Los Angeles Real Estate (Glendale, Huntington Beach: find a job, transfer, public school)

[user_id]

Originally Posted by JerZ

Okay, and meanwhile, we need a comparison to the nation as a whole since it's being asserted that L.A. homes v. income 10 years ago were roughly comparable to homes v. income in the rest of the nation...

No, that hasn't been asserted.

This conversation is utterly pointless if you are going to continue to distort and/or not keep track of what is being claimed. I have suggested that the ratio in LA after the 70's has been between 3x and 4x, when it gets down to 3x its "cheap" when it gets over 4x its expensive. In 2000 the ratio was roughly 4x, mid 90's it was closer to 3x.

The higher ratios in California don't really represent less affordable housing in local terms. As I've suggested in this thread, both Prop 13 and the wealth in California can distort the ratios upward.

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by user_id

No, that hasn't been asserted.

This conversation is utterly pointless if you are going to continue to distort and/or not keep track of what is being claimed. I have suggested that the ratio in LA after the 70's has been between 3x and 4x, when it gets down to 3x its "cheap" when it gets over 4x its expensive. In 2000 the ratio was roughly 4x, mid 90's it was closer to 3x.

The higher ratios in California don't really represent less affordable housing in local terms. As I've suggested in this thread, both Prop 13 and the wealth in California can distort the ratios upward.

Oh good God. (sigh) (trudging off to comb through the tread and get quotes from user_id)

How do I multi-quote? Somebody PM me? I actually don't know. I've never done it. But this is going to be a long one.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by JerZ

And no. Just in case you're getting ready to ask. $160K is NOT "about" $225K.

See my note for about inflation. Some data will be inflation adjusted, some will not, you have to be careful to match non-adjusted data with non-adjusted data and vice verse.

Also, you can quote me until you are blue in the face. My claims have not changed, you just continuously misinterpret them.

[JerZ]

BELOW: Italics are user_id's quotes. Plain type are my responses.

***

My view is based on the data.

No. Unless it's the wrong data.

In 2000 the median home price in LA was around $200k,

No it wasn't.

a bit more than 4x the median income.

Incorrect again. It was well, and I mean comfortably (or uncomfortably? for buyers) over 5X. Fairly large difference there, pooks.

The above quotes are from this post.


I'm talking about real estate in Los Angeles as whole,

...Just getting a jump start on your "No, I never said I was talking about the entire area!" backpedal that's sure to follow (or something similar.) The above quote is from this post.

If someone with a median income can afford roughly a median home in his/her community then I'd suggest homes are "affordable".

Then 10 years ago, no, homes were not "affordable" by your very own equation. The above quote is from this post.

There were jobs and average folks could buy nice homes for cheap. As the area started to get built out the prices stopped being cheap, though they remained anchored (and hence affordable) to local wages up until around 2000.

No, not affordable in 2000, or in 1999; not by *your very own* 4X (max) equation. The above quote is from this post.

LA being expensive is a recent phenomena.

Wrong again by (yawning) (covering mouth with hand) sorry. ...by your very own equation. The above quote also links to the post just above.

Of course it works, incomes determine rents and rents determine house prices.

Erm, hasn't worked from 1999 until the present day, anyway, so is this a verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry slllllllllllllow process or something? Like, a more than 20 year process? I don't think most of us are going to hold our breath over here...Quote from this post.

I don't know...seems to be a lot of magical thinking on this thread.

Good heavens, sure does, hon! (The above also links to the post just above.)

This is nowhere near all of the places and ways you were wrong, dead wrong (and INSULTED OTHER PEOPLE based on these wrong assertions, no less! My God, brass ones and not in a good way). But my back is aching from sitting at the computer and I just have to get off. I will find more later if you really want. If you don't want me to continue to prove your assertions all over this thread very, very wrong, let me know. I don't wish to humiliate you endlessly. And that I'm serious about.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by JerZ

In 2000 the median home price in LA was around $200k,

This assertion is accurate and I posted a link for it. The link cites nominal prices, I was citing inflation adjusted prices. The median home price in LA in 2000 was around $160k in 2000's dollars, which is equivalent to around $210 in today's dollars.

Originally Posted by JerZ

Then 10 years ago, no, homes were not "affordable" by your very own equation.

10 years ago the prices were a bit high (I've noted that prices in 2000 were inflated many times), but still affordable. The ratio was around 4x.

Anyhow, you're all over the price here. Its hard to keep track of what you are trying to claim with all the ranting.

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by user_id

See my note for about inflation. Some data will be inflation adjusted, some will not

U.S. Census Bureau data has not. Any other backpeddling? Er...I mean questions?

You.

Were.

Wrong.

So sorry. Read the data. The real-numbers data. Not from a local Tribune periodical link, not from anywhere but directly from the gub'mint.

At least have the grace not to continue to try to tick off people you were very wrongly, very inaccurately snotty to. I mean for heaven's sake you are getting embarrassing, and that's just the truth.

THE BOTTOM LINE for those interested:

Homes were a stupid-expensive multiple of the average household (meaning, it could have been even more than one family in there!) income 20 years ago. They were a stupid-expensive multiple of the average household income 10 years ago. They are a *just slightly higher* (5.7X...I think? Still need actual census data to back up the home values number) stupid expensive multiple of the average household income one year ago.

This is not a new phenomenon in Los Angeles County. Not by far.

Saying L.A. is not just suddenly more expensive to buy real estate in compared to income is not "revisionist history." It's, well, history. Plain and simple. Actual history.

There ya have it.

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by user_id

Anyhow, you're all over the price here. Its hard to keep track of what you are trying to claim with all the ranting.

It is very, very easy. It is not ranting. It is math. I'm sorry math upsets you. Four simple steps so you can calm down:

1. I linked U.S. Census data on incomes in 2000.

2. I linked U.S. Census home values for 1999 and called it even.

3. I linked U.S. Census data on incomes currently.

4. I found supporting data for home values currently but obviously can't find U.S. Census data for 2011 for this so am trying to find another very reputable source.

Not too hard, hon...do you need a break?

[user_id]

Originally Posted by JerZ

So sorry. Read the data. The real-numbers data. Not from a local Tribune periodical link, not from anywhere but directly from the gub'mint.

I've been looking at the data the whole time. I'm really not sure what you're looking at, where is your source for the median sale price in LA? You linked to a report on national real estate, did you link to something else as well? The document does cite California's median, that is $211k. The income for the state from that period is around $50k, for a ratio of 4x.

And yes, you're still ranting. This doesn't need to be a difficult discussion.

Also, I should add, when I mentioned the 3x~4x ratio as a proxy for affordability I had Southern California in mind not just LA. The lower median income in LA vs the state should set off alarm bells, LA has a high poverty rate (~20%). The poverty in LA shifts the median income downward and as a result distorts the income statistics. As a result one should expect to see higher ratios when looking at LA only data. In support of this, notice that the median home prices in Orange and LA county were similar in 2000, yet the median household income in Orange county is noticeably higher. Orange county had the expected ratio of around 4x as it has a normal poverty rate.

Whether the ratio in LA is 4x or closer to 5x doesn't really matter, the question is whether the prices in 2010 were affordable to those purchasing homes. Again, the 20% in poverty aren't purchasing homes, I'd imagine many of them aren't even legal. The ratios are just useful proxies, they will vary from area to area.

[FarewellLA]

JerZ! JerZ! JerZ! JerZ! JerZ! JerZ! JerZ! JerZ! JerZ! JerZ! JerZ! JerZ! JerZ! JerZ! JerZ! JerZ! JerZ!

Thank you for taking the time to pull all of the data together and to make the argument for something crystal clear to most people -- home prices in LA have been out of reach for most average LA residents for a very long time.

[user_id]

A home in the $200~$250k range was not out of range of the "average LA resident", a family would just need an income in the $70k range to afford that. That isn't difficult to achieve in the LA area.