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: Ramsey Su who wrote (60176)	8/18/2006 11:28:36 AM
From: Think4Yourself	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

What about the ridiculous California income taxes? What about the ridiculous California property taxes? What about the ridiculous California sales taxes? What about the fact that everything costs more there, traffic is worse, and in many areas the air quality is dangerously poor? Then there are the fires, the floods, and the occasional earthquakes. Seriously doubt you come out financially ahead staying in California but if you can make a proportionally higher income you should be OK. A person in Michigan with a USEFUL degree can live quite well. I used to live in California. Loved the weather but that was about it.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (60176)	8/18/2006 12:12:45 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Respond to of 306849

>>Whatever you saved in housing expenses can no way match the opportunity cost in the mean time.<< "Past performance is no guarantee of future results!"<G>

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (60176)	8/19/2006 8:40:27 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

in the long run, it is actually very expensive to live in areas with no appreciation.... that's like saying, in the long run, it is very expensive not to have bought Microsoft in 1986 or Google at the IPO because you would have done so much better...therefore buy Google now. CA real estate bought 30 yrs ago is like these examples. you're just cherrypicking an exceptional case and trying to prove a general point from it, which doesn't follow. i believe this kind of error is described well by the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. skepdic.com The dumbest move is for people who already have a house in prime areas and decided to move to non-prime locations because it is "cheaper". They will never be able to move back. again, that's like saying in March 2000 that the dumbest thing is to sell CSCO, because you will never be able to buy it back. well, in fact you WOULD be able to buy CSCO back, at a 90% discount. the same thing is likely with CA real estate. the people who fall for the above wives' tale are very unfortunate. CA today is like buying tech stocks in early 2000. and that's without considering whether CA is even "prime" to begin with. i think a very small amount of CA real estate, maybe 5% or less, is prime. that would be the extremely expensive areas where no one but the hyperwealthy can afford to live. by contrast, a huge amount is just suburban armpits that require putting up with terrible traffic and terrible smog. not to mention terrible taxes, terrible schools, etc. to add insult to injury, the price for buying a crappy house in this hellhole is three or four times as much as the cost of living in normal parts of the country.