11–20 of 165 posts
I wonder if this is due to stagnant wages, excessive home price inflation, or both.
Seeing the ratio of median house price to median home buyer's income would be interesting.
I wonder if this is due to stagnant wages, excessive home price inflation, or both.
California on the other hand, is absolutely pathetic when it comes to this. So absurd watching a state whose booming economy is funneling most of that money to property owners pockets. A huge and abject failure that will be in future economics textbooks as the example of how giving local government too much power creates huge bottlenecks.
Not to be overdramatic, but NIMBYism and overly restrictive zoning is California's equivalent to a tumor. Unchecked growth (of housing prices) that sucks all the resources out of the host (renters and people looking to buy a first home).
I wonder if this is due to stagnant wages, excessive home price inflation, or both.
They're comparing the median price houses sold for with the overall median income for the area. It may be the case, in some areas, that people below the median income are renting rather than buying, or staying in already-purchased houses as the real estate market heats up. Seeing the ratio of median house price to median home buyer's income would be interesting.
If more and more below-median-income people are renting because they can't afford to buy, that's definitely important and interesting.
Wonder if we can thank prop 13 for that? (Frozen property tax that constrains supply and encourages ani-development stance by removing the tax consequences of appreciating property)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're comparing the median price houses sold for with the overall median income for the area. It may be the case, in some areas, that people below the median income are renting rather than buying, or staying in already-purchased houses as the real estate market heats up. Seeing the ratio of median house price to median home buyer's income would be interesting.
This is also interesting though, isn't it? If more and more below-median-income people are renting because they can't afford to buy, that's definitely important and interesting.
Over 8x seems to be a CA thing mostly (one tile in Oregon bordering CA). Wonder if we can thank prop 13 for that? (Frozen property tax that constrains supply and encourages ani-development stance by removing the tax consequences of appreciating property)
Say what you will about Texas government, but they know how to stay out of people's way and let housing supply keep up with demand efficiently. California on the other hand, is absolutely pathetic when it comes to this. So absurd watching a state whose booming economy is funneling most of that money to property owners pockets. A huge and abject failure that will be in future economics textbooks as the example of how…
Eventually, they will wise up, move out of their expensive rentals and turn frugal - likely outside of these cities with a good possibility of leaving the state.
In their absence, new young folks in their high-earning high-spending phase will move in, and the cycle repeats itself.
None of this is bad for California. The state, in the desirable cities, is a meat grinder drawing in a constant supply fresh, gullible, overpaid talent, working not just to pay high rents but high everything, including state income tax, while saving very little. When they get exhausted, they leave, and make room for more fresh meat.
looks at TSLA $650