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 (69329)	12/24/2006 6:25:45 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

You are having issues with statistics. You can't take the average salary and the average price of a home and conclude that the average mortgage is 10x salary in California. You also can't take an average salary survey and apply it to housing. Try median that might be more meaningful. CA also has homesteading for everybody that is the big drain. Its a different market and my guess is that buying in the bay area, right now or in 2007 if you strike a hard bargain in a desirable area will be a winner.

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (69329)	12/24/2006 7:09:53 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

I've also lived and worked in both Austin and Mt. View (in SV). I wasn't impressed with Silicon Valley. As a lowly engineer, it struck me as a high tech ghetto. If you drive up and down El Camino Real, it's like one giant strip mall with no differentiation between towns. The executives in the company I worked in would have rather been shot than move to Texas, although only one of them had ever even been to Austin. Some of my college educated co-workers asked me questions like, "Is there any water there?"<g> Some California folks that worked with me in Austin were absolutely floored by the summer heat and humidity. They were joggers, but they couldn't hack it in Austin in the summer.

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (69329)	12/26/2006 10:05:39 AM
From: John Vosilla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

'no, they should be 15% more based on salary alone. the rest has to do with other factors, the main one being a housing bubble.' Exactly. Folks pay the premium due to the high price of lots in built out areas in SV. The perception that RE there has been a better investment due to high appreciation over time helps as well. Folks don't buy overpriced property in Austin cause they think they'll make a killing from appreciation..

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (69329)	12/26/2006 7:50:26 PM
From: 8bits	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

"and there are jobs here. companies can pay their people a little less than they pay in Clownifornia, but the people can buy much more house. that's why Austin housing market and job market are still strong, whereas Bay Area is collapsing." The real estate market in the Bay Area is fairly varied in terms of supply/demand dynamics. Even though Lizzie knows someone who bought a house in a nice part of San Jose for less than they would have paid a few years ago, condos in my neighborhood (The peninsula..) are still rising in value (albeit slowly). The same applies with San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley. I sold my house in Oakland last year for $425 a square foot. (It came with neighborhood drug dealers at no extra cost..) Apparently the housing in that area has continued to rise. (It was close to bart and very close to Emeryville..) Places with an "Urban" feel in the SF Bay Area seem to be retaining/increasing their value, I think predominantly driven by 20 and 30 somethings without school age children. Exurbia SF Bay Area is definitely falling (Tracy, Brentwood, etc) The job market is also quite strong (about as good as it was in the 96 or so) Plenty of work available for technical people.