Do you think MA retirees will sell their homes en masse by 2015? (renting, condos)

[Logs and Dogs]

My parents are new retirees, they plan on selling their home in Metrowest MA and downsizing to another condo (they currently have one in FL) within the next 18-24mos.

One datapoint isn't a trend, but they aren't uncommon in their situation in MW.

Why pay taxes and maintenance on a $500K house you are in for 4mos per year? Makes no sense to anyone.

[chaxey]

Some people dont' consider a house just a house, it's a home filled with memories and history.

My MiL and FiL for example, they spend probably 40% of the year in Florida or Maine but maintain a house in Massachusetts. They will only leave that house if the method of transportation is a pine box with pall bearers.

To them, it's not just a house or 'equity' for retirement. It's the pencil marks on the basement door where they measured their kids, and so on. I know epople like to talk about real estate as if it's purely a numbers game, but it simply is not.

Granted, some people don't have the luxury of comfortable p ensions and retirement funds and will be forced to sell their home whether they want to or not. The analysis and math should probably focus on this demographic, which is a subset of the baby-boomers.

I mean, I can tell you unequivocally that my retired parents will never, EVER sell their house. And, quite frankly, they absolutely do fit the mold of people that live in a house today, that they could never afford if they didn't buy it in the 1970's when pricing was what it was. This is mostly because they were a single income family with a S@H mom.

That is the number 1 difference between today and yesteryear. For better or for worse, dual income families with women in the workplace is a HUGE contributor to the housing price increases we're seeing. Prices inch up more because the avg household income is so much higher. Instead of women working as secretaries and teachers or not at all (lower income positions) more and more women are advancing and making money more comparable to their male counterparts. There's obviously still a big gap with the sexes when it comes to compensation, but in a pure numbers gain it's night and day different than what it was 20 years ago.

[konfetka]

That is the number 1 difference between today and yesteryear. For better or for worse, dual income families with women in the workplace is a HUGE contributor to the housing price increases we're seeing. Prices inch up more because the avg household income is so much higher. Instead of women working as secretaries and teachers or not at all (lower income positions) more and more women are advancing and making money more comparable to their male counterparts. There's obviously still a big gap with the sexes when it comes to compensation, but in a pure numbers gain it's night and day different than what it was 20 years ago.

That's my theory as well. If all women stayed home with kids, houses would be so much cheaper. People kind of trapped themselves.

[Rhapsodie2014]

Originally Posted by sharencare

Do you think MA retirees will sell their homes en masse around 2015?

I was wondering because my in-laws are thinking of retiring and moving in the next few years. They are in California, and their home is still worth much more than they originally paid for decades ago despite the Recession. Perhaps now might be a good time to move to a sunnier location with lower cost of living. Then again people may be staying in jobs longer because their retirement portfolios took a hit on the market (but unlike the rest of us, the older generation are more likely to have defined pensions.) A lot of people are still underwater, and perhaps the older generation borrowed equity on their homes to pay for children's education?

What do you think? Will retirees affect the market?

In case you're interested...
Six Reasons Housing Inventory Keeps Declining - Developments - WSJ

What would MA people advice be to someone who is selling their CA home in order to relocate back to MA. I have older home in So. Cal, probably can get tops 350K. Would have been different had it been sold back before the RE bust.
I cannot afford anywhere within 495....I mean I am hoping to still get a good deal in Worcester or Bristol County. I feel like the cost of living is still higher here in So. Cal , although not by much if talking greater Boston.
Anyone's advice......I have to come back there (to MA) and rent temporarily and also find a job and also sell house in So. Cal......with no one to help me and elderly woman (my Mom) to bring.......

I would hate to think that I will get priced out of MA housing market because the economy is good there............I go be the reasoning that most people hate NE weather (I love it).....so there will always be affordable areas...that are not ghettos....

Please don't discourage..........I have money to sustain while I find job and housing......would actually like to pay cash for home in Central MA, but must sell CA home first.

Thank you,

signed California hater!

[495neighbor]

Originally Posted by konfetka

That's my theory as well. If all women stayed home with kids, houses would be so much cheaper. People kind of trapped themselves.

And along with this, high income earners marry other high income earners making it more and more difficult for households with a SAHP, middle and low income earners and singles to live in a decent home.

[Kestrel88]

Originally Posted by Rhapsodie2014

I mean I am hoping to still get a good deal in Worcester or Bristol County. I feel like the cost of living is still higher here in So. Cal , although not by much if talking greater Boston.

Worcester County homes are dirt cheap. You could buy a couple for $350k.

[pennyone]

People do have memories for their "home", and this also contribute to the overly optimistic listing prices that, unfortunately, get knocked down to realty after a year or two with no takers on the market. All the while, the over-housed situation, or holding a house with no one in it, drags on with real estate taxes, maintenance costs, heating costs etc piling up.

Memories aside, one must list one's house (not home...that's rally in one's mind) realistically...or pay for those memories with real money lost. Take your pick and stop whining.

It's sort of like whining about the ridiculous cost of day-care.....If you can't afford it, then don't have kids.

[brightdoglover]

Not everyone retiring in the next few years has a *big* house. In my town, there are lots of 1200 sq.ft. ranches built post-war, and a lot of people bought them then or in the 1950s. A lot of them pass these houses on to their grown kids. People do raise families in small 3-bedroom houses, right? Now, of course their sale price is much higher than the original price, and people might sell to get the equity and move to Florida or something. In my town, people basically seem to age in place unless they must go to a nursing home, and their grown kids seem eager to be in or stay in this town.

I know many people who will be retiring in the next five years (I hope to be one of them!) and who are single, several who never had kids. Most of us live in small houses, since we never needed or wanted or could a afford a bigger one. There is no cutoff for selling/moving, and some people long ago paid off their small house and live quite cheaply.

I came to this town because I knew there are small houses/former cottages in lake areas. In the 20 years I've been here, most of the former cottages were either torn down, or built over (mine fell down, and I rebuilt on the same footprint- now have about 1250 sq.ft., which is a castle to me). There are something like 35% over-65s in the town and they are quite well suited in the ranch houses. I gather a new one-level house is rare (this being New England) and that people don't overly like them. I love them. The basic new house (2500sq.ft. straight-front box "colonial") has only a half-bath on the first floor, which I think is a mistake. You don't have to be old and infirm to need a first-floor sleeping area/bath. Anyone can break an ankle or have a c-section or or or. (I learned that I'd made a happy decision to have the first floor be the main living/sleeping/bath area when I got a seriously infected dog bite on my ankle. Couldn't move up or down a step for five days. You don't have to be old).

End of rant. I guess it's fair to say that I won't be selling. The only reason I would is if I wanted to move somewhere else for good or had to for health reasons (like a continuing care community. Have always wanted an indoor pool and someone else to cook).

What I wonder is the "new" (new in N.E. terms) box "colonials" with the four bedrooms upstairs and the half bath downstairs and lots of vague walk-through space. An undesirable design, to me, but common to new houses, supposedly what people want. Are people who become older/retired in these houses going to sell, and will they be able to?

[MikePRU]

Originally Posted by konfetka

That's my theory as well. If all women stayed home with kids, houses would be so much cheaper. People kind of trapped themselves.

My wife actually likes having a job and has no interest in being a SAHM. This was a choice she made and I'm sure there are plenty of women who make the same one. The days of June Cleaver are long over.

[brightdoglover]

And if people didn't have kids, they could afford houses on whatever incomes their household has
Many households are single-income, ONE person- we can't compete with two incomes. Houses will cost what people can and will pay.