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: Elroy Jetson who wrote (99189)	1/6/2008 9:12:03 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

So now wealth is a factor, but before it was GDP. Skip the 25 mile radius which is BS. Neither city is anywhere near 25 miles in radius, and I want to compare the same properties. The median Sunnyvale household income (2006 est) is about 98.5K, whereas for my little town it is about 43.5K The household income ratio is thus 2.26 I'm picking similar neighborhoods, with circa 1950-1960's housing, (1000-1400sqft typical) which in both places have been used as both fixer uppers and knockdowns. In Sunnyvale, a typical location is residential housing a few blocks of El Camino in both Wolfe and Fair Oaks regions (I used to live there, so know the region well). Knockdowns on 6000sqft lots have been going for >$600K (actually as high as $900K in the last year). In my town, brand new bare lots with city utilities go for $30K. The ratio is thus 20. Normalized to income it is 8.85. Similar tax and lending rates will apply, so why the difference? Duh, jobs attract people to Sunnyvale, not eastern Oregon (why do you think the income differs by a factor of 2?). But fundamentally, even if a few more people come here, there is a ready supply of more land. In Sunnyvale there is not. The only way Sunnyvale can add more is by increasing housing density, which is why the cost of land goes up. Thus my example illustrates precisely the effect of population on land prices. Your 25 mile radius would have obscured that. I'm trying to understand, not obscure things. Anyway, you can have the last word. There is no point in trying to argue with someone who seriously thinks that higher population pressure does not affect the price of resources which can't be increased, such as land.

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (99189)	1/6/2008 10:10:22 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Elroy, have you found any effect from the Australians being descended form excarcerated British criminals?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (99189)	1/8/2008 6:34:19 AM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

In other words both population density and income per capita are factors, or more simply income density (GDP per unitland area). The latter is one variable and is simpler but data on the former two are more commonly discussed. So people think of population's effect on land value holding income per capita constant and vice versa. But yes if population increases and income per capita falls you'll see a very different result than if income per capita is constant.