How is the condo market north of San Diego? (Irvine: for rent, appliances)

[socketz]

Seems that a 60k job here is what's thought of as 'high pay'. Been that way for years.

I think what happen was that they should have gone up over the past 5 years, but did not do so because people were making so much off their home equity, that they weren't pressing for more money. This is also why Carlsbad seems to be immune to the downturn. It's because alot of people in Carlsbad commute to OC because they can make 15% more. It got frustrating for me. I kept finding all the right interviews, with the right companies, but everytime salary would come up, I would get an 'oh my goodness, we can't pay that'.

Another factor in San Diego is alot of people work way beneath their potential because they consider themselves just lucky to have a job and live in San Diego, they often give up and never aspire to anything more. So employers work that angle. It almost becomes part of the culture. That's one thing I don't miss about San Diego. It was just very uninspiring professionally.

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by socketz

Another factor in San Diego is alot of people work way beneath their potential because they consider themselves just lucky to have a job and live in San Diego, they often give up and never aspire to anything more. So employers work that angle. It almost becomes part of the culture. That's one thing I don't miss about San Diego. It was just very uninspiring professionally.

I have noticed the same thing, it's a common observation I think. My co-worker says there are a lot of 'fakers' in SD - people just barely qualified who trudge along with no real improvement over time.

Unfortunately for me, being in my thirties and 'professionally inspired' is tough, because all these aging boomers above me seem to plan to cling to their jobs until they drop dead. But I digress... :-)

[Need_affordable_home]

Originally Posted by Roma

Hi Need_affordable_home, JFYI. You are forgetting the ever importance of Real Estate, besides timing there is Location, Location, Location. There is a "reason" prices are cheaper in Lancaster. If you lived out here you would know that reason. But yes they are cheaper and if Lancaster is where you want or have to live then yes you will be very happy with the home prices there.

The two guys said it well. I want to add in that if someone is rich enough to be affording those million plus houses in LA, they could probably retire and relocate to a city/state with low costs of living. The working class does not have the big money to live in LA, even Lancaster is a problem as you really need $300k to $400k for a nice big house. The cost per square foot is usually considerabily less for a big house. I can see two families sharing a $400k house with 4 incomes!

[bmurphy]

Originally Posted by Need_affordable_home

The two guys said it well. I want to add in that if someone is rich enough to be affording those million plus houses in LA, they could probably retire and relocate to a city/state with low costs of living. The working class does not have the big money to live in LA, even Lancaster is a problem as you really need $300k to $400k for a nice big house. The cost per square foot is usually considerabily less for a big house. I can see two families sharing a $400k house with 4 incomes!

I don't mean to be rude but $300k is not an amazingly high home price. In most desirable areas, that's the price you'd pay, or more. Ten years ago in 1997 $300k might have sounded astronomical, but it's not that far from average now.

[socketz]

I'm paying 300k here in Dallas and this was supposed to be the place with 100k housing.

Seems that everyone is still looking for sub 200k and I believe that with the exception of the economically stagnant parts of the midwest (i.e. Ohio), those days are gone.

[shannon94]

Originally Posted by socketz

I'm paying 300k here in Dallas and this was supposed to be the place with 100k housing.

Seems that everyone is still looking for sub 200k and I believe that with the exception of the economically stagnant parts of the midwest (i.e. Ohio), those days are gone.

Yeah...it USE to be the place for 100K housing.......heck even in Frisco some friends of mine who moved here a couple of years before we did (I think they moved here in 97) bought 2400 sq ft for a little over 100K. Even though this is "slow appreciation" Texas ...they made quite a profit after Frisco started growing and moved up to 4000 sq ft. Frisco at the time we moved here just seemed to "far out" to me. I like living in the metroplex and being close to everything, so we didn't go that route. (also didn't like the "Truman Show" feel it had at the time.)

[Need_affordable_home]

Originally Posted by bmurphy

I don't mean to be rude but $300k is not an amazingly high home price. In most desirable areas, that's the price you'd pay, or more. Ten years ago in 1997 $300k might have sounded astronomical, but it's not that far from average now.

The national median is $220k or so, this means half the houses by definition cost less than that. I think most people would consider $300k very expensive. Youd need at least a 6 figure income to afford a such house. I have a friend in San Diego who has both a job and a business and doesnt make enough to afford even a condo. He still lives with parents and told me he might have to relocate.

As for Dallas, plenty of $100k and even $50k houses. Granted those affordable houses arent in the safest neighboorhoods, but the point is affordable housing is a reality in Dallas.

[LivingLikeAGradStudent]

If the neighborhood isn't safe, it isn't affordable no matter the actual cost.

[kettlepot]

A 300k house in San Diego, which doesn't exist, would only cost $2200/month. An income of $60-70k would cover that. However, there are condos for that price, but that wouldn't cover the HOA. Houses for 450k which do exist in San Diego can easily be qualified for with an income of $100k, and as little as 80k if you are prepared to make some sacrifices. The old axiom of spending only 1/3 of your income on housing has long not applied to coastal California.

[shannon94]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

A 300k house in San Diego, which doesn't exist, would only cost $2200/month. An income of $60-70k would cover that. However, there are condos for that price, but that wouldn't cover the HOA. Houses for 450k which do exist in San Diego can easily be qualified for with an income of $100k, and as little as 80k if you are prepared to make some sacrifices. The old axiom of spending only 1/3 of your income on housing has long not applied to coastal California.

Your figures could be correct if you had no other bills, kids, and you never did anything... but work. I remember a long period of time when one could only spend 1/3 of their income on housing in California. It's just been the last 6-7 years that things have been this crazy there. We make over 100k and I would never spend 450k on a house...but that's just me. The thought of having that kind of mortgage for that long is just ...well ...tiring!! lol I'm not bashing people who choose to do this however ...so don't start in on me!! lol