Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (14113)	10/2/2003 10:26:18 AM
From: Spekulatius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Darfor, you would be surprised about the RE cost in some larger cities in Asia. I don't know India but I do know in fact that a house in a good area in Bangkok can cost 300k US$ and I am not talking about a colonial style villa there.

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (14113)	10/2/2003 10:34:21 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Darfot, RE: "that is hilarious. where do you get this stuff?" That isn't a polite comment. Why so? RE: "it doesn't cost 400K to live in a middle class neighborhood in 99% of the US, even after the housing bubble." What is the median cost of a Bay Area home? RE: "so a middle class house in India" No, that's not what I said. Please reread my comment. I did not say "a middle class house". I said, "middle-class lifestyle." Huge, huge difference - What you're not understanding is that it takes a wealthy person to live a middle-class lifestyle in the larger cities in India. I specifically said, "property costs around $400k US for a middle-class lifestyle in a large city in India in a good area." That's essentially equivalent and analogous to saying, "property costs mega bucks for a middle-class lifestyle in a large city like say in New York in a good area." It's not equivalent to saying, "middle-class house in India." You are incorrectly assuming that the middle-class live a middle-class lifestyle. They don't. To express this in an analogy that is closer to home to you (and thus make the point clearer): someone with a $400k property in NY probably has a lower lifestyle than a person with a $400k home in Texas. RE: "according to you, would require the person making the average wage there 833 YEARS to pay for, assuming they paid 100% of their wages with zero taxes and zero interest. i'll have to remember that one, thanks for the laughs." Your anger that you express above, sounds like an anger about the two-tier lifestyle in India. It is indeed disgusting that it takes a $400k property for people in India in large cities to achieve a middle-class lifestyle like we have in the USA, and even then they don't. The poor live like slaves, while the wealthy have many, many servants (and even the middle-class do), while the middle-class struggles to pay for a place to live. Btw, when something disgusts you, try to stay angry with the content, not misdirect it at the messenger. Regards, Amy J PS The Bay Area has recently become two-tiered due to the high cost of real estate. Will this last? Is this the future of this country too?