SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (8892)2/14/2003 6:32:26 PM
From: GraceZRead Replies (2) of 306849
 
Most people living in cities in the 50's didn't own their homes period. A higher percentage of people own their own home right now then any time in the history of this country (or as some would say, are in the process of owning it).

The suburbs that sprang up in the 50s were financed by a lot of cheap VA financing. I think my parents paid 3% when the prevailing rate was 6%. The fifties were an exception that is unmatched by any other time. Everyone wants to use them as a base, but they were an aberration caused by the aftermath of the war (Europe and Asia were in tatters and we were untouched) and the subsequent productivity gains. Add in sound fiscal and monetary policy which caused a long period of relatively stable prices and little inflation making houses very affordable.

It was unusual in the history of this country for women not to work in the family biz (as it was rare for them to get paid a salary for the work) as well as the children. Both my parents grew up in families where children were working at an early age. My father in the city and my mother in the country both worked at an early age. They were expected to contribute to the family finances. It's why people had so many children. Try to explain that to your teenager who thinks it's their birthright to have you buy them $150 sneakers yet has to be reminded repeatedly to take out the garbage.

For everyone who says their family can't survive on one income, I can show you a family that is surviving on just that income. In the city near me the median family income is around $27,500 and a great many of the lower half owns their own home. If I tell this to someone who lives in California they are thoroughly convinced I'm making it up. They can't imagine that a house that sells for 65k is habitable, yet lots of families live in them.

My in laws just sold the house my father-in-law owned and lived in since it was built, in 1954. They sold it to someone who had $3000 cash and an annual income of less then $30k. The buyer was a single woman with teenage children. Except for the fact that it still had the original fifties kitchen the house is in excellent shape and in a very stable safe neighborhood where most own their own homes. It sold for 80k. A person who made 30k could afford to buy it, but I can tell you if you have a couple who made 60k together they'd want a house that was twice as much. Then they would tell you that it took two incomes to afford to own a house! If they made 120k they'd want one that was twice that and so on.

Families don't have to have two incomes to own a house, families have two incomes and that pushes up the price of houses. Collectively, they have too much income, not too little. In areas like the city I live near, where incomes are lower, so are the prices of houses. Also, in very expensive areas, what pushes up prices is that the houses aren't always bought with borrowed money and income, but with inherited wealth, capital gains or savings accumulated over a long period.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext