Millennials simply can't afford to live in OC (San Jose, Riverside: 2013, apartment complexes)

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by ottomobeale

Folks, check out the Seattle, Manhattan, SF boards. Same stories. Cool places are simply getting insanely priced. Dry up the supply of (often illegal) immigrant lawn guys...

PS a 7500 dollar civic will not likely last 15-20 more years unless you are well under the median 16K miles a year (quite possibly much more in an expensive metro). Its 10 years old already and likely has about 110-120K miles.

People laugh at the midwest. Its cold and snowy... Guess they just have to tough it out in their 225K 4 bedroom 3 car garage houses for around $1400 a month INCLUDING property taxes. Cool and cheap are often exclusive of
each other. There are many of those cities there where yes, there ARE good jobs.

A $7500 Civic will surprise you. The D15/D16 engines in those cars have gone 250,000-300,000 no problem. They are built to last.

The midwest is cheap, and I wouldn't laugh at people who choose to live there, but there is a reason homes are $225k, and it's not just because "it's not considered cool". The average wage in a place like say, Iowa or Nebraska, is going to be 50-60% of the wage you would be able to get in places like San Francisco, Seattle, or Los Angeles for the same exact job. Also, I know people who have moved from places like those because of the weather extremes. Not everyone likes to deal with possible tornadoes, ice/snow storms, and having to shovel your driveway and sidewalk every other day.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by man4857

You're missing the other piece when renting, there's no need for a down payment, therefore I can invest it.
Money available to invest: 73000 (20% of 365K) + 18250 closing = 91250, assuming stock market at compounded yearly @ average 7%, 146527 this doesn't include money invested you could have if you didn't spend more in insurance, maintenance, utilities, etc. obviously this number would be higher

Not sure if you're in such a big hole as you say. The real specifics will come down to your income, taxes, appreciation rates, interest rate, and opportunity cost.

From my observation, most renters squander their money on eating out more than homeowners as well as buying depreciating assets like expensive cars.

[payutenyodagimas]

I myself don't believe in the returns of investment of a house. I told my wife that I could double our DP in 5 years but she's just adamant in having a place of her own where she could barbecue, garden and doesn't have to carry her purchases from Costco from the parking lot.


so far so good..don't have to pay IRS and Franchise Tax Board come April and maybe next year our house exp will be equal to what our neighbor will be paying on their apartment

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

I myself don't believe in the returns of investment of a house. I told my wife that I could double our DP in 5 years but she's just adamant in having a place of her own where she could barbecue, garden and doesn't have to carry her purchases from Costco from the parking lot.


so far so good..don't have to pay IRS and Franchise Tax Board come April and maybe next year our house exp will be equal to what our neighbor will be paying on their apartment

Home ownership in the LONG run is almost always a winner. This has been the case over 100 years of recorded history.

In the short term, like those unlucky home buyers who got caught 2004-2006, they got raked across the coals.

Funny thing is, 10 years after 2006, many of those people who were able to hold on are now almost in the black from an equity position.

[man4857]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Home ownership in the LONG run is almost always a winner. This has been the case over 100 years of recorded history.

In the short term, like those unlucky home buyers who got caught 2004-2006, they got raked across the coals.

Funny thing is, 10 years after 2006, many of those people who were able to hold on are now almost in the black from an equity position.

Yes in the long run, I don't think he was saying, home ownership is totally out of the picture, it is in the picture and will be better in the long run as long as you can stay put for quite a while. Most Americans can't even do that.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by man4857

Yes in the long run, I don't think he was saying, home ownership is totally out of the picture, it is in the picture and will be better in the long run as long as you can stay put for quite a while. Most Americans can't even do that.

That's true, a lot of Americans aren't fortunate enough to have long term employment. In California, that mostly goes to people who are in the public unions. Also based on the anti-business environment, it makes it much harder for companies to offer stability with the ever increasing tax burden faced by the private sector, and it's not going to get better with one-party rule in California.

Guess voting does have consequences right?

[man4857]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

From my observation, most renters squander their money on eating out more than homeowners as well as buying depreciating assets like expensive cars.

I'd argue, homeowners do the same thing. Over 50% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and I'm willing to bet, some of those are homeowners. Having a house or not having a house, doesn't change people's behavior, it just forces people to pay a bill.

[Hippityhop]

Originally Posted by man4857

Given that kind of property, chances are, most people will not stay in a condo for 10+ years. They're trying to use it to get into a SFH. Given the prices of SFH, renting is the way to go until one can purchase a SFH. The shorter you stay with any piece of property, the more money you lose when comes time to sell and move. I'm not advocating saying rent forever, it's just that statistics show, most people move too frequently to take real advantage of the benefits of homeownership.

What do you mean not available for investing? You rent space or if you buy you rent money (interest) with a mortgage. Somehow interest isn't flushing money down the toilet but renting is? The first year alone on 4% of 265K is 10400, flushed down the toilet to make banks rich. You can deduct it from taxes to save a little bit it still stands, just add it up for 7 years to see how much that loan costs in addition to down payment, closing costs, etc. these extra costs also are flushed down the toilet. Over the life of the loan you've paid more than double what the original property costs due to all the interest. That's also a ton of money flushed down the toilet.

I wasn't talking about your own finances, I was talking about you thinking you flushed 173K down the toilet by renting.

Lol it's because of people like you that I'm in business. Please keep renting!

Amortization and a fixed mortgage eaten by inflation is the owner's friend. Not the renter's.

[ottomobeale]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

A $7500 Civic will surprise you. The D15/D16 engines in those cars have gone 250,000-300,000 no problem. They are built to last.

The midwest is cheap, and I wouldn't laugh at people who choose to live there, but there is a reason homes are $225k, and it's not just because "it's not considered cool". The average wage in a place like say, Iowa or Nebraska, is going to be 50-60% of the wage you would be able to get in places like San Francisco, Seattle, or Los Angeles for the same exact job. Also, I know people who have moved from places like those because of the weather extremes. Not everyone likes to deal with possible tornadoes, ice/snow storms, and having to shovel your driveway and sidewalk every other day.

Not disputing the Honda I4s being awesome engines. Going more than 225K - 250K median mileage. I have friends / workmates with these cars. 225-250K would be my guestimate of median. Id love to see a site that lists 10th 50th and 90th percentile for "age at scrapping" for cars by year and engine. 20 years at 16K or even 15 years at 16K is well above the median. Odd note: The highest mileage Ive seen IRL outside of car shows is 645K on a Chrysler Minivan used as a long distance taxi.

Sorry for the diversion. Pay is 50% to 60% MIGHT in the poor south like MS, AL, FL. CA has some specialties at the high end in San Jose, but a median run of the mill ME or EE in say Cincinnati where you can get that 225 K house is well above 50% of say OC pay. You can look it up but Ill guestimate 75-90%.

You pay to live with that weather. As for weather extremes. Not weather per se...

::Cough:: earthquakes ::cough

makes me sad tho. Wish people could live in those cool places without the extreme cost. reality is reality.

[kevxu]

Originally Posted by Arizona89A

Over here in metro Phoenix, and Scottsdale, millenials are not motivated. They move from back east and the Midwest as trust funders, causing a lot of problems with drugs and crime. When I've been in Irvine, Newport, I don't see this, I see motivated, professional young people who aren't smoking weed and meth. Further north in oc, a different story. Durango, Colorado is another place with non contributing members of society who are trust funders, and lots of drugs.

The above is the major reason why I dislike Phoenix and Scottsdale.

Originally Posted by erickz623

Ha. I received my education and established myself in my career. Affordable housing is something that should be attainable, but that isn't the case in Southern California.

Lousy trust fund, eh?