Aside from property prices, property taxes and gas, is California that much more expensive than other states ? (renter, landlords)

[Racer46]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

It does keep going up for a while, and then it goes down. Yes, wait in 2014 and 2015 and continue to wait now. You do nto need a crystal ball. When the market is high, it is obvious. When it crashes it is obvious. In 2014 and 2015 it was obviously high - wait. IN early 2021 it is still obviously high - keep waiting. When it crashes, you will know. Stop waiting. yes it may continue to crash for a while, but the idea is not to try to time it so you buy at the absolute bottom, that is impossible to know. However you certainly know when there is a crash and when the market is high. Buy somewhere in the crash time period, not in the high time period. Not really complicated. The only hard part is learning to be patient. People panic (especially younger people). Oh noooo I have to get in right now! Prices just keep going up. Yes, they do keep going up. Until they go down. Usually they will flatten out a bit between up an down, but not always.

High and low is only important to someone who sees it as a short term investment, not a home. Those who bought in the 70's, 80's 90's and early 2000 have a nice equity now. If a person can afford to buy one, the time to do it is when they fond a home they like, in a location they like and near work, if still working.



I have owned a number of homes and bought at the high and low end and .. always made money as I lived nearly 10 years in all but 1. They money made, gave me enough to buy what I then wanted where I wanted it. Trying to identify a low is foolish and worrying about a high is also of no value. Buy when you are ready and can afford it, unless you are only focused on selling in a short time to gain money from equity increase. Of course you never know when is a good time to buy in that case.

[BobPhipps]

Originally Posted by Racer46

High and low is only important to someone who sees it as a short term investment, not a home. Those who bought in the 70's, 80's 90's and early 2000 have a nice equity now. If a person can afford to buy one, the time to do it is when they fond a home they like, in a location they like and near work, if still working

Most people I know look at it that way also. My life (and emotions) weren't dependent on the ebbs and flow of the real estate market. There were no gains or losses in play as far as I was concerned since I wasn't looking to sell. It was my dwelling, a community I loved, and a great place for my kids. And we had plenty of discretionary income had we needed it. Appreciation was the last thing I thought of on a daily basis. I can't imagine living my life being so caught up with that. There are a lot more important things in my life.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by BobPhipps

Most people I know look at it that way also. My life (and emotions) weren't dependent on the ebbs and flow of the real estate market. There were no gains or losses in play as far as I was concerned since I wasn't looking to sell. It was my dwelling, a community I loved, and a great place for my kids. And we had plenty of discretionary income had we needed it. Appreciation was the last thing I thought of on a daily basis. I can't imagine living my life being so caught up with that. There are a lot more important things in my life.

I regard it this way: will I die in this house, or am I likely to relocate, say for another job, or retirement, or the nursing-home? If so, then sales-price matters. There's a dollar-figure at the end.

Now let's consider how to attain a cumulative dollar-figure from our various activities. I could save a higher portion of my income; maybe improve my career, thus earning more money. Maybe invest more aggressively in the stock market, hopefully garnering a higher rate of return. And so on. Or, I could passively benefit from a strongly appreciating house. The more that the house appreciates, the less that I have to worry about aggressive investing, or saving, or chasing a career. I could take a less lucrative and less stressful job... spend more of my money, instead of saving it... or maybe invest in less volatile investments, thus sleeping better at night.

Rising home-equity creates all sorts of choices. Falling or stagnant home-equity abridges those choices. Isn't it better, to have more choices?

[BobPhipps]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

I regard it this way: will I die in this house, or am I likely to relocate, say for another job, or retirement, or the nursing-home? If so, then sales-price matters. There's a dollar-figure at the end.

Now let's consider how to attain a cumulative dollar-figure from our various activities. I could save a higher portion of my income; maybe improve my career, thus earning more money. Maybe invest more aggressively in the stock market, hopefully garnering a higher rate of return. And so on. Or, I could passively benefit from a strongly appreciating house. The more that the house appreciates, the less that I have to worry about aggressive investing, or saving, or chasing a career. I could take a less lucrative and less stressful job... spend more of my money, instead of saving it... or maybe invest in less volatile investments, thus sleeping better at night.

Rising home-equity creates all sorts of choices. Falling or stagnant home-equity abridges those choices. Isn't it better, to have more choices?

Eh, different strategies. I've never really thought about changing careers as I find what I do very fulfilling (and I don't keep an outrageous workweek, nor do I have to). My wife and I have always intended on leaving our home to our children (as far as we're concerned, any appreciation is theirs). I don't spend money or make life style changes based on a paper gain, nor would I change any kind of investment strategy over something as uncertain and volatile as real estate (and I don't lose sleep over it). I don't look at a home as an ATM machine.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

That's an important observation. But we need to balance this cycling against the general upward trend. Wait long enough, and the upward trend will overwhelm the cycles. Surely somebody who bought a house in Los Angeles in 1970, will today be sitting on handsome cumulative gains, even if that house was originally bought in a maximally unfortunate part of the cycle.

Ohio, anyone who bought a house in 1970 at around 30 years of age would be 81 now. Do you think that most of these people are still living in those houses? And if they're still living, they need to fund their remaining years, some of which will include major medical costs. You seem to focus on this HUGE windfall that people made who bought years ago.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Ohio, anyone who bought a house in 1970 at around 30 years of age would be 81 now. Do you think that most of these people are still living in those houses? And if they're still living, they need to fund their remaining years, some of which will include major medical costs. You seem to focus on this HUGE windfall that people made who bought years ago.

I can only speak for my own generation. I was a youngish fellow in the mid-1990s, earning my first "professional" salary. The LA market was, to put it mildly, sleepy. A modest house in an OK area could be bought for under $200K, circa 1995. I had the opportunity to purchase, but didn't. Today that house is $800K, or more. LA real estate over 25 years has kept pace with the S&P 500. Amazing, isn't it?

I'd never become a violin virtuoso, a chess grandmaster, a Nobel-prize-winning physicist. Some aspirations are sheer fantasy and self-delusion. Fine. But the house-purchasing thing was attainable and real. Lots of my then-peers did it. I didn't. And instead moved to Ohio. Where the house that I ended up purchasing, languished... to say the least.

Yes of course, "them's the breaks", "life ain't fair", and so on. Yes, of course. And time and chance overtake us all. Yes, of course. But from time to time, the chance is such, that we regret an obvious and then-attainable thing. And indulge in a reverie, of what might have been....

[ndindy]

I'm puzzled when people say California is more expensive than other states, outside of housing. Have you ever lived anywhere else? A lot of places have their own expensive areas.



Electricity rates overall are higher than other states, but people use less electricity here, so I don't think most are spending more than they would budget in another area. My utility bills are cheaper here than both Indiana and Florida.


Car Registration. It did go up a couple of years ago, but before that, it was very reasonable. I'm still paying less here than in either Florida or Indiana.


Car Insurance. California is the cheapest. Same with Home owner's



State income tax. We have a progressive tax. Most of us pay very little as a percentage of our overall incomes. And you can write off a lot on your state tax return.



I think the "expensive" label thrown on California largely rests on the high price of housing. Since everyone needs a place to live, this is a big deal. I can see the frustration in this area.

[BobPhipps]

Originally Posted by ndindy

I think the "expensive" label thrown on California largely rests on the high price of housing. Since everyone needs a place to live, this is a big deal. I can see the frustration in this area.

Ya think?!

And yet, the OP purposely wants people to ignore the elephant in the room. Yeah, that makes sense. Who in their right mind would compare CA with other states on how expensive it is and not include housing and the expenses related to it? Absolutely ridiculous.

[saibot]

Originally Posted by BobPhipps

Ya think?!

And yet, the OP purposely wants people to ignore the elephant in the room. Yeah, that makes sense. Who in their right mind would compare CA with other states on how expensive it is and not include housing and the expenses related to it? Absolutely ridiculous.

Well, obviously the cost of housing is not a big deal for people who purchased a house in California at a time when houses were less expensive. All the other expenses of life, you can't get away from in California or anywhere else. So Californians who aren't spending a bundle on the cost of housing are more focused on how much food, utilities, taxes, and all the other stuff would be in other places. They're not jumping up and down saying "Wow, the cost of housing would be so much less in Arkansas!"

[BobPhipps]

Originally Posted by saibot

Well, obviously the cost of housing is not a big deal for people who purchased a house in California at a time when houses were less expensive. All the other expenses of life, you can't get away from in California or anywhere else. So Californians who aren't spending a bundle on the cost of housing are more focused on how much food, utilities, taxes, and all the other stuff would be in other places. They're not jumping up and down saying "Wow, the cost of housing would be so much less in Arkansas!"

And the reality is that percentage is not all that high as the average property tax bill is $4k (The state collects over $60 billion a year in property taxes). Not to mention, the number of long time homeowners will be reduced massively with the passing of Prop 19. It is by far the most relevant item in regards to overall expenses and clearly one that should not be ignored.