Does homeownership mean more unemployment?
Home Economics : The New Yorker
Homeownership also impedes the economy’s readjustment by tying people down. From a social point of view, it’s beneficial that homeownership encourages commitment to a given town or city. But, from an economic point of view, it’s good for people to be able to leave places where there’s less work and move to places where there’s more. Homeowners are much less likely to move than renters, especially during a downturn, when they aren’t willing (or can’t afford) to sell at market prices. As a result, they often stay in towns even after the jobs leave. That may be why a study of several major developed economies between 1960 and 1996, by the British economist Andrew Oswald, found a strong relationship between increases in homeownership and increases in the unemployment rate; a ten-per-cent increase in homeownership correlated with a two-per-cent increase in unemployment. (In the U.S., it may be worth noting, the states that have the highest unemployment rates—states like Alabama, Michigan, Mississippi—are also among those with the highest homeownership rates.) And reluctance to move not only keeps unemployment high in struggling areas but makes it hard for businesses elsewhere to attract the workers they need to grow.This doesn’t mean that the U.S. should become a nation of renters—even if both New York City and Switzerland show that high rates of renting are compatible with great prosperity. With the bursting of the housing bubble, though, it’s time not just to scrutinize the excesses of our home-buying process but to recognize the risks and costs inherent in owning a home. Sometimes the price—for the home buyer and for the economy as a whole—is too high to pay.
GASP.
Does this mean that Silicon Valley’s success is due to the fact that the majority of residents rent?
GASP.
What should we do about this? Anything?
Discuss!
August 30th, 2009 at 8:07 am
The reason why most government today greatly subsidize home ownership is that landlords strongly tend to vote for conservative parties that are sponsored by big business.
Even the smallest, most indebted landlord with zero or negative equity usually feels in the same class as Donald Trump or as a Wall Street CEO, and reliably votes for rentier-friendly parties that deliver endless asset price inflation and lower wages.
August 30th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Does this mean that Silicon Valley’s success is due to the fact that the majority of residents rent?
What should we do about this? Anything?
The housing bulls on here (e.g., our favorite troll) should immediately stop advocating homeownership as the only way to lead a successful and satisfying life.
August 30th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“it’s time [...] to recognize the risks and costs inherent in owning a home.”
Yes James, it’s time! But I’m not too sure why it wasn’t time before as well. Were you suggesting otherwise in previous articles? Or maybe your editor is on vacation? Maybe you are too, and an intern wrote your article? Maybe your intern was on vacation and you had to write the article yourself? Please share your other tidbits of wisdom. Maybe it’s also time to recognize risks and costs of reading the New Yorker?
August 30th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
More renters are actually better for the economy because the renter has more disposable income to spend on other goods and services instead of paying banks interest on the money they have borrowed.
As we are observing now, debt is not wealth, and we are experiencing the consequences of thinking otherwise.
August 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Joe, do you think banks put the interests they receive under their mattress?
August 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Whoever believed debt = wealth deserves to be foreclosed upon. Who are these stupid people? Oh yeah, they were the ones who couldn’t be bothered to read/understand their mortgages or “recognize the risks and costs inherent in owning a home.”
August 30th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
nomadic – The author’s assertion that “the bursting of the housing bubble” calls for a change of attitude is egregious. It’s similar to saying (in 2009) “your neighbor had a car accident, it’s time to start using the seat belt.”
Evaluating risks and costs before signing anything is a given. That’s the whole premise behind the concept of a signature. The author suggests that there are circumstances when it’s ok not to do the analysis. It’s poor writing style at best, and morally hazardous at worst. My guess is James doesn’t realize he’s insulting the intelligence of the average reader.
August 30th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
I get what you’re saying, DT. I got a chuckle out of your #3. Was just trying to clarify things for Joe.
Unfortunately there were far too many people who figured that if the bank and the collective “they” would let them move into a place they could call their own, then personal accountability wasn’t required.
August 30th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
There is an obvious bug in the monetary system where people equivalent to hackers have gamed the system to manipulate the cost of such major things furthering the aggravation of bust & bubble. There must be a law to put these kinds of people out of commission, and to offer real, good, honest work – only then will there be a chance for abundance to more.
August 30th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
“It’s similar to saying (in 2009) “your neighbor had a car accident, it’s time to start using the seat belt.””
No its not. It’s like saying: Wow my neighbor got into a major car crash. Maybe its not a good idea to drive with my eyes closed…?
August 30th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Actually, several economists have spoken about this before. With the broadening of the global village and the instability that now occurs in corporations, there are huge benefits to maintaining mobility.
If a renter loses a job, that person’s job search can be far more broad based than someone who is tied to a given geographic area. It’s perfectly logical.
Remember that the previous generation enjoyed far more stability from a job perspective and very little competition from overseas markets. That is no longer the case.
August 30th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
During the housing bubble, an owner could be confident of selling any POS within a week or so, therefore maintaining excellent mobility. Profit could be assured too!
August 30th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
this is true.
August 31st, 2009 at 12:49 am
lack of mobility means underemployment, too. I grew up in a town of 4000 in new england and most of my friends stayed in the area. they’re perfectly intelligent people; they just didn’t want to give up their family and social ties for job advancement (gasp!!). so, they all have unbelievably hideous jobs – working in an odometer factory, decades of clerking in the same Hallmark store, decades of doing the books for a small grocery store that is located across the street from a funeral parlor. I’d blow my brains out. but they do get to be around their parents and cousins. which I guess is a benefit. and the air quality is better. man, just the thought of being back there for more than two days is starting to make my hands sweat and my breathing constrict . . . agh! RENT RENT RENT RENT RENT!!! oh, phew, we own a crappy condo *here*. phew.
So I guess a lot more people are going to be working in Hallmark stores, since they can’t move from where their underwater house is. but they won’t even be near their relatives, since they moved to where they are for a job. worst of both worlds. depending on the relatives.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:39 am
Buyersareidiots and Karen make good points and I can use myself as a real-life example. Its true that if you rent, you have more flexibility. I am not financially bound to the house I rent. It provides me with shelter, a place to store my stuff, a nice yard in which to relax in, and a place to park my car.
I’ve just recently decided that I can no longer really stand the Bay Area. Thus I am now officially applying to jobs out of state, in Austin, Raleigh, and maybe even a few others. I can easily be out to a new city in less than a week versus being stuck to a house that even now with some improvement take 6 months to sell minimum.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:05 am
Isn’t that the “beauty” of the Bay Area? You can be within 30 miles of thousands of jobs (millions if you’re Real Estater) so you don’t really have to move.
I guess I missed all the reasons why bob hates the Bay Area so much… Can someone pralay that for me?
August 31st, 2009 at 8:22 am
Herve,
Everyone already knows why I dislike it here. Too many people, too much traffic, and last but not least, its just too expensive here. I also get this feeling that house prices are just never going to get to a price level that’s anywhere close to my personal comfort level. The prices have fallen in my area, but they seemed to have gotten stuck at the $500-$550k range, which is basically for a starter home in reality. I am also starting to get a whiff of just a hair of the bubbly again. Seems that I’m already hearing people talk about real estate through kool-aide terms again.
So enough is enough. I’m tired of it. Lastly, I’m pretty sure that many people my age are doing the same and the places they’re going are growing fast. Right now is probably a good opportunity to go to these places before they inflate away like the Bay Area did.
I’ve spent 9 years here. That’s long enough. The area has been good to me and my Wife and we’ve saved a lot and will probably do pretty well elsewhere. But its time to pull the plug and let it go. Life is too short to spend it paying for a house.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:28 am
But bob. Think of the pride of home ownership. If that isn’t worth a lifetime of work, what is???
August 31st, 2009 at 9:36 am
Kind of in conjunction with the article, I recall reading somewhere that the rate of domestic migration -meaning the movement of US residents from one area to another- has slowed to a percentage that hasn’t been seen since WW2. Lots of the areas I am looking at jobs in had torrid amounts of growth during the bubble likely because homeowners in other states just simply cashed out and relocated there. Given that the rate of homeownership was pushing 70%, the majority of Americans in homes today are stuck with a situation where they are suddenly less mobile.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:36 am
“versus being stuck to a house that even now with some improvement take 6 months to sell minimum.”
bob, median days on market near the place you work is 63 days. You’re off by a factor of 6.
http://www.movoto.com/statistics/ca/palo-alto.htm
August 31st, 2009 at 9:38 am
Ok, off by a factor of 3
But let’s look at the “minimum” assertion. Minimum days on market: 3 days. Not 6 months…
August 31st, 2009 at 9:57 am
Thanks, DT. I was going to point out that in the slums of the RBA (where I live), my neighbors across the street sold their house in 11 days officially – the offer came in just a few days after listing but it took a few more for the negotiations to be completed.
All depends on pricing, of course. Those people had a reason to sell and have owned the place for 35+ years. They’re moving into their mini-mansion “dream house.”
August 31st, 2009 at 10:05 am
DreamT…
Don’t really care. That’s still over 3 months and on top of that, I can show you at least 3-4 houses on my block that have been for sale for I don’t know how long. Some of them literally for years. So with a house, there is zero guarantee that it will sell anytime soon.
But for me as a renter, I can and will leave almost instantaneously. Most of the “stuff” in the house was either found on the side of the road or cheap at the flea market. A swift yard sale would likely clear most of the un-wanted items, the rest would be donated, and what we keep would probably fit in a small shipping container. I already have a car moving company in mind: $600 per car. Not bad at all.
The places I’m looking have extremely cheap rentals. As in $400 or less like this one:
http://austin.craigslist.org/apa/1351270916.html
Chicken feed. There are many places like this which would suffice to enable us to rent dirt-cheap until we’re satisfied that we like the city enough to stay and also find neighborhoods we like. South Austin is pretty nice. Neat old houses for $150k or less. We’d do the same for any of the other cities.
The bottom line is that I feel pretty good about this decision. We have been thinking about it for years.You on this board have heard about it for years. We’re not happy living in the Bay Area. I don’t think its a great place for young people anymore. After visiting Austin, Raleigh, and several other cities I saw how much better we could be living. Not to say that we would be rich, which has never been my goal. Just that we can lead regular lives without something as simple as housing becoming such a major jumping point. I guess what I’m saying is I like stability. I see that it can be had easier elsewhere. I could stay here and keep bickering on and on about how expensive it is. But that’s fruitless and thus I’m doing something about it, which is to basically just get away from here.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:25 am
bye, bob. Enjoy.
Be careful with those misleading CL ads though. That apartment isn’t $499 for a three-bedroom. Looks like a crappy 2-BR starts around $780/mo and nice ones are $1300+. Try this site for what appears to be more accurate info:
http://austinapartments.info/2043.html
August 31st, 2009 at 10:33 am
I’ll keep you all up to date with what’s going on. I’m not sure how long this will take given that the job market is in horrific condition.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:34 am
bob, no that’s slightly over 2 months.
Disclaimer: I’m not judging your decisions, just correcting your (way off) facts.
I agree with you, if you cannot personally find happiness and stability in the bay area it would be a major mistake to purchase here. But then, why the rant on this real estate board? I know some people who feel the way you do (they don’t live in the nicer areas). But others (such as us) are stable and happy and purchased a place we like in the bay area. I don’t think there is any correlation between the two – stability versus purchasing in the bay area. These just happened to be incompatible for you.
Best of luck and may you be happy in your new place once you find it.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:45 am
I hadn’t realized Santa Clara http://www.movoto.com/statistics/ca/santa-clara.htm beats Palo Alto’s median days on market by 25%, with a lower absolute number of SFRs on sale despite 80% more people. Mountain View’s doing even better with a median of 40 days on market. What’s with the exodus, Palo Alto? Are the residents feeling more the strain than neighboring cities or do simply more of them want to cash out?
August 31st, 2009 at 11:00 am
Because there are more sellers in denial and expecting their wish-price in PA than SC.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:08 am
Good luck Bob. I will likely be following suit at some point, but I am waiting for this recession to come to an end and some modest growth to return to our economy.
My only advice to you is that, despite your disdain for the Bay Area (which I understand completely by the way), you may want to wait a little longer before enacting your job search.
This recession is broad based and I would be wary of relocating to a new area at a time when payrolls are still being slashed everywhere. I don’t think many on this forum, except for maybe Real Excreter, have any illusions that this recession is over with. All the data points to a double dip recession once the secondary wave of options ARMS and Alt-As begin to default. Couple that with the commercial real estate issues and we are probably looking at another 2-3 years of sluggishness before we finally reach normalcy. (Personally, this looks like the most obvious dead cat bounce I have ever seen!)
Personally, I am not overly concerned being in the Bay Area so long as I am a renter. My job appears to be quite stable, it pays well, and I am saving money hand over fist. (Once I had paid off my student loan debt!) So from my perspective, I don’t have too many qualms about sitting tight for another two years or so before I commit to a decision to vacate. I am pretty certain I will be leaving (although nothing is certain in life). But I would just feel more comfortable doing so on better terms when it comes to the job situation.
The other caveat to that is, if all goes well, my company has other offices in the country and I may be able to swing a transfer. Maybe that is something you may want to consider as well.
Regardless, best of luck to you.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:13 am
DreamT…. Correct away. Again, your link is a statistic and not meant to be a reliable factor in regards to the time it takes to sell a home. The argument is whom has more flexibility: Renters or owners. The renters in this case trumps the owners by far.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:22 am
bob – oh, I hadn’t realized your “6 month” was meant to be a reliable factor rather than a statistic!
And I thought you had shifted the argument from flexibility to stability. I must have serious comprehension problems.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:27 am
You can be within 30 miles
Unless you live in South San Jose. Then you’re 100-150 miles from thousands of jobs.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:41 am
thousandsmillions of jobsAugust 31st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
DreamT,
I’m done arguing about this. Again- I don’t really care. The sooner I can get out of this hell-hole the better.
August 31st, 2009 at 1:09 pm
bob – Good think you don’t care. I can’t begin to imagine the frequency of your burbed posting if you did.
August 31st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
um, just what is it you two are arguing about?
loll
August 31st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Bobs leaving
August 31st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
On my end, bob’s arithmetic. On his end, I think he’s just grumpy.
August 31st, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Bob,
Wow, here I come and see what? Moving to Austin? Well, I have seen you being harassed by others for not leaving BA and not liking BA. I think you do have a tendancy to give extreme figures while mentioning how you don’t like it in BA. But frankly, you don’t need to exaggerate when it comes to BA. Just say the facts and that will be it. Like I did several times in past .
August 31st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I don’t think we’re harassing him for not liking it here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion (unless you’re posting with the troll). We hope he’ll be happier elsewhere since the area does seem to make him grumpy.
August 31st, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Personally, I think this area makes most people grumpy.
Latest polls showed that 35% percent of Californians were ‘happy’ in this state. A massive drop from the high 70+% that the same poll used to show when taken in the 60s and 70s.
When it comes to the Bay Area, there are two types of people here: Those that got here early enough to capitalize on more reasonable housing at the time OR were lucky enough to strike it rich during the dot com mania. And those that didn’t.
Now I am all for people getting wealthy and enjoying their life. No qualms about that. But when a previous generation basically tilts the scales in their favor at the expense of the subsequent generation, that is frankly horsesh*t.
I have no illusions that housing here will eventually correct. But my suspicion is that California will see what Japan saw during it’s ‘lost decade’. A multi-year decline that affects many folks living in this state and a steady bleed of people from California to greener pastures elsewhere that aren’t currently on fire.
August 31st, 2009 at 5:18 pm
BAI, your “two types of people” theory is horsesh*t. The reason I know is I and pretty much everybody I know here belongs in your second category. And none of us are grumpy or unhappy the way bob is.
You want to see grumpy people, fly to CDG airport then take the Metro for a couple of hours, on a weekday. Then fly back to the Bay Area, and breathe a sigh of relief. Compared to France, Bay Area people shows a very sunny disposition, regardless of personal wealth.
Folks like you and others would do well to stop fixating on the few people who struck it big at one point, or who happened to have come earlier. What a sad way to go about your day! And I’ll repeat once again, you don’t need to be wealthy or earn six figures to enjoy life in the bay area. But it helps greatly not to be fixated on other people’s fortune.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Wow, I picked a GREAT day to show up! bob‘s announcing he’s had enough and he’s leaving
todaynext weekbefore the end of the yearat some point in the future, maybea yeareight years.Wait, stop me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t bob said something along those lines before? Maybe once? Or four times? Or four million?
And then
fremontrenteraustindweller just happens in for a visit? Clearly the Palo Alto homes’ wishing prices are generating psychic pull to this site. Or is it million of sites?DreamT, I cannot tell you how much you have dismayed me by leaving out the Sunnyvale stats. Clearly if Sunnyvale gets more respect than Santa Clara, then our homes should take longer to sell than yours, because our owners think they ought to be worth as much as the palaces in Palo Alto. Like in the millions or something. Or maybe we have millions.
My math gets so fuzzy when bob‘s trying to make a point. Or ten points. Or so many we’re going to need A Lewis to describe them. On millions of pages.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:25 pm
madhaus – I didn’t want to break the news, but here it is:
Santa Clara:
Maximum $/square feet: $865
Maximum Cost Per Bedroom: $474,500
Sunnyvale:
Maximum $/square feet: $798
Maximum Cost Per Bedroom: $449,666
That said, all other statistics are in your favor
http://www.movoto.com/statistics/ca/sunnyvale.htm
August 31st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
god is that madhaus? its been like a million years…
August 31st, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Bob: Bye-bye!
Remember– you can still post on burbed when you’re in Austin! (Or wherever)
August 31st, 2009 at 7:53 pm
“its been like a million years…”
Three millions if you’re bob.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:59 pm
I would be willing to bet that bob will still be around here several years.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:21 pm
We will have to hope so, Herve Estater. Otherwise, it’d be like Winnie-the-Pooh without Eeyore.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:35 pm
That said, all other statistics are in your favor
—–
All the credits go to the crappy part of Sunnyvale. 94085 is the new RBA (and 94087 is out).
In fact East Palo Alto is doing better than Palo Alto. Do you think burbed having EPA week was just an coincidence?
August 31st, 2009 at 8:43 pm
BAI, your “two types of people” theory is horsesh*t. The reason I know is I and pretty much everybody I know here belongs in your second category. And none of us are grumpy or unhappy the way bob is.
Interesting. You attempt a refutation of my assertion by indicating it is baseless because you are aware of “pretty much everybody you know” belonging to the second category.
Well, I know pretty much everybody in my general sphere of influence who fit into the second category who ARE grumpy and miserable. So I guess we live in two very different astral planes.
Compared to France, Bay Area people shows a very sunny disposition, regardless of personal wealth.
Oh good. The Dick Cheney stance of invoking France when attempting to convey your argument. You up for some Freedom Fries?
How about I fly to Austin, Atlanta, Ft. Collins, Seattle, Minneapolis, Denver, San Antonio, etc, etc, and find copious very happy and content people living comfortably on salaries that are a fraction of what we require here?
And I’ll repeat once again, you don’t need to be wealthy or earn six figures to enjoy life in the bay area. But it helps greatly not to be fixated on other people’s fortune
Oh, my SINCERE apologies. Clearly that type of pretentious and envious attitude is something totally foreign to Bay Area residents.
And yes, I agree. You don’t need to earn six figures in the Bay Area IF you were lucky enough to get in before this idiotic housing bubble took off. Or got in before Prop 13. But hey, what do I know. I’m just a grumpy Gus. Because anyone that is upset at the high cost of living and the skewed tax climate is obviously just a naysayer. Kind of reminds me of the “you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” false dichotomy I recall from the Bush years.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Oh, and unlike Dream T, allow me to back up my claims with data:
http://www.mydesert.com/article/20090806/NEWS10/908060313
The California dream has faded since the 1970s for many in the Golden State, according to a new Field Poll.
Just 41 percent of registered voters agree the state is “one of the best places to live,” a sharp drop from the 76 percent who thought so 30 years ago when Field first asked that question.
I know. Useless aggregate data, right?
August 31st, 2009 at 8:55 pm
BAI -
Yes we probably live in different astral planes. Or rather, you should consider that your social circle isn’t very representative of the bay area.
#1 – Well yes, AFAIK your assertion is wrong because if it wasn’t, I and the people I know wouldn’t exist
#2 – I’m from France. Duh. Don’t be so defensive. I have been to Atlanta and Seattle and I prefer to live here, but I didn’t notice whether people were any happier or less happy there versus here (Atlanta struck me as mightily segregated, though). On the other hand, if you stop by Paris you’ll see what I mean.
#3 – You don’t seem to know much about being happy on the cheap in the bay area, it’s true. But please don’t be so offended. I’m not trying to shoot you down, I just happen to disagree with you based on personal experience.
Frankly, invoking Cheney and Bush is a bit out there, similar to the Nazi rule in the discussion groups of the 90s. I was expecting a little more rational of a response from you, BAI.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Or rather, you should consider that your social circle isn’t very representative of the bay area
Good to know. Guess I must obviously just associate with the lower crust of society. Who would consider a statement like that to be elitist?
On the other hand, if you stop by Paris you’ll see what I mean
Been to Paris and I never saw the behavior you were alluding to. Perhaps you just lived in the wrong part of Paris….
Frankly, invoking Cheney and Bush is a bit out there, similar to the Nazi rule in the discussion groups of the 90s. I was expecting a little more rational of a response from you, BAI.
Interesting that the invocation of Bush & Cheney immediately conjures Nazi analogies with you. I was expecting a little more of an even keeled response from you.
No worries about me being offended though. This is an internet blog and I seldom take people’s personas on this forum at face value.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:21 pm
You want to see grumpy people, fly to CDG airport then take the Metro for a couple of hours, on a weekday.
You mean Michael Moore’s depiction of France as a worker’s Utopia (in Sicko) wasn’t a true depiction? I’m aghast. (LOL) He made it sound so damn wonderful, what with the free healthcare and child care…
August 31st, 2009 at 9:38 pm
fly to CDG airport then take the Metro for a couple of hours, on a weekday.
——
I guess people become grumpy when they go underground. No different in NYC subways.
In any case, my Paris metro experience in different, even in weekdays. I felt it very lively. But that’s probably due to the fact that I grew up in big city with multi-millions people (yes, that’s real “million”). Being grumpy is very normal thing there – except when they go underground. Because air-conditioned metros are definitely more comfortable than hot-humid outside.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:49 pm
multi-millions people
Then you must mean billions, yes?
August 31st, 2009 at 9:49 pm
> In any case, my Paris metro experience in different, even in weekdays.
Being stuck somewhere during rush hours isn’t fun, be it in Paris, London, Los Angeles, NYC, Bunus or on 101… I’ve been to all these places (except one) and I never really had any problem. And at least you get to see people there, not like here where most people drive from their driveway to their office without meeting any living soul.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:56 pm
I have moved around every 2-3 years over the last 20 years. I have to admit that bay area despite all of its problems, is still the only place that I’d like to call home, although I enjoyed it more back in the late 90s when I was single and didn’t have to worry about buying a RBA property that has high API scores.
If you guys can find a place that can stack up to the bay area in terms of weather, jobs, diversity, please let me know. Austin is way too hot for me.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Wow BAI you do sound like a troll now
but I’ll entertain your post once more.
#1. “Guess I must obviously just associate with the lower crust of society.”
Why the nasty response? I’m pointing out you associate with people who are unhappy with their lot, but there are positive people out there who aren’t any wealthier but who are happy. But you’re right, selecting positive, happy friends only does smack of elitism.
#2. “Been to Paris and I never saw the behavior you were alluding to. Perhaps you just lived in the wrong part of Paris….”
Unlikely, since I never lived in Paris. And I was specific as to the place to check: CDG itself, then CDG to Paris (which technically is RER not Metro). Anyway, let’s move on. As Pralay justly points out, grumpiness stands out more if you’re not from the city.
#3. “Interesting that the invocation of Bush & Cheney immediately conjures Nazi analogies with you.”
No, it conjured Godwin’s law. That law is even-keeled as far as I know.
#4. “I seldom take people’s personas on this forum at face value.”
If that means you ended your post by calling me a liar, I don’t need to respond further. Should you feel the need, you can have burbed confirm that I can be taken at face value, not that you’d care I suspect.
BAI, your attempts at sarcasm sound very bitter in addition to being off.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:03 pm
> You don’t seem to know much about being happy on the cheap in the bay area
Indeed you don’t need to spend a fortune around here. Take for instance this restaurant.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:09 pm
#54 & #55 – I haven’t seen Sicko. But I think the grumpy looks in public are a combination of snobbery and fear of aggression. I also suspect that growing up in a culture awash with more entitlements generally causes greater unhappiness with one’s lot unless you are lucky enough to see it from outside the box by being immersed in other cultures. In any case, every time I visit, I’m struck by the gloomy faces, but maybe it’s just me:)
August 31st, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Bob: Did you get downsized? If so, are you sure moving to those other locales will solve your problem? If not, it may still be too early in the game to make this announcement.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:18 pm
DreamT: Why is it that every time you post, stink comes out? Who are you to judge others? Stick to the topics and chill, man!
August 31st, 2009 at 10:23 pm
“Who are you to judge others?”
Absolutely none of your business, baby troll.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Indeed you don’t need to spend a fortune around here. Take for instance this restaurant.
—–
Well, that’s not technically restaurant. It’s re-fueling station for furniture shoppers. It enables shoppers to shop more with more calorie.
September 1st, 2009 at 6:35 am
DT,
Sorry to side with the troll you point out here. But you yourself sound a bit more grumpy than BAI and Bob. You can ask me the same question the “Top Dog” asked you, but you do sound more grumpy. And DT, your personal anecdotes don’t make those in BA happy as much as BAI’s don’t make them sad. I for one lived there for 2 years was making hugh sums(compared to the median houshold), but hated my stay there. The hugh sum did not make much bang for the buck in BA. And we both had to travel and work long hours. According to me, there is a class strucutre in BA. You are either rich or poor. If you are not rich, you are poor.
That said, we have had our disagreements before about what you get in BA for 150K is something that can be achieved with 80k outside. So I’ll not bring those up here. But I have just tell you that the “BA bubble” has already burst and I see people/companies moving out already. This process will continue for a while (10 years.) It’s going to be slow and crappy ride and not fun if you are not already rich. One can stick there hoping to be a millionaire flipping a house, and may be he would in next 10 years. But that is completely upto government printing money and how much they print. May be, being a millionaire will lose its meaning in the coming decade. The 10 millionaire would be the new millionaire.
September 1st, 2009 at 6:44 am
hugh = huge
September 1st, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I’m not sure why my decision came as a surprise. I’ve been saying I wanted to move for years. I have also been doing a lot of research in terms of traveling and seeing these places. I’ve been to Atlanta, Raleigh Duraham and Chapel Hill NC, Nashville, and Austin. The reaction I got from the people I met were similar: Many were from similarly expensive metros, had moved there and pretty much wished that had done it sooner because the move had drastically improved their lives.
I’ve also been paying keen attention to the differences between these areas and the two coastal metros I have lived in. There’s a stark contrast between the two.
First of all, its super clear that the bulk of the wealth in the US is on the coasts. Cities like NYC, SF, Boston, and San Diego are littered with wealthy people whom pay lots of money to live in the choicest bits. Everyone else subsequently pays more as a result because the top bar has been set so high. Additionally something like 67% of the US population lives crammed on these two coasts as well. With that comes immense strain on the infrastructure. Its also means degradation of public services.
I witnessed this on the east coast and here. Old, crumbling schools, roads full of pot holes and patches, non-stop budget problems, and so on. Lots of brick and mortar businesses closing down and so on. But when I visit these other cities, not to say they are perfect, but all in all they are much newer, much healthier looking, and growing more positively with the right kinds of people doing it. These “new” metros, which are primarily in the Southeast are being settled primarily by middle class families and younger professionals. If you look back at history, any given state or country benefits when their population tends to be middle class. In general an environment like that is more stable. State income is more reliable as well, which means more money for things like schools and roads. The last time I visited my parents there were two new middle schools and a total renovation of the high school. These were real school buildings. Not trailers like you see around here.
But we can talk statistics all day long. Perhaps its because I’m actually from there but whenever I visit the region it just generally seems that the overall quality of life compared to the Bay Area is a lot better. Its almost like being on another planet. Yes- you can have a regular job making a regular $50k-$60k salary and buy a regular 3 bedroom house with a typical half-acre or so of land, and get to work fairly easily on freeways that are constantly maintained and smooth as marble. The last time I was home downtown was booming. There were 2 breweries, numerous night clubs, a couple of Japanese joints, art galleries, a few new museums, several live music venues, and so on. Its like the city has come back to life where it was dead when I was little. The last time I was home I again asked myself why I was bothering to stay in the Bay Area when I could be having a much easier life elsewhere.
In summary, the new region where you will see the most vibrant economic growth isn’t going to be the coasts or the midwest as it was pre-1950′s. The growth will be in the Southeast as it already is for the most part. Again- its not because of the weather. Its because its a region where families can still live reasonable lives without severe financial investment. That’s it.
Am I wrong? No more than I am right. I gather many here are from other large metros and thus are used to the pace here. If that’s all you know then you probably have a different opinion. But we Southerners generally like to take things down just a few notches, sip our iced teas, and sit on the porch watching the sun go down. I’ve been away from that state of mind for way too long. I’ll appreciate everything the BA has given me. I’ve saved enough to do pretty reasonably elsewhere and learned an awful lot in my line of work that will be invaluable elsewhere.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:57 pm
In summary, the new region where you will see the most vibrant economic growth isn’t going to be the coasts or the midwest as it was pre-1950’s. The growth will be in the Southeast as it already is for the most part. Again- its not because of the weather. Its because its a region where families can still live reasonable lives without severe financial investment. That’s it.
That is SPOT ON. Summarizes the situation very well.
The major problem that I see is that everyone is expecting this transition to happen tomorrow. It won’t. This will be a slow bleed. Which is why I was alluding to what happened to Japan during its Lost Decade as a good frame of reference to what is occurring in California. A stock market boom and bust followed by a real estate boom and bust. The similarities are striking.
But as bob indicated, it all comes down to cost. California is too expensive relative to other areas, both foreign and domestic. Why do you think Intel closed shop here? Or Nissan? Or Toyota? All companies that had a foothold here for many years.
I think the real direness of the situation will become more apparent when they realize this Web 2.0 phenomenon is little more that dot com part 2. A marketing gimmick, nothing more. As that wears off and people begin to look for other areas to go into, they will find most of those have vacated the Bay Area for greener pastures elsewhere. Couple all this with a moronic tax system and an impotent legislature, and you have the recipe for a nice, protracted down turn.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just grumpy.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:59 pm
#4. “I seldom take people’s personas on this forum at face value.”
If that means you ended your post by calling me a liar, I don’t need to respond further. Should you feel the need, you can have burbed confirm that I can be taken at face value, not that you’d care I suspect.
Wow. Now THERE’S a stretch if I ever saw one. Makes Sarah Palin’s ‘Death Panel’ remark actually seem viable.
You need some cheese to go with that ‘whine’ DreamT?
September 1st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
But when I visit these other cities, not to say they are perfect, but all in all they are much newer, much healthier looking, and growing more positively with the right kinds of people doing it.
But bob, it’s different here!
But on a more serious note – the “right kinds of people doing it?” But they’re the ones who are moving from the coasts, right? That’s what you said anyway. Are you sure they’re the “right” people?
These were real school buildings. Not trailers like you see around here.
I always wondered why CA schools were allowed to be so shitty. That is, when I first moved here; now I understand Prop 13. I’m sure the fact that other places get damn cold has something to do with the lack of trailers too though.
The last time I was home I again asked myself why I was bothering to stay in the Bay Area when I could be having a much easier life elsewhere.
I think this sums it up really well. You want a simpler, easier life. The grind here is too much for your taste. Hope you find what you’re looking for.
So BAI, how come you stay? Are you a native, want to try to help turn CA around, or what?
September 1st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I do not post much, but I just wanted to opine that I appreciate reading Bob and austindweller’s posts.
Let’s not chase them off the boards as A. Lewis was.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:56 pm
So BAI, how come you stay? Are you a native, want to try to help turn CA around, or what?
I kind of touched on this before. It’s essentially just bad timing. I am not native; originally from Michigan. Moved here in 1998. Got stuck here after the dot com bubble burst and due to the fact that I was getting my masters. Once I completed that, I was comfortable with my existing job although I had attempted to transfer to another office outside of the Bay Area. Once I had cleared my student loan debt and built up a decent set of years of experience, the housing bubble burst and a recession the likes of the Great Depression hit us.
So for now, being that the job market is still tenuous and the unemployment level is still high, I opt to ride out the storm here. So two things will happen in the next two years or so from my perspective.
1) Housing prices correct to normal levels here and I decide to stay.
2) Housing continues to flounder and the Bay Area continues to hemorrhage people and I decide to vacate.
That latter is the more likely scenario from my perspective.
So yes, I am grumpy. But it should only last another two years or so.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
So for now, being that the job market is still tenuous and the unemployment level is still high,
—–
Come on! Things are not all that bad. Even semi-skilled laborer are earning $100K nowadays:
And they all are competing with foreigners and buying RBA homes with cash.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I saw that too, Pralay. Was thinking I should’ve been a nurse – except I don’t really like people.
A San Francisco nurse took home nearly $183,000 worth of overtime with a base salary of $132,740.
Thanks for the reminder, BAI. I remember your earlier posts now. Try not to let “grumpy” get the best of you.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Man, I missed a juicy thread. Thanks for all the long posts. Made for some good reading. I laughed, I cried, I was angry and I was happy. Burbed delivers again.
Is the following comment complement, criticism, or something else?
I value Bob’s opinion just as much as I value DreamT’s.
My assertion is that housing prices in the Bay Area are tied to current beliefs, not to fundamentals. I think this is a collective mistake, but I accept it’s the way it is for now.
Bob doesn’t believe in the California dream anymore. DreamT still does. Their perceptions of the Bay Area are quite different, though they live and work not very far from each other, and are similar enough to have ended up on this blog together.
DreamT would be pay more for the same house than Bob would.
I think Bob has exaggerated many times on this blog, but his posts in this thread didn’t seem very hyperbolic to me – I think he can complain about housing costs here if he wants, and it’s relevant.
DreamT, you bought long enough ago to have taken full advantage of the bubble and be sitting on (some of) that equity, while facing nothing close to the hurdle of today’s first-time buyers.
That puts you in a separate, privileged class who has shut the gate behind them, so I have a hard time listening to your statements about you and the circle of people you know, and who’s happy with what. And how Bob is out of touch with a minority view.
I am known to be grumpy also. Frustrated with housing prices also. I’m not where Bob is at, I’m happier and more content and wouldn’t look for a job elsewhere at this point. But I think he makes a lot of sense.
I, and I think many other Californians, are looking to see if the grass is greener elsewhere. So far I say no. Bob says yes. But it used to be I wouldn’t even have looked – I would just know I’m in my dream location. Not so…
The system built to favor the rich, entrenched property-owners (Prop. 13) has succeeded in entrenching them, and screwing up the state so badly people are starting to leave it.
It can be salvaged – oh yes it can – I still believe in the California dream. But it’s been losing ground for a while, and it needs to be gaining. Maybe Bob thinks it won’t recover, or not in his working lifetime, so why hang around for the tears? Makes a lot of sense.
And don’t take this the wrong way, Bob, but it’s better for me if a bunch of people make the same decision as you as get out of Dodge. If demand falls, the collective belief will change, and maybe people will start trading each other the same goods (houses) at prices closer linked to fundamentals.
Also, traffic will be better, and less competition for the good jobs.
We’ll still need to fix the tax code, because less people means less revenues, but it can be done. Less people also means less services to provide.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Guess what people!
The grass is greener. Please leave.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:40 pm
#77 was a much shorter, better version of #76. I still, obviously, have no handle on this brevity thing…
September 1st, 2009 at 4:47 pm
How about just wait for another 4 – 5 years and let this correction happen. We had a housing bubble that started roughly around 1998 and lasted until roughly mid 2007; I think it’s hard to believe the bubble would deflate in only two years. Make yourself comfortable in your cost effective rental, enjoy life and the ammenities of the Bay Area, and be prepared with as much cash as possible when the correction occurs in the more desirable mid to high areas.
I think the grumpy people on this blog have a right to be grumpy. Easy credit and fraudulant lending rewarded buyers that bought outside their means. I know several acqaintances that make less than $100k/yr and bought homes in the $700k range, these people are barely scraping by, and will eventually default. These are people that should never have got in these homes and are the ones that drove up the unsustainable prices. The prudent Americans are the ones truly punished by this bubble and will again be punished when it’s time to pay for this mess through taxes and inflation.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Re # 76:
A. Lewis,
Very well stated. I think you encompassed the stance perfectly. Which is what I was trying to convey to DreamT earlier.
September 1st, 2009 at 5:53 pm
austindweller – I didn’t realize I sounded grumpy:) In any case my personal anecdotes were just offered to disprove the idea that unless you earn 6 figures in the BA you’re condemned to be unhappy. Sorry but I strongly stand by this statement and I guess disagree with everyone else. Maybe it’s because I didn’t move to the Bay Area to strike it rich in the first place, but for reasons of the heart, whereas everything I read on this thread today seems to link happiness with money…
A. – Glad to see you back. When I bought in Santa Clara (Dec. 2005) it was pretty much considered close to the top of the bubble by then already and a lot of people were sitting out or (like us) had to compromise on their city of choice. It’s strange to be told now that I took full advantage of the bubble
especially when you read that prices are back to 1999-2003 levels!
BAI – why all the aggression from you since I wrote #41? Why don’t say straight what bothered you in that post instead of enumerating politicians I could care less about?
September 1st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
BAI # 70 – So, fine I didn’t understand the expression. Chill
plz. explain what you meant
September 1st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
austindweller #66 – I probably never made enough $ to even be exposed to a ‘class structure’ in the bay area. Ignorance is bliss.
September 1st, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I can’t compete with anon’s concision, but the general argument from the “grumpy” camp seems to be:
1) buyers are morons; they should rent
2) I hate it here because I can’t afford a house. Prop 13 and loose credit are to blame.
not recongnizing the inconsistency of that position. As A Lewis suggests, housing prices are driven partly by psychology and this thread emphasizes how important people believe it is to own — so much so that lack of ownership is creating misery.
It has always been expensive in the RBA, or at least since I first took note of prices 25 years ago. Rents, however, haven’t been so bad, espcially compared to the underlying cost of ownership and prices in other metro area (chicago, NYC, boston, DC). That’s prop 13 little gift to renters.
You should live where you are happy. If you like to enjoy the outdoors, have an interest in food and wine, like skiing and the coast and have lived here long enough to have a collection of *friends* and family here, I would think renter or owner, you’d be happy here. If those things don’t apply to you, follow anon’s advice. However, don’t think the Austin or some other wanna be tech mecca is going to outstrip SV anytime soon when it comes to wealth creation. CA is the a gold miner’s paradise, and the next rush is always around the corner.
September 1st, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Bob: Is your issue having more to do with not liking to rent, or is it due to not liking the part of Bay Area you are in? It doesn’t sound like it’s the former, since you said renting gives you more flexibility. If it’s the latter, do you really need to leave California to solve that problem? Just submit your 30 day notice and move to a better city. If you got down-sized, then I can understand the timing.
September 1st, 2009 at 6:47 pm
hey look where’s real estater?
eh, he’s probably just trying to sound out post 4.
September 1st, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Steve: You captured it well. People are grumpy for two reasons: 1. They hate to rent. 2. Buyers are morons and should rent.
In other words: I’d like to buy. Why don’t you rent? Thus, the prevalent thinking that: Market must, will, have to crash, so that I can buy a house.
September 1st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Gosh, and all this time I figured everyone is grumpy because they have to work.
I’m sure its because they have to rent from the landlord as opposed to rent from the bank.
September 1st, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Gosh, and all this time I figured everyone is grumpy because they have to work.
—-
Not really. Some people enjoy working till 2AM to earn frequent flyer miles.
anon, please understand.
September 1st, 2009 at 7:51 pm
#85 – what is your obsession with bob, dude? He’s been talking about leaving from Day 1. Don’t be a dick.
Did anyone follow #87? Maybe I left my comprehension skills at the office.
I agree with anon – I’m grumpy because I worked all day. Should’ve bought a lottery ticket last week.
September 1st, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Did anyone follow #87? Maybe I left my comprehension skills at the office.
—–
His first para describes himself. This is how:
Everybody knows RealEstater/Top-Dog hates to rent. He hates to rent himself and he hates to rent out to someone else (and that’s why he is not buying his investment property).
Of course RealEstater/Top-Dog is moron. Any doubt?
September 1st, 2009 at 8:15 pm
nomadic: How do you construe #85 as obsession? I can’t comprehend either.
Don’t be grumpy. You saw that lottery for the Los Altos Hills house?
September 1st, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Oh oh, the grumpy troublemaker is back with his RealEstater obsession.
September 1st, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Yes, I am troublemaker – for you ONLY, troll.
September 1st, 2009 at 8:22 pm
The only time you address bob is to needle him about whether he lost his job. Not cool. Then again, this has been a pretty contentious thread so I’m probably over-reacting.
As for the LAH lottery – yes, I posted it here more than three weeks ago. It’s existence doesn’t improve my mood; not sure why it would.
September 1st, 2009 at 8:24 pm
shit, now I lost my grammar skills too. (Ignore the apostrophe in “it’s” above please.)
September 1st, 2009 at 8:27 pm
The only time you address bob is to needle him about whether he lost his job.
—–
I think the root cause is Pralay. Top Dog is incapable of doing so. He is the victim.
September 1st, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Pralay: Next time you try to fake as me, don’t forget to change your avatar.
September 1st, 2009 at 9:28 pm
The only time you address bob is to needle him about whether he lost his job. Not cool.
I posted many things and you are focusing on only that question. Not cool either. The reason I ask is because it is relevant to his decision to move. If he still has a job, I would tell him his job is more important than whether he gets to own a house at this time.
September 1st, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Pralay: Next time you try to fake as me, don’t forget to change your avatar.
—–
Too bad, Top Dog mistakenly thought his fake post as his own post, despite the quoting style. Fortunately gravatar provided him clue. How intelligent!
September 1st, 2009 at 9:44 pm
I have no intention to fake you, RealEstater. In #97, I was just faking your whining style.
Just trying to be real “troublemaker” – only for you.
September 1st, 2009 at 9:51 pm
I posted many things
—-
For example?
For example, “road rage” with DT in #63?
Hmmmm, “many things”.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Pralay: The reason you are faking me is because you think I am your arch enemy. You need some serious detox for your obsession.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
The reason you are faking me is because you think I am your arch enemy.
——
If that enmity translates to making fun of you, that’s definitely healthy enmity. Don’t you enjoy it, apart from enjoying 2AM work for frequent flyer miles?
September 1st, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Top Dog, I ate at your hot dog stand in berkeley a couple times in the 90s.
not too bad…
September 1st, 2009 at 11:02 pm
I hope you tipped him enough – in million pennies.
September 1st, 2009 at 11:23 pm
nah – hot dog guys are totally overpaid.
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:21 am
DT #83,
I don’t understand. And you misunderstood me too. Your income is irrelevant to “whether you understand what class you belong to”. Understand or not, if you are not already sitting on a cash pile or forsee yourself sitting on one, BA living quality is pretty below ordinary for the income that is considered pretty good outside. But as to class, I could see the class division when I was there. There is that privileged class that can throw dollars at any inconvinienve and lead a comfortable life and the middle calls that cannot afford to do that and has to subsist like poor class. So in effect middle class enjoys(?) what poor class does.
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:29 am
> the middle calls that cannot afford to do that and has to subsist like poor class
Do you really believe what you just wrote?
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:44 am
You know what? We seem to actually be having a pretty civil conversation here. Yay for us! Anyhow, I read all the posts from what I missed. I can only speak from my personal experiences and from my opinions.
First of all Nomadic, What I was getting at with the right kind of people remark is that its more of an historical pattern of growth and development in the US in general.
In the 1900′s-1940′s the growth was in the East Coast because lots of immigrants moved from Europe with their myriad trades and specialties. Then it started to become too expensive. California was basically almost completely rural prior to WW2. LA and SF were pretty much podunk navy towns. After WW2 millions of GIs and migrants moved to California. California enjoyed robust growth both in regards to the volume of people and the amount of financial growth due to a combination of military project investment and the subsequent technology that grew out of government programs like the space, defense, and military-based computer requirements of the day. This phenomenal growth lasted well into the 80′s as defense technology transitioned to consumer retail technology.
But every empire falls and California’s problems became compounded when:
A: Too many people moved in which naturally creates competition, and
B: This competition coupled with shortsighted anti-growth laws and tax bills
C: Which led to demand for higher salaries which further encouraged higher home prices and higher costs of living
D: Which in turn eventually created a two-tier social strata where there was more severe differences between the buying power of the rich and the middle class where the middle class ultimately became the “new” working class.
The Midwest too had problems on a different scale. Places like Detroit enjoyed monumental growth for decades with a plethora of manufacturing thanks to a massive influx of workers from the Southeast, which at the time was massively destitute. The Midwest enjoyed solid economic growth until Unions became too costly to enable these companies to compete globally, which in turn led to shoddy products and corner-cutting, which only aggravated problems further. I recently took a trip to Detroit. The city has the appearance of a bombed-out city in Europe in WW2. What was once a city full of some of the greatest art deco buildings in the world and the world’s largest companies is now a burnt-out shell.
Enter the Southeast. It has never had its day in the sun. It has for the most part been the butt of jokes, the place where ignorant, racist hayseeds live. Where the weather and preachers will get you. Where the only music is country music. But over the past 2 decades it has quietly been growing. First came the automakers in the 80′s and 90′s. Then came the pharmaceutical companies. Then the tech companies, and then the healthcare, legal firms, and cable TV companies. Almost every city I’ve visited in the past 2-3 years is being fixed up. Old neighborhoods revitalized. New subdivisions built along with new schools, industrial parks, and museums.
And again, when I visit I ask people at bars, restaurants, and the people I still know ho live there about their impressions, the response is primarily positive, that they enjoy a high quality of life, that they came from somewhere else and are living much better in their new city, and that they are awfully glad to have made the decision. Lastly, you don’t get this sort of angry, pissed off, bitter attitude that I feel is always percolating amongst people in the BA. That and every conversation doesn’t land on houses. I was at a party recently and ALL the people talked about was houses, houses, houses- about how someday they were going to buy a home in such-and-such neighborhood because either it was in an up and coming neighborhood, or that it was close to good schools, or that they had just bought a house and had to figure out how to pay for it, and so on. Its obsessive. Personally I’d rather have the conversations that I had when I was back home, which was about stupid stuff, like fishing trips, where to eat, how to get rid of hornets, or a story about an old Uncle or whatnot.
So again- if you look at migratory patterns…. and we are a country that does migrate, the latest pattern is heading towards the Southeast for the same reasons the headed to the East Coast, the West Coast, and the Midwest: to seek better opportunities for their futures.
Sorry for the looooonnnng post!
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:26 am
austindweller – you simply had a bad living quality experience here. What you describe isn’t at all what I’ve experienced since moving it with $0 in the bank, in ’98. We were able to enjoy our time just like we are able to enjoy now – the $ in the bank only has a marginal effect on living quality, and still does. Not sure if it’s personal consumption patterns but our difference of opinion is really striking and will probably never converge.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:29 am
bob – the conversations you relish are the ones I have every day here. And from past statements you made, your household earns more than mine. This is why I suggested to expand one’s social circle accordingly. There’s nothing elitist about it: reading you guys, it feels like the more money one has in the BA, the unhappier on is (probably because the expectations of what you could afford with the higher income aren’t met – but then the problem is your expectations in the first place)
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:56 am
DreamT, my apologies for carelessness. Somehow in my mind you bought in 1998-2001 timeframe, and I was flat-out wrong (you’ve posted at least twice on this, and I couldn’t be bothered to look it up). Please strike my comment based on that fallacy.
We should all respect DreamT’s position that he is happy, often, and has happy friends, in spite of the housing calamity and other CA problems. Now if DreamT comes across as condescending or a know it all or something else, well – just don’t be afraid to stand behind your own opinion as firmly as DreamT does.
Following a response above – my plan is exactly to wait out the housing bubble. That’s why I continue to rent.
And for Top Dog: as stated clearly in the past, I would prefer to own, all things being equal. I don’t hate renting – I dislike some aspects of it, and like some others. They are far outweighed by other negatives of owning in the BA since 2001.
And you could paraphrase my position as most owners who bought during the bubble were morons, though I don’t use the word moron lightly. I’d say they made a bad financial decision driven by group-belief not based on fundamentals.
If prices drop another 25% in mid to high-end areas, I think that would prove me right. Foreclosing on a property that is in decent shape, in a nice neighborhood, shouldn’t happen to prudent homebuyers. If it does, you overpaid massively, misjudged the market, and you should have rented instead (or bought somewhere).
Buying in a sane price range, at a sane multiple of your income, is a perfectly good idea.
Renting when said conditions aren’t met is also a perfectly good idea.
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 am
bob, your “A. Lewis-like” post makes sense. I wouldn’t blame Detroit’s problems on the unions though. Sure, they played a big role but management should share that burden. It really is a shame to see some great architecture there crumbling away.
Funny too about your social circle obsessing over housing. I can honestly say I’ve never gone to a party and had (or heard) a conversation about buying or selling property.
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 am
DreamT,
I started out making crap wages when I got here. As in like $7 an hour working in a warehouse. I can definitely tell you I wasn’t pleased back then and it was financially stressful. I did Joe jobs for years. I didn’t eat out, buy new clothes, new cars, or anything. I recall reallllyyy wanting a new Ford Mustang. Prior to that I worked all through college also, being a busboy, a paint mixer, and a window repair guy where I regularly cut the hell out of myself doing it. I did jobs like these for almost 10 years. I look back and it was not the best of times because I was totally broke.
Then I got a good paying job and it was like: “Holy crap that’s a lotta’ money!” After working my rear off doing menial tasks for years it was like winning the lottery. Buying a house before that was totally out of the question. After the good jobs, I started thinking about it but was quickly disgusted to see just how little this newfound income would actually go. I almost immediately recognized that working for say- 5-6 years making this good income, living frugally, and making preparations would mean the ability to move elsewhere and not necessarily be rich, but basically have a stable living situation.
So for me its never been that I was pissed because I couldn’t afford a starter home here, its just that I didn’t want to play the game. The homes to me are not worth it. For others they are. For me its just a house and the less I can pay just to have a wooden box to store my crap, the easier it’ll be for me to take more time to go do the stuff I really want to do, like go hiking and hanging out at the lake and drink a few beers.
That’s just it. We’re all here constantly spouting are opinions and expecting others to agree or perhaps at least persuade. That’s not going to happen and nothing I am saying likely makes sense to others who have a different idea of how to live as well as a different set of values.
Anyway, I just got contacted by a company in Austin.They like what they see. Now its kind of scary because I just might be getting ready to do exactly what I said I was going to do. If so… there’s a hell of a lot of work ahead.
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:45 am
Congratulations, bob! Enjoy Austin if it works out – your dream come true and you’re not even 40.
Some day we’ll need a thread of all the free or dirt-cheap ways to enjoy the bay area. We could fill pages with material.
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:53 am
A. – I think your post is unnecessarily harsh towards the large amount of people who could not find a job for six months or more and ended up losing their house. For most, the inability to meet monthly payments is a cash-flow issue more than an asset price issue.
As for whether a financial decision is good or bad, I am still mystified how one can make that judgment call in a vacuum – without considering the person’s situation and priorities.
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Ehh.. Its not a done deal yet. So no celebrations yet. But… I could probably fill pages on how to live cheap in the BA alone. I won’t bore people, but I’ll list a few things.
1: Keep cars as long as possible and go for Hondas and Toyotas. Most of what these 2 companies make will go minimum 200,000-250,000 miles, but the thing to remember is that miles have nothing to do with condition. Learn to do your own maintenance and if you do it right, a car will last for a very long time. Learn to do the hard stuff too, like changing timing belts, brakes, clutches, and spark plugs. Even the most difficult jobs can be done on a Saturday or the worst- over the weekend. I replaced a timing belt recently. Dealer cost: $1,200. My cost: $250. Well worth it. The same with a clutch. Just keep this in mind: Your Bay Area car is just a commuter vehicle. As such it isn’t meant to be sexy. Its just there to get you around and you’re probably going to put many, many miles on it before you move out the area… if you plan on doing that. Once you move, THEN you can get the cool car because you’re probably not going to have as bad of a commute. So perhaps then it makes sense to get a Mustang or some other ridiculous car.
2: Food. Buy in bulk and eat in often. Of course part of the fun of the BA is the food and wine scene. But you can even go cheap in those areas. Resturaunts usually have occasional “eat out on the town” events where prices are half off. That way you can get your fancy-dancy meal once, twice a year. As far as wine goes, the secret is to stay away from the famous places like Napa and parts of Sonoma. Some of the suburbs like Livermore have some of the best wine I’ve had and its generally cheap… as in $8-$10 for a good bottle of wine that is sometimes better than the $45 bottles in Napa. There are many small mom-n-pop wineries off the beaten path. They are generally more interesting or better anyway.
2: Clothes. Often times you can find shoes, shirts, and pants at Goodwill or the Salvation Army that have not even been worn. I have some dress shoes that still had the tags. They cost me $5. Not bad considering they were $100 Kenneth Coles.
3: Household stuff. You don’t have to have flatscreen TV’s, new stereos, or fancy furniture, especially if you’re moving someday anyway. Not sure about now, but back in the day finding perfectly nice furniture on the road was easy. Avoid buying appliances and other stuff that can either be had cheap at flea markets or yard sales. Remember- these are meant to be gotten rid of quick if you are moving. But if you’re not, this still applies because as soon as you buy something new from a store, its immediately worthless. Why blow the money?
That’s all I can think of now.
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
A Mustang is a ridiculous car? Say isn’t so! My Detroit roots are mighty disappointed.
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
To state it another way: I’m grumpy because so many middle-to-upper income people bought into the housing bubble frenzy that they needlessly drove prices up. If people as a whole had said, “whoa, there’s no reason to pay 10% more than the comp 3 months ago, let’s put in a lower offer, honey”, then everyone, including me, could have been winners (except some real estate agents who got more commissions). Much more modest winners, merely sitting on modestly appreciating homes, instead of greedy fools expecting 10%/yr on a home that needs maintenance.
And Prop. 13 is a HUGE part of how we ended up where we are now. But it’s not just the cap on property tax increases, it’s the 2/3 votes for tax increases, which is making CA ungovernable – and thus bankrupt. I wouldn’t lend CA money right now.
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
bob – food, transportation, wine, clothing… These are all relevant points but they are true anywhere, and consumption items won’t make you happier in the long term unless you’re RealEstater or save for one or two exceptions (watching projected movies at home is hard to beat).
I was thinking more along the lines of how to enjoy your Friday evening or weekend in the bay area. There’s an amazing range of things one can do that won’t interest tourists at all but can make for great “living quality” You gotta enjoy the outdoors though, as steve pointed out
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
#117 – If you lose your job, but bought a house with good bones at a reasonable price, with 20% down, you should be able to sell it and pay off the loan no problem. That’s how real estate is supposed to work. That’s how it has worked most of the time in most of the country.
If your house has dropped so far you’re underwater, you made a bad choice paying that price for it. That’s the harsh judgment I’m making. That’s why I call it a bubble.
If the neighborhood is good, if the house doesn’t suddenly develop termites or pervasive dry rot, there’s no reason it should drop significantly in price…unless of course you massively overpaid for it.
I have utter sympathy for losing one’s job and do not judge people for that.
It’s only because prices got so very ridiculously high that I can blanket judge so many properties in a vacuum. It’s not like just a few of the houses in the neighborhood sold at inflated prices…
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
#114 – are you serious? No one you know ever talks about buying/selling real estate? OK, if you say so.
I wouldn’t say every party or social gathering I attend is dominated by it, but it was certainly a VERY popular topic during the turnover and start of the housing bust (depending on your neighborhood – sometime in the last 2 years).
And lots of folks now are consumed by the prices in their area, b/c either one spouse lost a job or may lose it, or they are looking towards the rate-reset on an option-ARM, or worse, a recast because with the lower housing values, they may have hit 125% LTV. That only applies to some fraction of the people I know, but they sure seem interested in the topic of home values in their neighborhood.
And as a prospective buyer, who is waiting, I certainly keep an eye on home sales, inventory, DOM, etc., and talk with people about it locally.
Other friends bought 15 years ago and could care less. They can afford their home and want to talk about hiking, or sailing, or seeing a play, or whatever else. Others sets of my friends would rather talk about sports, or video games. Bay Area diversity! But housing talk is in the mix, for sure.
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
A. In a normal real estate market it takes months to sell a property. The peninsula’s real estate market has never been “normal”. Santa Clara’s current 45 days median is exceedingly short compared to national averages (correct me if I’m wrong). It’s in the markets that typically don’t bubble, where you’ll have a harder time selling a property. And by harder time, I mean “normal” i.e. months. So, if you lose your job in a bad job market, you pretty much must decide to sell your house immediately as a preemptive measure to avoid possible foreclosure. That’s not the way it should be but it’s a reality outside of the BA peninsula more so than it is here.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
DT,
Actually I kind of enjoy being cheap. Its sort of like a game. My grandad was a cheap bastard who would use house paint to paint his truck every 10 years or so. He bought a lot of groceries at the dollar store. Not that he needed to. He just did it. I’ve been cheap all my life, so I’m not doing anything drastic. But I do have to admit I really like the new camero, Mustang, and Dodge Challenger. So if I had to splurge… it would be on one of those.
Speaking of which Nomadic, I actually have quite a bit of respect for what’s coming out of Detroit these days. I actually got invited to Detroit to participate in a product survey. I got to see new concepts from GM’s divisions. The new Buicks are very nice, as in I would say they could compete with lexus. Very sleek cars that interestingly enough have interiors designed by the GM Shanghai studios. The new Camaro is of course fantastic as are the other “pony” cars from the big 3. The new Cadillac CTS is very well done. We got to see a number of their new engines, which are all direct-injection gas. These are like diesels except they use gasoline. High compression engines with special injection system. Thus the new camaro gets something like 30MPG. That’s why those new Chevy Traverse SUVS which are quite large can get 32MPG. Impressive.
I’ve been a toyota guy my whole life. But what they make today are boring bread boxes. I am actually somewhat tempted to try a GM product come next car purchase. gasp!
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
> Other friends bought 15 years ago and could care less. They can afford their home and want to talk about hiking, or sailing, or seeing a play, or whatever else.
I remember when Zillow first came out. People got so crazy about it and were checking their house’s price, their neighbors’, their family’s, their family’s neighbors’, etc. It was the dog’s bollocks. It looks like the frenzy is finally over now.
Is anyone here checking Zillow on a regular basis?
And for all the middle class people here who can barely make it but still have an iPhone: http://mashable.com/2009/04/28/zillow-iphone.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
> Actually I kind of enjoy being cheap. Its sort of like a game.
Do you know what’s cheap? Apostrophes.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
A. Lewis,
Yes I totally agree. I too was aggravated to see tons of middle to even upper middle class people buying homes that essentially meant their financial lives would be instantly put into peril just to pay for a stupid house.
But this thing was carefully engineered. Whenever you have a situation where money is cheap, you get inflation. The mistake people made was that all during the 2002-2006 era, reports constantly came out that inflation was miraculously being kept in check, which in turn gave people a false sense that things were going well. The inflation was in housing prices- the single biggest financial commitment people make, and that is what got us into serious trouble.
The bottom line is that people are generally financially stupid, don’t look at the big picture, and if given the chance will spend money recklessly if they’re given the chance. I’m sure there will be another bubble and people will act just as stupid. Its just that it seems to happen more so in places like the BA where the fact that “getting in” is so much more challenging that it creates this hysteria over housing, which in turn means there is an element of “preciousness” heaped upon something that’s meant to just be as I said before- a wooden box.
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Is anyone here checking Zillow on a regular basis?
—–
My wife was saying about her colleague who put following line in Facebook as What’s in your mind:
“Jane Doe wishes she didn’t check her home value in zillow.”
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
#123 – I’m dead serious. I own, a few friends do, and probably most do not. They like renting and there’s no need for discussion. I also made the distinction of “party conversations.” I’m not saying I’ve NEVER discussed real estate with friends. It just isn’t a popular topic that comes up very often.
Sorry, but I have to feed my pet peeve too. The phrase is “couldn’t care less” because you really could not give a darn.
bob, your visit to see GM stuff sounds interesting. I’ll have to check out the interiors on the new cars. GM used to use the same cheap plastic interiors on all of their cars for 20 years at a time. It was total crap. Did you see Top Gear evaluate a Cadillac (I think it was the CTS)? They had all kinds of good things to say until it came to the interior. (If you haven’t seen Top Gear on BBC, you have to check it out. Great show.)
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
bob – having lived in a variety of wooden boxes, I’ll just say I value some much more than others as a place to raise a family
and most of them I’d consider unfit to raise our son.
That said, most of the purchase is for the neighborhood and the land rather than the box sitting atop it.
When I can splurge, it will be for a backyard jacuzzi and a giant indoor aquarium. I’ll only buy a (cheap) car when this one breaks down, I think I think even less of cars as you do (“Your Bay Area car is just a commuter vehicle.”) – I see cars as a sometimes necessary evil/purchase I wish I could do without, that’s it.
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
#127 – oh, snap!
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Jacuzzi sounds. I used to be an aquarium/fish hobbyist, but the maintenance was too much. And it’s one more thing that needs attention when you go on vacation. However, it was such a beautiful addition to the livingroom – much better than a television.
The Home Theater is a good use of the home, I think…
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Jacuzzi sounds…good.
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Wow. Is this thread still going?
Good arguments all around though. I wish the town hall meetings going on around the country were even half this civil. And nobody had to bring an AR-15!
Speaking of people buying homes, what kills me is that the ‘buy now before its too late’ cliche has come back with a vengeance during this dead cat bounce we just had. I am seeing folks stressing again about missing the boat and using convoluted math to justify over-extending themselves. Its like a repeat of 2005-2006.
The parallels to the stock bubble burst of 2000 are amazing. I still remember the ride of the NASDAQ and all the head fakes that occurred before it finally found equilibrium. It’s just upsetting to see these folks literally stressing themselves to near dangerous cardiac levels because they are still sucking up the propaganda being spoon fed to them by the NAR and Bernanke and his merry elves.
(Or maybe they were underwear gnomes; not sure)
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
DT,
I have to admit that for me, not any ole’ box will do per say. All the places we’ve looked at have areas that we like, but they tend to be older neighborhoods with older, 1930′s 2-3 bedroom houses with trees. These kinds of neighborhoods cost a small fortune in the BA. But in some of the cities we’ve looked at its astonishing how little some of these are. In Austin we found that most people moving in seem to prefer the larger burbs full of larger, newer, more substantial houses near squeaky-new schools. By default these burbs, which includes areas like Round Rock and others are “good” places to raise kids… but that’s about it. Otherwise they’re generic. On the other hand South Austin is full of old houses in wooded neighborhoods. They’re too small for “today’s” families. In all honesty they look like a lot of the houses in places like Menlo Park. But We met one young couple at a bar the first night we were there. They had a 2 story 1940′s house. They had just bought it. $120,000! Amazing. But yet these areas are sort of undesired by families with children. Good. That’s fine with me. So yes- I have standards. But I can get what I want pretty cheap after doing my research.
Nomadic, I got to test drive the new Buick Lacrosse. I was sitting with the GM CFO with one of the buick designers in the back. I ragged that car out, fiddled with all of the buttons, knobs, seats, radio controls, and went over the exterior, tugging on the grille, looking at the gaps, and so on. I spent an hour with the thing. I am a picky person and I have to say this was a very fine vehicle and the fit and finish was perhaps the best I’ve seen on a car in recent years. That and it costs $27,000. I was very impressed.I should dare say it was… desirable which a word I would have never used for a Buick.
Additionally we toured the pre-production facility for the chevy volt. If they can get the prices down it will revolutionize driving. The car is absolutely amazing. The dashboards are all digital and fully configurable. The engine and drivetrain are works of art. It was constantly stressed to us, not only from Bob Lutz and Fritz Henderson ( CEO), but the designers and managers as well that GM was totally focusing on new technology. I’ve been extremely leery and distrustful of GM in the past. But what they are doing is pretty impressive.
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Bob: If I were as prolific as you are, I probably wouldn’t be able to hold my full time job. Anyhow, Bay Area rent is not so high, so the issue you’re having is caused by the desire to own, primarily.
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Bob: You started by recommending Hondas and Toyotas, then you showered GM with praises. Your philosophy seems to be to buy what you don’t really want.
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
No baiting, Top Dog. Look at a mirror and repeat #63 aloud.
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Top Dog and mirror – interesting combination.
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Ha! DreamTroll and the identity thief is here.
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Boy topdog, you sure are vocal!
Since you’re new here, what caused you to dislike pralay and dreamt so quickly?
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
TopDog is transparently RealEstater being even more hypocritical than on his regular fare. Pralay and I both called him out on it. Since he failed to engage anybody else under his new pseudonym, he reverted back to attacking folks he’s familiar with, like a good troll dog.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:21 pm
I find Top Dog to be very easy to ignore, unlike the troll-bait RE would serve on a platter with a cherry on top.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Well it’s been hot outside. Maybe he’s not feeling so well. But you’re right, this is more of a baby version.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Since you’re new here, what caused you to dislike pralay and dreamt so quickly?
DreamTroll attacked me first, and Pralay faked my identity. Then they accused me of being RealEstater. You’re asking me why I dislike them?
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:37 pm
DreamTroll attacked me first, and Pralay faked my identity.
——
Dog,
I can steal your identity only if you are dog. I don’t think you can disagree on it.
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 am
Then they accused me of being RealEstater. You’re asking me why I dislike them?
—-
Because you are RealEstater. Otherwise how could you explain same degree of logic-impairment for both of you?
Considering the fact that everybody is accusing you, attacking you, disliking you, you definitely need LOTS of different identities, apart from SV Shopper, San Jose Craig, Top Dog. I have some suggestion for new identities and what they would say:
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:11 am
Well it’s been hot outside. Maybe he’s not feeling so well. But you’re right, this is more of a baby version.
—–
I think he ran out of “Good News”. He definitely needed to a good identity – even though his new name is not going to cover the deficit of his logic-impairment.
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:14 am
I kind of like the handle though: “Top Dog”. Wish I’d thought of that one. I probably would’ve chosen “Top Cat”, which is not near as cool.
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 am
…not quite so self-aggrandizing either.
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:10 am
…not quite so self-aggrandizing either.
——-
The name of a guy who is yet to make his real estate investment: RealEstater
The name of a guy with zero leadership skill (and constantly plays victim card – “everybody attacks me, everybody accuses me…”): Top Dog
September 4th, 2009 at 8:56 am
>>The new Camaro is of course fantastic as are the other “pony” cars from the big 3. The new Cadillac CTS is very well done.
There are comparison tests done by the major car magazines this month (Check Road & Track or Car and Driver), and these cars all scored surprisingly low despite the freshened appearance. There’s one test with 10 cars competing, and the Porsche Cayman blew them away, and that’s not even a 911.
I’ve owned or driven virtually all of the top brands, and at the end of the day Porsche stands above the rest. Porsche delivers that aircraft quality feel you won’t find in other makes. If you think a car is just to move you from point A to point B, you’ve never driven a Porsche.
September 4th, 2009 at 9:16 am
OK, just catching up now on some of the old posts…
On the subject of class structure, it exists universally. Even in a Communist country you will find plenty of class structure. In a place like Austin, it’s not quite as evident because the upper class is mostly missing. In the Bay Area, you have A, B, and C, while over there you have B and C. If you’re a B (middle class), and you don’t keep looking at what class A have, then life shouldn’t be so miserable. The reason we have people here keep wishing for a market crash is because of this mentality. All Austin does is to help you lessen this mentality, since you don’t get to see class A on a regular basis, and you see many class C. Thus, you’re content despite having to sweat it out in 100 degree weather.
Class structure in itself is a necessary evil. Capitalism is built on it. A middle class family may be gated from 94301, but the same structure also prevents drug dealers and the uneducated lower class from entering their own middle class neighborhood.
September 4th, 2009 at 9:33 am
ahhhhh, now that’s tasty troll bait. Who was missing that elitist bullshit?
September 4th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Even in a Communist country you will find plenty of class structure.
—–
You mean North Korea where you came from?
September 4th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Who was missing that elitist bullshit?
—–
He is trying to catch up.
September 4th, 2009 at 10:23 am
There are comparison tests done by the major car magazines this month (Check Road & Track or Car and Driver), and these cars all scored surprisingly low despite the freshened appearance. There’s one test with 10 cars competing, and the Porsche Cayman blew them away, and that’s not even a 911.
Oh really? Hmmm. Well I actually subscribe to Road and Track and have the latest issue. The cover has all 3 of these cars on it and the reviews of all 3 were raving. Secondly, come on dude- you can’t compare a $50,000-$70,000 Porsche to a $19,000 Mustang or Camaro. They are not in the same class. That would be like saying: I saw a review comparing a Hyundai Accent to a BMW 530i and the BMW blew that Hyundai out of the waterSomething tells me you’re making up BS.
The Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger are basically entry level sports cars that provide the driver with cheap speed and reasonable handling.They do this extremely well. Better than anyone else. In fact they have had this space all to themselves for decades because nothing out of Europe or Japan is even close. Muscle cars are as iconic as Harley Davidsons.
Lastly- nobody is going to care about the guy in a Porsche. But you can bet yer’ boots that plenty of people love the lines and styling of the latest pony cars from Detroit.
And one more thing. When I visited Austin there was definitely no shortage of rich people. Just like here there were richy-rich snobby areas. These were usually up in the hills. These areas had the same wooded neighborhoods with huge custom gates and custom built houses as you would see in Palo Alto. Can you say Micheal Dell? That’s where he lives. Another area was called Bee Caves, which despite the stupid name was littered with GIANT houses, and when I mean giant, I’m talking like 6,7,8 bedrooms or more with pools, and the whole nine yards.
The biggest difference between here and there is that you can actually buy a starter home at a true starter home price and then work your way up if you want to versus in the Bay Area where off the bat you’re paying corporate executives prices for a former working class house. That’s why so many houses I see in Palo Alto to me look like factory worker homes that have been “Doctored up” to look “Nice” so that perhaps the owners who recently paid a million bucks can at least pretend they have a nice house and not look too ridiculous.
September 4th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Secondly, come on dude- you can’t compare a $50,000-$70,000 Porsche to a $19,000 Mustang or Camaro. They are not in the same class.
—-
Come on, Bob. He needed an excuse to bring the topic to Porsche. It was intended for that purpose only. He did not intend to put your $19K Mustang down.
September 4th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Lastly- nobody is going to care about the guy in a Porsche.
lol, sure some do.
The attractive but dumb women see a gold-digging prospect.
The attractive but intelligent women make jokes about what the driver is trying to compensate for.
September 4th, 2009 at 11:06 am
But hey Anna Nichole Smith saw gold-digging prospect with oil tycoon too. But she wasn’t dumb.
September 5th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Bob says,
>>Secondly, come on dude- you can’t compare a $50,000-$70,000 Porsche to a $19,000 Mustang or Camaro.
No, I’m not comparing to a 19 grand Mustang or Camaro. The vehicles tested were in the mid to high $30′s (Check Car and Driver or Motor Trend). You call that entry level?