U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-03-2009, 03:30 PM
 
744 posts, read 1,289,467 times
Reputation: 182

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcf17 View Post
You mean "real wages", as in, wages already adjusted for inflation?

You're basically saying that housing prices should remain flat over time, without any adjustment for inflation, wages, etc. Okay, but why? And why 30 years? Why not 10, or 50, or 100? I mean, based on historical averages over the last 100 years, I'm guessing prices should drop by something like 90%. Sure, why not?
No he's saying they should be proportional to wages. Since wages have increased at less than the inflation, house prices should have also increased at less than inflation.

Note: I don't agree with the claims made, I'm just translating

My opinion is that 1999 was the last non-bubble year, so 2009 prices should be 1999 prices plus ten years of inflation plus some extra because interests rates are a bit lower now. They won't be though, they'll be higher but trending down.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2009, 03:33 PM
 
1,551 posts, read 4,293,594 times
Reputation: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott99999 View Post
I could see these houses being in the high $400s when you take common incomes for the area into account.
Then that's what you bid, and not a penny more. Don't ruin your financial future to pad someone else's retirement. Prices will adjust soon enough.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2009, 03:34 PM
 
263 posts, read 487,052 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcf17 View Post
And why 30 years? Why not 10, or 50, or 100? I mean, based on historical averages over the last 100 years, I'm guessing prices should drop by something like 90%. Sure, why not?
30 years because this is the period that CS had the numbers to calculate their index. If they could look further back they would. What is the index that does NOT justify a 50% off the peak? Hmm maybe a NAR one.

**********Bid half off peak******************************
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2009, 03:35 PM
 
71 posts, read 255,555 times
Reputation: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by sholden View Post
No he's saying they should be proportional to wages. Since wages have increased at less than the inflation, house prices should have also increased at less than inflation.
That's my point, though - the Case-Shiller numbers are not adjusted AT ALL. I don't disagree that housing prices should correlate with core inflation, wages, or a similar index, but his premise is based on what I believe to be a faulty interpretation of the data.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2009, 03:40 PM
 
263 posts, read 487,052 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by sholden View Post
No he's saying they should be proportional to wages. Since wages have increased at less than the inflation, house prices should have also increased at less than inflation.

Note: I don't agree with the claims made, I'm just translating
Well, I have my own issues with way inflation is calculated. But his point is mute as inflation (or rather variables thereof) is embedded in the CS index. So if the index is currently 200 then half of the current price would reflect a historical 100.

**********Bid half off peak******************************
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2009, 03:48 PM
 
263 posts, read 487,052 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcf17 View Post
the Case-Shiller numbers are not adjusted AT ALL.
The housing prices CS index is inflation adjusted.
This is from his book



One needs a ballpark measure to value a future purchase. I think 50% is a good one. If one deviates above there is a high risk of not recovering their investment.

**********Bid half off peak******************************
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2009, 03:50 PM
 
71 posts, read 255,555 times
Reputation: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfoffpeak View Post
Well, I have my own issues with way inflation is calculated. But his point is mute as inflation (or rather variables thereof) is embedded in the CS index. So if the index is currently 200 then half of the current price would reflect a historical 100.

**********Bid half off peak******************************
My point is neither "mute" nor moot. The data you referenced is not adjusted for inflation.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2009, 03:53 PM
 
71 posts, read 255,555 times
Reputation: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfoffpeak View Post
The housing prices CS index is inflation adjusted.
This is from his book



One needs a ballpark measure to value a future purchase. I think 50% is a good one. If one deviates above there is a high risk of not recovering their investment.

**********Bid half off peak******************************
Did you notice on that graph that the base period (t=100) is 1890?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2009, 03:58 PM
 
263 posts, read 487,052 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcf17 View Post
Did you notice on that graph that the base period (t=100) is 1890?
Right and so is 2000. So?

According to the index in 2006 we were 100% above the 1890/2000 price. We now need a 50%
correction and this is without taking into account a relative downturn to NY economy that
required higher premiums. SO:

**********Bid half off peak******************************
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2009, 07:22 PM
 
263 posts, read 487,052 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Older&Wiser View Post
I think that with all your postings about
you are adding to the housing woes of a lot a of folks. If this is your opinion could you please tone it down; the country is in bad enough shape. It is almost like you are taking pleasure in it by repeating that phrase.
I am not sure how my opinion adds to the housing woes of the country. It is of the interest of all that we return back to fair valuations. I feel sorry for those who bought in this bubble as for those who were priced out of this market for so long because they were prudent enough to avoid risky purchases.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top