Wow
I read an article the other day that said, "[i]n order to rent a modest two-bedroom apartment in Sacramento - and still eat and keep the lights on - the average worker would need to earn $19.38 an hour."
That's insane!
10 years ago, I had a roommate and was renting a 2-bedroom, 2-bath apartment of over a thousand square feet for $650 a month. I think I was making about $10+ an hour at the time. How the hell are people supposed to afford to live? When do the increases end? Can the cost of living just go up and up and up infinitely? Does anyone else remember when, as a kid, knowing that someone was making over $50k a year meant they were doing pretty damned well?
I think the state of California will just suck the life out of everyone until they all leave and all that remains are celebrities, politicians and various other rich, if not famous, people. I like living here, and Sacramento is great, but it's not GREAT. Not in the way that makes me want to pay $600k-$1m for a CONDO downtown. But that's what they're aiming for with all these new projects. Why would I want to pay $4,500-$10,000 a month to live in a thousand square foot condo overlooking West Sac? This isn't NYC or San Francisco, people! It's Sacramento. We've got great weather (generally) and are within driving distance of a lot of great stuff. But we've also got some of the worst roads and our traffic issues are reaching critical mass. I've also read the market is softening some because we've had 5 years of double digit gains (double digit as in 20-25% annually) and thus property values have more than doubled. This is why we got in the market in 2002 and why we haven't moved. And when we do move, I'm not at all certain it'll be in Sacramento! Of course, my job will keep me in one place for a while, but now I have the kind of job that, as time goes on, I won't necessarily have to be in the office to do. But I digress.
It's really sad to me that so few people can afford to live in a place where they've probably grown up. It just shouldn't be that way. It's completely illogical to me that some people think it would be great if tract houses get to the point where they sell for a million dollars. Great for the one person who gets to sell it at that price . . . and then what? People have short memories. In the early 90s, real estate around here crashed, big-time. And realtors keep saying that's not going to happen again -- and maybe it won't. But are YOU going to go spend a half million dollars on a house that needs major work? Really? 'Cuz the Hollywood sign, and Times Square, and the Golden Gate Bridge, to name a few reasons I could think of to do something like that, are a long, long way away.
I don't think you should have to drive for an hour to get to your $10 an hour job. Of course, the real problem here is not the sellers -- of course anyone is going to try to fetch top dollar for anything they sell. The real problem is buyers who camp out on sidewalks for 3 days to participate in a lottery to buy a house. I read another article today talking about a real estate agent who did just that a year and a half ago, bought a 3,100 square foot house in West Sac (blech) for over EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS and now wants to sell it and get out from under their $6,000/mo. house payment (and, they are not even living in the house. Those dumbasses thought they were going to RENT that house!). They've listed it for something like $885k, and dropped the price a whopping $5k because they aren't getting any takers. Mmm hmm. Keep dropping, sister. This person, who is in the business, was surprised that it was sitting on the market so long. Along with 4 other houses on her street. Well, with 20% of buyers over the past few years being investors, what the hell did you think was going to happen? Where did they think all these people were going to come from to rent a house for six grand a month?! Yeah, I'm not making that kind of house payment for you, thankyouverymuch. Personally, I kind of hope a bunch of investors lose their asses and those houses go for $400k. That's what you get for perpetuating that sense of panic some people apparently felt over buying into this market.
And don't even get me started on all those people who mortgaged themselves to within an inch of their lives because they wanted a new house! The rule of thumb is no more than 30% of your income should go toward housing. Not the 70 or so percent that you signed your life over for. And the lenders! I love those "stated income" loans. Sure I make enough money to do this. Where do I sign? Whatever.
I want to get back to the days where anything over $300k constitutes a buyers' market. Not so long ago, $250k would have bought you a nice house near the lake. Now, where's my time machine?!
That's insane!
10 years ago, I had a roommate and was renting a 2-bedroom, 2-bath apartment of over a thousand square feet for $650 a month. I think I was making about $10+ an hour at the time. How the hell are people supposed to afford to live? When do the increases end? Can the cost of living just go up and up and up infinitely? Does anyone else remember when, as a kid, knowing that someone was making over $50k a year meant they were doing pretty damned well?
I think the state of California will just suck the life out of everyone until they all leave and all that remains are celebrities, politicians and various other rich, if not famous, people. I like living here, and Sacramento is great, but it's not GREAT. Not in the way that makes me want to pay $600k-$1m for a CONDO downtown. But that's what they're aiming for with all these new projects. Why would I want to pay $4,500-$10,000 a month to live in a thousand square foot condo overlooking West Sac? This isn't NYC or San Francisco, people! It's Sacramento. We've got great weather (generally) and are within driving distance of a lot of great stuff. But we've also got some of the worst roads and our traffic issues are reaching critical mass. I've also read the market is softening some because we've had 5 years of double digit gains (double digit as in 20-25% annually) and thus property values have more than doubled. This is why we got in the market in 2002 and why we haven't moved. And when we do move, I'm not at all certain it'll be in Sacramento! Of course, my job will keep me in one place for a while, but now I have the kind of job that, as time goes on, I won't necessarily have to be in the office to do. But I digress.
It's really sad to me that so few people can afford to live in a place where they've probably grown up. It just shouldn't be that way. It's completely illogical to me that some people think it would be great if tract houses get to the point where they sell for a million dollars. Great for the one person who gets to sell it at that price . . . and then what? People have short memories. In the early 90s, real estate around here crashed, big-time. And realtors keep saying that's not going to happen again -- and maybe it won't. But are YOU going to go spend a half million dollars on a house that needs major work? Really? 'Cuz the Hollywood sign, and Times Square, and the Golden Gate Bridge, to name a few reasons I could think of to do something like that, are a long, long way away.
I don't think you should have to drive for an hour to get to your $10 an hour job. Of course, the real problem here is not the sellers -- of course anyone is going to try to fetch top dollar for anything they sell. The real problem is buyers who camp out on sidewalks for 3 days to participate in a lottery to buy a house. I read another article today talking about a real estate agent who did just that a year and a half ago, bought a 3,100 square foot house in West Sac (blech) for over EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS and now wants to sell it and get out from under their $6,000/mo. house payment (and, they are not even living in the house. Those dumbasses thought they were going to RENT that house!). They've listed it for something like $885k, and dropped the price a whopping $5k because they aren't getting any takers. Mmm hmm. Keep dropping, sister. This person, who is in the business, was surprised that it was sitting on the market so long. Along with 4 other houses on her street. Well, with 20% of buyers over the past few years being investors, what the hell did you think was going to happen? Where did they think all these people were going to come from to rent a house for six grand a month?! Yeah, I'm not making that kind of house payment for you, thankyouverymuch. Personally, I kind of hope a bunch of investors lose their asses and those houses go for $400k. That's what you get for perpetuating that sense of panic some people apparently felt over buying into this market.
And don't even get me started on all those people who mortgaged themselves to within an inch of their lives because they wanted a new house! The rule of thumb is no more than 30% of your income should go toward housing. Not the 70 or so percent that you signed your life over for. And the lenders! I love those "stated income" loans. Sure I make enough money to do this. Where do I sign? Whatever.
I want to get back to the days where anything over $300k constitutes a buyers' market. Not so long ago, $250k would have bought you a nice house near the lake. Now, where's my time machine?!
posted by PlatinumGirl at 5:44 PM
3 Comments:
When I registered with a headhunter firm the other day, she handed me a booklet and said, "...this is salary levels for people across the nation. Just add 25% for our area..." and continued on like nothing was weird about that.
It's happening everywhere. I'm so glad I bought my house 4 years ago. The price I paid seems like a steal now. One of my friends left MD because she couldn't afford a house and ended up moving to TX. That's sad that people who want to live here, can't.
J: Crazy.
Peachy: Totally!
Post a Comment
<< Home