patrick.net

From the article -

Do we think about moving? Sure, but that means I have to find another job, and who knows how hard that might be.”

Uh, ever think of finding the job first and THEN moving??? Good Lord, what is it with these people? And EVER consider living in a state OTHER than CA?? I mean there are states that are far more affordable with really good job markets - but hey, that would take more than 10 minutes of research to find and figure out. Damn life, it's so dang hard.

I think that the latino population, the pov on which the article focused, is uber family focused--extended family at that. Consider the cultural differences. Perhaps they are willing to suck up lots of sacrifice before packing up and moving to another state.

Anyways, is the solution really that all the median income people just leave? CA is in a rotten mess--with Prop 13 enabling ppl (especially older) to cling to houses that rise in value and for which all that property value doesn't even yield a rising tax base to pay for schools, etc. Ppl who cannot afford are forced to far-flung suburbs, creating highways clogged with commuters. It's an urban planning hell hole.

Nothing new here. The usual patnet themes and memes.

Assholes! Can't their fathers get them into the Harvard MBA program?

Your comment, Ceffer, is so racist and distasteful that I'm gonna exercise my authority to DELETE it. Your confirmation bias has no place in having a meaningful debate about prop 13 or housing affordability.

mmmarvel says

And EVER consider living in a state OTHER than CA??

One has a right to hope exile is not a necessary step to find a roof.

lahossain says

I think that in the latino population that seems the pov on which the article
focused is uber family focused--extended family at that. Consider the cultural
differences. Perhaps they are willing to suck up lots of sacrifice before
packing up and moving to another state.

Multigenerational living under one roof (especially in a small place) is never good for anybody. Regardless of cultural values, such arrangement results in stress and is horrendous to the health of all involved.

I think the true adversary is not the stereotypical capitalist pig, it's the other regular people buyers who bid up the prices against their fellow citizens and assert their market power.

dublin hillz says

Multigenerational living under one roof

I guess I was more referring to their cultural values impeding them from immediately moving out of the state. I wasn't commenting on their wish/need to reside in one single home.

Though now that you bring it up I wouldn't say that the stress is from the arrangement of being in the same home so much as in the same room. Multi-generational living can work, depends on the solidarity of all individuals and the ability to collaborate to share work and benefits of the home.

I think that as a mother I have a pov perhaps not shared by good number of dudes on this thread--don't mean to presume. But when grandparents can look after little johnnie or jannie or juan or juanita then this is AN INCREDIBLE BOON in a country like ours two incomes are necessary and where daycare/after school care is expensive or not available.

Jannie, johnnie, juan and juanita never can chime in on this forum--but I'm pretty sure that they'd agree that having a stable set of loving care-givers is a good thing. Beats being latch-key.

No one denies the stress of living with in-laws or parents/kids, but it's also in the sacrifice that comes the bonds.

dublin hillz says

I think the true adversary is not the stereotypical capitalist pig, it's the other regular people buyers who bid up the prices against their fellow citizens and assert their market power.

That's stupid. People do what they need to get a roof without paying rents through the nose.

The adversary is a gentle boomer couple, owning a nice home since the 95, who are shouting at you: "I have mine, screw you!".

dublin hillz says

not the stereotypical capitalist pig, it's the other regular people buyers

Just pure simple price dynamics of supply and demand by other home owners?

I guess if it's just that simple, we can shut down patnet for good and go home.

When the tech bubble bursts, things will be relatively sane again.

lahossain says

dublin hillz says

not the stereotypical capitalist pig, it's the other regular people buyers

Just pure simple price dynamics of supply and demand by other home owners?

I guess if it's just that simple, we can shut down patnet for good and go home.

Yeah pretty much so. If the supply of rentals and pads for sale is low relative to the population, it is the wealthiest of the willing prospects that will determine the market price, not the "greedy" landlords and developers. They can just sit back and watch it all unfold.

Heraclitusstudent says

The adversary is a gentle boomer couple, owning a nice home since the 95, who
are shouting at you: "I have mine, screw you!".

Unless this "gentle boomer couple" is actively impeding new constuction under the pretext of environmental protection how are they responsible for the current situation?

dublin hillz says

wealthiest of the willing prospects that will determine

Sure, but the limited supply is influenced by factors that go beyond prices (prop 13, nimbyism, etc). No one denies the general demand curve price dynamic to some degree. Anyways, the more the situation worsens for working families the more I think there should be a punitive tax or price to those who buy second homes, investment properties, or simply are retired.

And don't go all ballistic on me those who consider property rights sacrosanct. ---this could be a soft punitive measure so as to encourage the non-working to dwell further away from the places of work. I haven't ironed out the details of my new notion, but there has got to be something to allow people to have shelter near where they live.

Or maybe it turns into a Foxcon model where owners offer housing to their labor. Servants' quarters may be coming back into fashion soon. I can see that the way things are going.

lahossain says

Sure, but the limited supply is influenced by factors that go beyond prices
(prop 13, nimbyism, etc). No one denies the general demand curve price dynamic
to some degree. Anyways, the more the situation worsens for working families the
more I think there should be a punitive tax or price to those who buy second
homes, investment properties, or simply are retired.

1. Prop 13 - nothing inherently unfair about it as far as residential real estate is concerned. At the beginning of the mortgage, most buyers pay not the "on paper" 1.25% property tax but more like 6% true tax assuming 20% down payment. Later on, the things simply get balanced out.

2. Nimbyism - I agree that it's unethical if someone opposes development under the pretext of environmental protection. However, if one is genuinely concerned about environment/nature whatnot, they have every right to oppose new construction. How do we ascertain true motives?

3. Taxing those who buy second homes - they already pay property taxes which ought to limit their desire to own second homes.

4. Investors - eventually when interest rates rise, the appeal of investing will decline. As it is, going forward investing in real estate will pale in returns relative to last few years.

5. Simply retired - I don't agree with punitive measures. People have a right to have a peaceful retirement no matter how much others may want access to their home via "increased supply."

Heraclitusstudent says

One has a right to hope exile is not a necessary step to find a roof.

Exile or escape???

It's the combination of 1. (Prop 13) (which is inherently unfair) as it leads to inflated home values AND subsides for those with TENURE (something unprecedented) and 5. (Retired people) that create a nice toxic combination of blue hairs and grandpas hanging on to homes that are too big for them in neighborhoods that are better suited for households with children. The usual trend in societies with work better is that older folk downsize and flock towards communities of other people their age--good for them as much as for those whom they are making way for.

mmmarvel says

Exile or escape???

Isn't the latter just a euphemism in this scenario?

lahossain says

subsides for those with TENURE

The whole object of homeownership is to take advantage of "tenure", not to move every 5-7 years like many people do.

Uh, the captains of industry in the US seem to like to keep their labor force on their toes and willing to move often more frequently than that magical 5-7 years.

Who DOESN'T want tenure? But let's face it, these days that's a privilege of a diminishing few.

“This is gentrification on steroids,” said Stan Humphries, the chief economist at Zillow.com, which shows homes for sale and their valuations. “What is unique here is you have an entire state really shifting — people are bidding up prices all over the place. These were quintessential suburbs and cities built for people working as secretaries, but the newest generation is simply not going to be able to stay anymore.”

Same old old story as in 2005. "All secretaries and blue collar employees will leave California and move to the Midwest. In exchange, all doctors and lawyers will move to California."

This logic is so screwed up I don't even know where to begin.

JH says

All secretaries and blue collar employees will leave California and move to the Midwest.

In spite of the drawbacks - and there are many - non-coastal locations in the United States are more enjoyable due to a lower number of assholes per unit volume.

A lower density of doctors, lawyers, and other driven members of the achievement culture means more pleasant commutes, nicer neighbors, and better professional surroundings.

JH says

This logic is so screwed up I don't even know where to begin.

To steal a catch-phrase from my idol Adam Carolla "Good times!"

HydroCabron says

a lower number of assholes per unit volume

hahaha yup so true

HydroCabron says

A lower density of doctors, lawyers, and other driven members of the achievement culture means more pleasant commutes

last week when I had to drive into LA for a meeting I became sad. Not angry, but sad...when a bitch literally drove into my lane, driving me (with the larger, but more valuable) vehicle off the road and when I laid on the horn she just looked at me blankly...and had at least 1 kid in the car with her. She didn't appear to be part of the 'achievement culture' but maybe the assholishness of it all has rubbed off on her.

Thank god my normal commute is 7 minutes

JH says

'achievement culture'

I like that! It describes so much of the bad attitude that I see stinking up my neighborhood and surrounding.

mmmarvel says

I mean there are states that are far more affordable with really good job markets - but hey, that would take more than 10 minutes of research to find and figure out.

You want to go live there, more power to you. I don't share your views about other states. There is a reason most other states are cheaper to live in. You and your grass is greener on the other side mentality...

Peter P said: When the tech bubble bursts, things will be relatively sane again.
I'm thinking Uber's $18 billion valuation is the high water mark (with $500 giveaways to cabbies) for App Nation 1.0, but perhaps it's just the beginning? In my locality, places are renting for $1k per bedroom; it's just crazy right now.

EBGuy says

places are renting for $1k per bedroom; it's just crazy right now

If you bought stock in the past 5 years, then you can afford it. Otherwise, nope. When stock fails to replicate 2009-2014, you will see rents fall.

lahossain says

Uh, the captains of industry in the US seem to like to keep their labor force
on their toes and willing to move often more frequently than that magical 5-7
years.

That probably depends on the industry. Plenty of people don't have the pressure to move around the country for job purposes while others move voluntarily. But in general if someone believes that they will have to move more often than every 5 years, it is not advisable to purchase primary residence due to transaction costs.