one in suburban Iowa.

Blasphemy! We're all completely different societies once we cross state borders
vauEUgn.gif
 

brokenloginagain

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jul 25, 2006
3,780
3,228
113
i think the rent/buy opinions vary based on if you've lived in different cities/states and different times in the real estate cycle.

i lived in cities the past 20 yrs where a $1 million+ condo rents for $2500/mo and a different city/year where a $400k house rents for $5,000/mo. it all depends on the market, taxes, tax rules, neighborhoods, etc.

and you think about things completely different when you move from CA to TX or Iowa to Denver or Cleveland to NYC. they seem like different planets when it comes to housing costs.

had I bought a house when I took a new job in 2006, my 20% down would've been wiped out in 2 years. that would've been tough to deal with. 2009 to 2018 is LONG time to recover your equity.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: capitalcityguy

mywayorcyway

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2012
2,273
2,291
113
Phoenix
had I bought a house when I took a new job in 2006, my 20% down would've been wiped out in 2 years. that would've been tough to deal with. 2009 to 2018 is LONG time to recover your equity.

Many people were in that equity recovery situation, and some still are. And that is assuming you can continue to stay in the house or keep it to wait for the equity to recover. This isn't like owning a stock - this is where you live. Need to move and don't have the means to own a second home? You're eating it, and it could be a big chunk of money.

One of my former employees was forced to move after he was laid off last year. Had to move to take another job and was still upside down on his place, even after 10 years. He had to sell it and eat $30K.
 

SoapyCy

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2012
20,023
9,760
113
grundy center
Until people provide actual reliable data, these claims are just hyperbole. Moreover, the data must be apples to apples comparisons.

Seems to me many here just want to bag on California, mostly for (perceived) cultural differences--most of which are hyperbole as well. Go to any old 10-year old Saturday little league game in suburban CA, and it'll feel pretty much like one in suburban Iowa.

Why are you stalking little leagues?
 

VeloClone

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2010
45,801
35,185
113
Brooklyn Park, MN
i think the rent/buy opinions vary based on if you've lived in different cities/states and different times in the real estate cycle.

i lived in cities the past 20 yrs where a $1 million+ condo rents for $2500/mo and a different city/year where a $400k house rents for $5,000/mo. it all depends on the market, taxes, tax rules, neighborhoods, etc.

and you think about things completely different when you move from CA to TX or Iowa to Denver or Cleveland to NYC. they seem like different planets when it comes to housing costs.

had I bought a house when I took a new job in 2006, my 20% down would've been wiped out in 2 years. that would've been tough to deal with. 2009 to 2018 is LONG time to recover your equity.
I really wish I would have bought when I moved up here in '98 but that was my third move between states in three years so I didn't know what the future would hold. Instead, I bought when the market was already high in late '04. Those six years were very lucrative years to miss out on, but one thing we can count on is that hind sight is 20/20.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: khardbored

Clone83

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2006
5,044
1,033
113
Granted, there is an article like this every week, but the results of a new study:

With no letup in home prices, the California exodus surges
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/w...rices-the-california-exodus-surges-2018-05-03

... Over a million more people moved out of California from 2006 to 2016 than moved in, according to a new report, due mainly to the high cost of housing that hits lower-income people the hardest.

“A strong economy can also be dysfunctional,” noted the report, a project of Next 10 and Beacon Economics. Housing costs are much higher in California than in other states, yet wages for workers in the lower income brackets aren’t. And the state attracts more highly-educated high-earners who can afford pricey homes.

There are many reasons for the housing crunch, but the lack of new construction may be the most significant. According to the report, from 2008 to 2017, an average of 24.7 new housing permits were filed for every 100 new residents in California. That’s well below the national average of 43.1 permits per 100 people. ...

The article has some interesting links, including to the original study, and another to a map of the U.S. showing property taxes by county.

I'm pretty sure you don't have to be a WSJ subscriber to access this article. But if you do, try googling the title, or try googling the title at a later date if this still doesn't work.