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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (234722)	5/26/2005 1:08:09 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576807

More home value stuff: money.cnn.com The survey also indicated that the national median home value, the middle point among housing values, has risen almost 16 percent since 2000. It now hovers around $140,000. That doesn't sound right. That implies only 3%-4% per annum growth since 2000. I can't post the list of 100 metro areas that showed increases since 2000; however, if you looked at it, you would be surprised. The biggest increase in the price of houses percentage wise is in California, followed by FLA and Las Vegas and to a lesser degree Boston, Providence, NYC and DC........and then it drops off dramatically. Most metro areas in this country experienced only slight growth. I mean look at the dichotomy between a Buffalo and SFO........$95k vs $750k respectively. And Buffalo ain't a village.....the metro area has a million people. In fact, the disparity is so big for so many cities I don't understand how people can afford to move from the Midwest, TX or the South to either coast. They probably can't. So to answer your question.......3-4% increases per annum probably is about right.