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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (7338)	10/5/1998 8:00:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

holly, Oh no, really this discussion isnt about me personally. I used to live with someone who had a house he bought in Ca in 1983 (he is 44). Until I met him, I had no idea that people that bought their houses in the early 80s had the kind of deal they do. Everyone I knew that bought houses was so house poor it was incredible. He otoh paid practically nothing for his house and he was only a mgr at Hewlett Packard when he bought it. No way could a mgr at Hewlett Packard afford a house like that today. At the same time I was struggling trying to hire employees and a part of my job as a mgr was to deal with housing issues for people we brought in from out of state. We tried to hire from the ivy league and these people needed places to live (all new college hires in my dept). It just seems to me, that there is a great divide in Ca - people that bought houses pre-1986 or so, and everybody else. Of course if you were under 25 or so in 1986 you were pretty much excluded from being one of the "haves" - just by definition you are a "have not" in terms of real estate. The free mkt is not working for the have nots imo - of course the reality is we really dont have a free mkt in real estate. I like where I live now but I am renting because there arent any houses for sale anywhere near me. If my landlord wanted to sell this house, I would buy it but of course he will never sell because it ssuch a cash cow as a rental. Although I would question the investment value of paying what I would have to pay for one of these houses as I think anybody should. Anything over 400K is too much for these 40 yr old ranchers it seems like its just smarter to rent if youre single. If you have kids its another matter though. Michelle