Insane Cost Of Living (Rosemount, Trail: real estate, apartment, foreclosure)

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Vagus

So that's a 263% increase 19 years (1972-1991) compared to a 223% increase over the next 17 years (1991-2008) . . . what's the big difference? Your parents were probably pretty stoked to get a whopping $80K in 1991 -- it's all relative.

That 80K price in Richifield in 1991 is pretty amazing. Our family paid around 129K for an average size house in Overland Park, KS that same year. Home appreciation in the Kansas City metro area was much slower compared with MPLS during the last 10-15 years. It really all depends on location I am sure.

[jeffro1]

I moved from San Diego, $400,000 homes to Omaha...& $110,000 homes, i understand the difference in the price of living but, it really comes down to how much they are paying you. I took a drop in salary to live in Omaha, it turned out to be a huge raise. Now i am looking at Minnesota.....looks like i might be staying here.

[taw1955]

What states are cheaper than Minnesota and have their good quality of life? After living here all my life I am seriously considering moving. Any opinions?

[moving123456]

Originally Posted by taw1955

What states are cheaper than Minnesota and have their good quality of life? After living here all my life I am seriously considering moving. Any opinions?

Many are cheaper. Few or none have the same quality of life for less money.

[MNNative]

I agree and disagree with quite a few posters here including the original OP.

Yes, there's going to be a huge gap in between 1972 prices/wages and 2008 prices/wages. Hello. That's a simple and obvious fact. Inflation is a dirty word, but it's also a very real one. Unfortunately, the wage increase does not keep up most of the time, and a perception that the cost of living is "insane" can be warranted in many locations because of that--Mpls included. Personally, I can't fathom living in OC (California in general I guess) or NY or Boston even...and podunk towns with lower costs of living just don't have the right...flair...for me to be comfortable. Everything compared, I feel MN has the best of what I'm looking for at a "get what you pay for" (or better) type of deal. IMO.

My husband and I might be able to afford a larger home if we both worked...then again (and a reason for why I don't work) with 2 kids (and hopefully more in the near future), most if not all of my income would go towards daycare costs most likely...so what's the point? (The main reason is I'm not having anyone raise my kids but me! ) So instead, the benefits of me staying home are far greater than the sometimes overwhelming fact that we're living off one income. That's a decision that we have chosen...live with a restricting budget until our income changes. Not many people are prepared to make that decision...but in a way, I sympathize with the "singles" who'd like to purchase a home and feel the tension (we're 23 and 24 btw).

To whoever posted that it's easy to get a mortgage these days...are you currently trying to do that? We are, and it can be surprisingly difficult, even with good credit. The sticklers are very much anxious about going above a certain "cap" in regards to debt to income ratio. (by debt I'm meaning home cost) A lender told us that unless someone has at least 3-5% down there is no way for people to get a fixed rate loan these days (according to Freddie/Fannie whatever). The lender we are working with is also a stickler; we were initially slated for a max. monthly payment that is actually LOWER than our current monthly rent payment...simply because in bank standards, despite the fact that we are paying what we pay each and every month, it's not the preferred ratio. (We're in negotiations so I can't comment on our final product, but this is just a sampling of what the mortgage market is right now from a buyer's perspective).

Also...I think it was Nick who said it...I'm a little confused. Why, when prices are LOW now (albeit I've heard you mention you're convinced they're going to lower) would you suggest not purchasing, but instead purchasing in 2009 when the market "gets better" or whatever? By getting better I presume that to mean that prices are stabilizing and appreciation will continue as naturally it should (you know, houses are supposed to appreciate over time)...am I misunderstanding you? We chose to act now cause a)rumor has it that the market should or possibly is turning around in the near future b)depending on the cost of the home we can easily be paying less for housing than we do now (that's our personal situation) and c)prices have severely dropped already since the bubble exploded and many homes are priced much below what they were worth prior to the boom--since we plan to keep our home for years, if we purchase at the right price, we potentially stand to gain regardless of whether the home continues to drop some. If it's slated to escalate again soon (2009, 2010, whenever) then does it matter what you get it? I think it is, or at least should be by now, a rule of thumb that homes are not investments. They can be, but you shouldn't bank your retirement account on the fate of your home value. I'm genuinely wanting to hear your point of view. In no way am I trying to get you defensive, btw. Also, I'd like to point out, a nice plot in Camden is very possible under $120k. We've seen plenty (and the one's we've tried to put offers on have sold for under that--with multiple offers) and we're currently buying for less than that in Camden as well...I didn't check the date on that post, but FYI...in TODAY'S market, it's so possible!

[MNNative]

Originally Posted by Ishten

Like the commercial says...


"How do I do it?"


*smiling* "I'm in debt up to my eyeballs"


That commercial always makes me laugh.

So true, I think this is hilarious...unfortunately true of many people...still funny!

[nick is rulz]

Home prices wont go back up in 2009 or 2010. The market will need serious correction before they start balancing themselves out...and it wont happen in 2 years.

With the unstable condition the economy is in right now, most people are not considering taking on additional expenses in homeownership. Banks are less willing to lend now than they were 4 years ago and the general consensus amongst those without a financial interest in telling you otherwise is "dont buy now".

If the main concern is the almighty dollar, a home is a stupid investment right now. If the concern is a long term place of residence for a family, why not?

[MNNative]

Originally Posted by nick is rulz

Home prices wont go back up in 2009 or 2010. The market will need serious correction before they start balancing themselves out...and it wont happen in 2 years.

With the unstable condition the economy is in right now, most people are not considering taking on additional expenses in homeownership. Banks are less willing to lend now than they were 4 years ago and the general consensus amongst those without a financial interest in telling you otherwise is "dont buy now".

If the main concern is the almighty dollar, a home is a stupid investment right now. If the concern is a long term place of residence for a family, why not?

Ok. I see where you're coming from now.

Anyhow, the main point and possibly most important for people to understand is your last statement.

[taysantanamama]

I don't know where zillow gets their info. When I lived in white bear lake, our house was listed as 257,000, we bought for 217, sold 2 years later for 223,000. I think we got pretty lucky on that one. The house I am renting in Hawaii says it is worth over 1 million dollars, but I know the owners got it for 524,000 and no house within many blocks is worth over 1mil, so take zillow with a grain of salt.

And as for not being able to afford houses, I think it is because the younger generations have such a sense of entitlement(i blame reality tv, the real housewives...my super sweet 16...etc)that they get out of college, they want the louis vuitton bags, prada shoes, dolce sunglasses, true religion jeans, juicy hoodies, vacations, spa appointments, hummers, a house is not a priority like it was in our parents generation. It was house first, food, savings, clothing, then car and luxuries. Then when these kids settle down, they are so in debt they can't get a house, and they are so spoiled, they will only settle for the best house, not a starter. Oh well, they are products of their own selfishness.

[MNNative]

Originally Posted by taysantanamama

I don't know where zillow gets their info. When I lived in white bear lake, our house was listed as 257,000, we bought for 217, sold 2 years later for 223,000. I think we got pretty lucky on that one. The house I am renting in Hawaii says it is worth over 1 million dollars, but I know the owners got it for 524,000 and no house within many blocks is worth over 1mil, so take zillow with a grain of salt.

And as for not being able to afford houses, I think it is because the younger generations have such a sense of entitlement(i blame reality tv, the real housewives...my super sweet 16...etc)that they get out of college, they want the louis vuitton bags, prada shoes, dolce sunglasses, true religion jeans, juicy hoodies, vacations, spa appointments, hummers, a house is not a priority like it was in our parents generation. It was house first, food, savings, clothing, then car and luxuries. Then when these kids settle down, they are so in debt they can't get a house, and they are so spoiled, they will only settle for the best house, not a starter. Oh well, they are products of their own selfishness.

I second that Zillow comment. Zillow is not very accurate at all. You can gain information about nearby house sales and about what the house was last sold at, but other than that it's Zestimate is not very accurate.

I think you're onto something about the current generation as well (yes, I am a GenYer as well...but my baby boomer mom did well by me) I hear GenXers paved the "way of entitlement"...but I won't get into any of that talk...