Home prices
-
I do wonder when I'm going to get my foot on the ladder, I'm currently earning "average wage" as described above, my gf slightly over minimum wage (we're both 23). Burning money on rent sucks, but we have no choice, unless one of us can pull a deposit from our arse.
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.
Yeah, I did not buy until in my 30s, and htat sucks. All that money wasted. That's why I want to help my kids get their start, but, I'm lucky that I can. My parents sure did not have that option.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
When I bought my first home, it cost $65k. When we sold it, about 7 years later, housing here went through the roof. We sold for $140k, and I wish we hadn't, it would be worth a good $300k now. We bought for $150k, and a year later were offered $250k for the same house, no renovations. We kept it, and bought the house we are in for $300k. Our house is now worth at least $500k, perhaps nudging $600k. It's a bigger house ( 27 square ) and on 11 acres, with a river view. The paper advertised on the weekend that housing in our state is the most affordable in the nation with some suburbs having a median price of $295k. So, we are still a cheaper place to live, but housing prices have gone up, and the response to the story has mostly been from people saying they can't afford to buy a house, and have a right to own one. I think that's retarded. I expect prices to drop ( I have money ready to buy another when they do ), but, the market sets the price, and it's not the governments job to intervene. If they did, then the people who worked hard and invested money would lose out, why should they lose out so people who don't make much, or don't even work, can get their stuff ? I wondered how housing affordability is, and has changed, where other people live.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
but, the market sets the price, and it's not the governments job to intervene. If they did, then the people who worked hard and invested money would lose out, why should they lose out so people who don't make much, or don't even work, can get their stuff ?
What utter crap. Worked hard and invested their money? You just stated you made 100 K in a year doing NOTHING to a house. How they hell is that working hard? And if you dont think that paople have a basic right to live in property that is decent, and affords them a provacy, with somewhere for their kids to play, and buy all that on an average wage then you are a fool. Because you are inviting social tension by excluding people. The ONLY reason your house has gone up in value, and lets face it, it doesnt actually do you any good does it, is because of stupid lending policy that very nearly destroyed the UK. And I mean it was close to complete melt down. So if houses were cheaer, and ability to take on debt limited, you would live in the same house, but pay less per month for it. And so would everyone else. So whats your beef? Oh, and please stop showing off about how much moiney you have. Its getting quite nauseating.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Christian Graus wrote:
but, the market sets the price, and it's not the governments job to intervene. If they did, then the people who worked hard and invested money would lose out, why should they lose out so people who don't make much, or don't even work, can get their stuff ?
What utter crap. Worked hard and invested their money? You just stated you made 100 K in a year doing NOTHING to a house. How they hell is that working hard? And if you dont think that paople have a basic right to live in property that is decent, and affords them a provacy, with somewhere for their kids to play, and buy all that on an average wage then you are a fool. Because you are inviting social tension by excluding people. The ONLY reason your house has gone up in value, and lets face it, it doesnt actually do you any good does it, is because of stupid lending policy that very nearly destroyed the UK. And I mean it was close to complete melt down. So if houses were cheaer, and ability to take on debt limited, you would live in the same house, but pay less per month for it. And so would everyone else. So whats your beef? Oh, and please stop showing off about how much moiney you have. Its getting quite nauseating.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I wish I were rich ... :sigh:
-
Christian Graus wrote:
but, the market sets the price, and it's not the governments job to intervene. If they did, then the people who worked hard and invested money would lose out, why should they lose out so people who don't make much, or don't even work, can get their stuff ?
What utter crap. Worked hard and invested their money? You just stated you made 100 K in a year doing NOTHING to a house. How they hell is that working hard? And if you dont think that paople have a basic right to live in property that is decent, and affords them a provacy, with somewhere for their kids to play, and buy all that on an average wage then you are a fool. Because you are inviting social tension by excluding people. The ONLY reason your house has gone up in value, and lets face it, it doesnt actually do you any good does it, is because of stupid lending policy that very nearly destroyed the UK. And I mean it was close to complete melt down. So if houses were cheaer, and ability to take on debt limited, you would live in the same house, but pay less per month for it. And so would everyone else. So whats your beef? Oh, and please stop showing off about how much moiney you have. Its getting quite nauseating.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I made £100,000 on my place. It was easy, buy at the bottom and stay there. The price of property is unimportant unless you are moving, and then it is all relative. Market forces dictate price, but if you are not moving so what if the market falls?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
I wish I were rich ... :sigh:
-
When I bought my first home, it cost $65k. When we sold it, about 7 years later, housing here went through the roof. We sold for $140k, and I wish we hadn't, it would be worth a good $300k now. We bought for $150k, and a year later were offered $250k for the same house, no renovations. We kept it, and bought the house we are in for $300k. Our house is now worth at least $500k, perhaps nudging $600k. It's a bigger house ( 27 square ) and on 11 acres, with a river view. The paper advertised on the weekend that housing in our state is the most affordable in the nation with some suburbs having a median price of $295k. So, we are still a cheaper place to live, but housing prices have gone up, and the response to the story has mostly been from people saying they can't afford to buy a house, and have a right to own one. I think that's retarded. I expect prices to drop ( I have money ready to buy another when they do ), but, the market sets the price, and it's not the governments job to intervene. If they did, then the people who worked hard and invested money would lose out, why should they lose out so people who don't make much, or don't even work, can get their stuff ? I wondered how housing affordability is, and has changed, where other people live.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
the market sets the price, and it's not the governments job to intervene.
Should it count as government intervention when the banks got pressured to make more loans and prices soared with a glut of new buyers? I'm still on house #1. I bought for $225K, in the market craziness the following year it appraised for $330K. Now the best internet guesstimate is around 260K. I'm looking for investment property myself but in the Portland area it's hard to find a place that you could rent for anything near the mortgage payment.
Christian Graus wrote:
( 27 square )
How big is 27 square? This isn't a metric I'm familiar with.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
but, the market sets the price, and it's not the governments job to intervene. If they did, then the people who worked hard and invested money would lose out, why should they lose out so people who don't make much, or don't even work, can get their stuff ?
What utter crap. Worked hard and invested their money? You just stated you made 100 K in a year doing NOTHING to a house. How they hell is that working hard? And if you dont think that paople have a basic right to live in property that is decent, and affords them a provacy, with somewhere for their kids to play, and buy all that on an average wage then you are a fool. Because you are inviting social tension by excluding people. The ONLY reason your house has gone up in value, and lets face it, it doesnt actually do you any good does it, is because of stupid lending policy that very nearly destroyed the UK. And I mean it was close to complete melt down. So if houses were cheaer, and ability to take on debt limited, you would live in the same house, but pay less per month for it. And so would everyone else. So whats your beef? Oh, and please stop showing off about how much moiney you have. Its getting quite nauseating.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
And if you dont think that paople have a basic right to live in property that is decent, and affords them a provacy, with somewhere for their kids to play, and buy all that on an average wage then you are a fool. Because you are inviting social tension by excluding people.
Award yourself a Hammer and Sickle.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
but, the market sets the price, and it's not the governments job to intervene. If they did, then the people who worked hard and invested money would lose out, why should they lose out so people who don't make much, or don't even work, can get their stuff ?
What utter crap. Worked hard and invested their money? You just stated you made 100 K in a year doing NOTHING to a house. How they hell is that working hard? And if you dont think that paople have a basic right to live in property that is decent, and affords them a provacy, with somewhere for their kids to play, and buy all that on an average wage then you are a fool. Because you are inviting social tension by excluding people. The ONLY reason your house has gone up in value, and lets face it, it doesnt actually do you any good does it, is because of stupid lending policy that very nearly destroyed the UK. And I mean it was close to complete melt down. So if houses were cheaer, and ability to take on debt limited, you would live in the same house, but pay less per month for it. And so would everyone else. So whats your beef? Oh, and please stop showing off about how much moiney you have. Its getting quite nauseating.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Worked hard and invested their money? You just stated you made 100 K in a year doing NOTHING to a house. How they hell is that working hard?
I worked hard to PAY for the house. I didn't make 100k. The current value on the property I own moved, but I don't get sent a cheque. Really, I should sell my rental while prices are high, but I'm not going to, because that would mean throwing my tenant on her ear, or at least having her see a big jump in her rent.
fat_boy wrote:
And if you dont think that paople have a basic right to live in property that is decent, and affords them a provacy, with somewhere for their kids to play, and buy all that on an average wage then you are a fool. Because you are inviting social tension by excluding people.
I'm not excluding anyone. Life is. Some people end up in big houses. Some end up in smaller houses. Some end up in public housing. I said that somewhere on this thread, life is unfair and the government must choose IF it intervenes, and also HOW. I think that public housing is a better solution that government trying to meddle in markets, which always does unintended harm.
fat_boy wrote:
The ONLY reason your house has gone up in value, and lets face it, it doesnt actually do you any good does it, is because of stupid lending policy that very nearly destroyed the UK. And I mean it was close to complete melt down.
Well, houses here started artificially low, but, yes, there's a bubble happening. You attacked me elsewhere for pointing that out, so why are you saying hte same thing ?
fat_boy wrote:
So if houses were cheaer, and ability to take on debt limited, you would live in the same house, but pay less per month for it. And so would everyone else. So whats your beef?
I own my house outright. But, that's not the point. I have no beef. I am not talking about what I wish would happen, I'm talking about how life works. We can fantasise about a workers paradise all day long, but that won't change reality.
fat_boy wrote:
Oh, and please stop showing off about how much moiney you have. Its getting quite nauseating.
To be honest, I find it a little embarrassing when the conversation heads in that direction. I don't have TONS of money. I am comfortab
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the market sets the price, and it's not the governments job to intervene.
Should it count as government intervention when the banks got pressured to make more loans and prices soared with a glut of new buyers? I'm still on house #1. I bought for $225K, in the market craziness the following year it appraised for $330K. Now the best internet guesstimate is around 260K. I'm looking for investment property myself but in the Portland area it's hard to find a place that you could rent for anything near the mortgage payment.
Christian Graus wrote:
( 27 square )
How big is 27 square? This isn't a metric I'm familiar with.
thrakazog wrote:
Should it count as government intervention when the banks got pressured to make more loans and prices soared with a glut of new buyers?
Yes. Here, they gave a first home buyers grant of $4k or something. Houses on the low end just jumped up overnight to absorb it. All of that is wrong, it always does things that were not intended.
thrakazog wrote:
I'm looking for investment property myself but in the Portland area it's hard to find a place that you could rent for anything near the mortgage payment.
Portland is a gorgeous place to be tho, so you have to take that into account. When my rental had a mortgage, our rent could not cover more than about 60% of it. But, we choose to live here for the lifestyle benefits.
thrakazog wrote:
How big is 27 square? This isn't a metric I'm familiar with.
Assuming that one of my steps is a metre, it's about 28 metres by 8 metres, on the inside. Acccording to google, a "square" is traditionally 10 foot x 10 foot, which is the equivalent of 3.048m x 3.048m.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
When I bought my first home, it cost $65k. When we sold it, about 7 years later, housing here went through the roof. We sold for $140k, and I wish we hadn't, it would be worth a good $300k now. We bought for $150k, and a year later were offered $250k for the same house, no renovations. We kept it, and bought the house we are in for $300k. Our house is now worth at least $500k, perhaps nudging $600k. It's a bigger house ( 27 square ) and on 11 acres, with a river view. The paper advertised on the weekend that housing in our state is the most affordable in the nation with some suburbs having a median price of $295k. So, we are still a cheaper place to live, but housing prices have gone up, and the response to the story has mostly been from people saying they can't afford to buy a house, and have a right to own one. I think that's retarded. I expect prices to drop ( I have money ready to buy another when they do ), but, the market sets the price, and it's not the governments job to intervene. If they did, then the people who worked hard and invested money would lose out, why should they lose out so people who don't make much, or don't even work, can get their stuff ? I wondered how housing affordability is, and has changed, where other people live.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Two and a half years ago my sister and her beau purchased a 2 bedroom flat (downstairs of a large-ish victorian detached) in Lee, south London for I believe a little over gbp 200k. All prices below usd .. The place is nice yet only slightly bigger then the 2 bed apartment my wife, 2 kids and I are currently slumming it in while my new house is built. The apartment isn't the greatest, we took an unrefurb-ed for $100 less a month, but it's still in an affluent part of the 'burbs and only costs us $1k/month. We closed on our old house the beginning of March, it was three bedroom, 2 bathroom 2 garage house with 1512 sq ft of living space and 1/5th an acre of land. Bought for $159k in '04, sold for $180k in '10. Great location, basically most of the metro area can be reached within 40 mins. New house is in a new development (was a crap golf course before) about 5 mins from the old place. Generally more upscale housing, we're 'slumming' it on one of the smaller lots, 1/7 acre, however the house will be a 4 bed and around 2600sq ft plus we'll have a full basement that we'll finish eventually. Last year was the worst for new construction in 26 yrs so we took full advantage: place cost $237k. Would have been about 270 a couple of years before. If we weren't having a third (not exactly planned) kid we'd have probably stayed put and bought a rental. Really need that 4th bedroom now :D.
062142174041062102
-
There's been an ever increasing bubble in the UK housing market since the late 90's. When I bought the house I currently live in in 1994, it cost me ~£450,000. A fairly recent valuation put the value at closer to £4 million. It's a fairly desirable area of the country, with land and I've done some extensive renovation, but nothing in the order of 9-10 times the value I paid originally. However, this sort of inflation has occurred elsewhere. I was looking through a local paper the other day and some of the prices are simply staggering. About 20 miles from me, the average price for a 2-bedroom flat is something in the order of £180,000, a three bedroom house £220,000 - £250,000 and anything bigger and you're looking at £250,000 - £Name it(depending on how much land is included/location/etc). What's happened here is a number of things, none of which are to do with the free market: Firstly, the Government stopped counting house prices in inflation calculations, which created a false sense of where the economy was actually heading. Secondly, regulations were relaxed and where previously individuals or couples could only borrow three times their annual income, suddenly the banks were prepared to lend ten times (and more) that amount and on an interest only basis. Thirdly, property became to be seen as an investment (this actually happened before the late 90's) and saw a massive growth in buy-to-let, buy-to-sell and buy-to-speculate transactions artificially pushing prices up due to a perceived lack of supply in the face of increasing demand. This focus on housing and mortgages (and we'll remember that very few people own their house outright) is crippling the economy as far too much money is tied up in servicing these unrealistic mortgages. There's a real, and dangerous, disconnect between what a house costs and what it's actually worth. I'm glad I'm not a first-time buyer getting saddled with a huge mortgage, which realistically most of them won't be able to pay off and that I don't have a mortgage. But it is a bubble and it will eventually burst; at the moment the Government is trying to prop-up this house of cards it has created, but ultimately we are going to see a collapse here that makes the US situation look like a walk in the park, potentially leaving hundreds of thousands unable to keep up with their mortgages and homeless.
It's creating a tax headache for my parents, simply put they bought a run-down large (5 bed) house for 57k in the mid-eighties on a 1/3 acre in Wiltshire. Now they're fretting over how to keep Brown's (and his political inheritors) mitts off my Sister and my's inheritance. They've not had the house recently evaluated, but in the late 90's it was in the 300s. Drove through your neck-of-the-woods a few weeks ago, 'tis a pretty part of the land I must say.
062142174041062102
-
thrakazog wrote:
Should it count as government intervention when the banks got pressured to make more loans and prices soared with a glut of new buyers?
Yes. Here, they gave a first home buyers grant of $4k or something. Houses on the low end just jumped up overnight to absorb it. All of that is wrong, it always does things that were not intended.
thrakazog wrote:
I'm looking for investment property myself but in the Portland area it's hard to find a place that you could rent for anything near the mortgage payment.
Portland is a gorgeous place to be tho, so you have to take that into account. When my rental had a mortgage, our rent could not cover more than about 60% of it. But, we choose to live here for the lifestyle benefits.
thrakazog wrote:
How big is 27 square? This isn't a metric I'm familiar with.
Assuming that one of my steps is a metre, it's about 28 metres by 8 metres, on the inside. Acccording to google, a "square" is traditionally 10 foot x 10 foot, which is the equivalent of 3.048m x 3.048m.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
When my rental had a mortgage, our rent could not cover more than about 60% of it.
That's what I'm hoping to avoid. I've been considering buying some property in other cities where the rent could cover the mortgage. Something like this.[^] But it's hard to keep an eye on an investment from 300 miles away.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
When my rental had a mortgage, our rent could not cover more than about 60% of it.
That's what I'm hoping to avoid. I've been considering buying some property in other cities where the rent could cover the mortgage. Something like this.[^] But it's hard to keep an eye on an investment from 300 miles away.
Yeah, the other thing for me is that we kept the old house when we moved, we didn't buy an investment directly. And, the idea is to give our kids some help to continue to live near us, so we can see the grandkids. A house on the mainland would defeat that purpose.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
fat_boy wrote:
And if you dont think that paople have a basic right to live in property that is decent, and affords them a provacy, with somewhere for their kids to play, and buy all that on an average wage then you are a fool. Because you are inviting social tension by excluding people.
Award yourself a Hammer and Sickle.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Worked hard and invested their money? You just stated you made 100 K in a year doing NOTHING to a house. How they hell is that working hard?
I worked hard to PAY for the house. I didn't make 100k. The current value on the property I own moved, but I don't get sent a cheque. Really, I should sell my rental while prices are high, but I'm not going to, because that would mean throwing my tenant on her ear, or at least having her see a big jump in her rent.
fat_boy wrote:
And if you dont think that paople have a basic right to live in property that is decent, and affords them a provacy, with somewhere for their kids to play, and buy all that on an average wage then you are a fool. Because you are inviting social tension by excluding people.
I'm not excluding anyone. Life is. Some people end up in big houses. Some end up in smaller houses. Some end up in public housing. I said that somewhere on this thread, life is unfair and the government must choose IF it intervenes, and also HOW. I think that public housing is a better solution that government trying to meddle in markets, which always does unintended harm.
fat_boy wrote:
The ONLY reason your house has gone up in value, and lets face it, it doesnt actually do you any good does it, is because of stupid lending policy that very nearly destroyed the UK. And I mean it was close to complete melt down.
Well, houses here started artificially low, but, yes, there's a bubble happening. You attacked me elsewhere for pointing that out, so why are you saying hte same thing ?
fat_boy wrote:
So if houses were cheaer, and ability to take on debt limited, you would live in the same house, but pay less per month for it. And so would everyone else. So whats your beef?
I own my house outright. But, that's not the point. I have no beef. I am not talking about what I wish would happen, I'm talking about how life works. We can fantasise about a workers paradise all day long, but that won't change reality.
fat_boy wrote:
Oh, and please stop showing off about how much moiney you have. Its getting quite nauseating.
To be honest, I find it a little embarrassing when the conversation heads in that direction. I don't have TONS of money. I am comfortab
Christian Graus wrote:
We can fantasise about a workers paradise all day long, but that won't change reality.
Its a shame we ever stopped. People, governments, leaders used to care. Some do still (head of HSBC for one). The spirit of unfettered greed and selfishness since the mid nineties is not only unpleasant, but has now damaged our economies to the point where the average workign Joe is going to be paying for others mistakes for decades. Morality and decency, and compassion are not just preserves of the religious, humanists (as I might consider myself) also care. You should too, after all your religiojn is about caring. You should welcome a reduction in house prices not so you can buy another but so some average Joe
Christian Graus wrote:
Are you suggesting I should pretend to be poor, so people will like me ?
Ah, back to the teenager style of debate. I hoped we might avoid that.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
thrakazog wrote:
Award yourself a Hammer and Sickle.
And you dont care about anyone except yourself. You dont care for your contry, how other people live, just so long as you got yours eh? Nice.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
And you dont care about anyone except yourself.
Swing and a miss.
fat_boy wrote:
You dont care for your contry
If I didn't care i wouldn't be so angry about what our dear leaders in washington are doing.
fat_boy wrote:
how other people live
2 Points. I don't care how other people live. I started on the bottom rung. I busted my ass to get mine. Others are free to do the same, I won't stop them. If they elect not to I'm not going to hand it to them.
-
It's creating a tax headache for my parents, simply put they bought a run-down large (5 bed) house for 57k in the mid-eighties on a 1/3 acre in Wiltshire. Now they're fretting over how to keep Brown's (and his political inheritors) mitts off my Sister and my's inheritance. They've not had the house recently evaluated, but in the late 90's it was in the 300s. Drove through your neck-of-the-woods a few weeks ago, 'tis a pretty part of the land I must say.
062142174041062102
MidwestLimey wrote:
Drove through your neck-of-the-woods a few weeks ago, 'tis a pretty part of the land I must say.
Indeed it is. I keep threatening to get a motorbike for the soul purpose of bombing up and down the A272 - but apparently I'm not allowed to (probably a good thing, I'd probably have an encounter with a tree 30 minutes or so of setting off).
-
MidwestLimey wrote:
Drove through your neck-of-the-woods a few weeks ago, 'tis a pretty part of the land I must say.
Indeed it is. I keep threatening to get a motorbike for the soul purpose of bombing up and down the A272 - but apparently I'm not allowed to (probably a good thing, I'd probably have an encounter with a tree 30 minutes or so of setting off).
Mrs Limey who, poor lass, is utterly accustomed to the American suburbs couldn't understand why the narrow and winding roads in the back-and-beyond of Wiltshire had 60mph speed limits. My attempts to demonstrate did not help the situation. She now believes that the ever familiar black on white sign is in fact showing a funerary armband.
062142174041062102