Reminiscing and thinking how disappointed I am at what the Bay Area has become (San Jose: new home, tech jobs)

[jmking]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

A friend recently had to leave town when she lost her roommate and couldn't afford even a room in this town. I thought to myself how sad it is that this town has literally eaten so many people I know up and spit them out. Outside of my friends, I find it rare to find a genuine person in this town any more that isn't into every materialistic toy they can find (starting with their stupid phone). When I first moved here in 1966, even as a small child, I realized that this town was different from most. There was diversity, there was compassion, people were unique, and the town actually had a soul. And now, I feel like I'm surrounded by elitists, spoiled millennials, and a bunch of intellectually rigid and close minded people. It's really sad what this place has become. And the only saving grace for my family is that we bought our home early enough to survive here for so many years and at least have an option to sell what will be a nice nest egg, and move somewhere where we can actually stretch out in a reasonably sized house (instead of the cubby holes we all live in), and get away from what I now perceive as a very negative environment.

Money is much more concentrated now in certain areas of the US than anytime in its history. The last time money was concentrated near this extent was during the Robber Baron era. During that time monopolies was the main culprit. These days its a lack of Anti-Trust legislation enforcement and the slow elimination of such laws over the past 30 years. That is why you see what you see. Seattle, Washington DC metro, NYNY.....

[AtlasTraveler]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

Feel free to point out where it says "native". I won't hold my breath. Also, I would spell the word "loses". The "smart" ones would have been better to cash out now instead of a while back. But then again, that same comment will probably hold true for years to come as houses here will probably go from being worth over $1 million now to $2 million, twenty years from now. As much as the "newbies" want to whine about it.

Lol that image only goes back to the 80s. Real estate follows inflation, unless it's a distorted market like SF (that's besides the point). That is why most of Texas never experienced a housing bubble: Supply and demand meet each other appropriately.

Another thing brought up in my economics coursework: Why don't we put up an image of Detroit during the 1st half of the century! Auto boom! Those housing prices will skyrocket forever! LOL the "Paris of North America...."

30 years is nothing in economic history. Remove the tech boom and you don't have such significant gains.

I also question anyone buying for long term with the drought and baby boomers dying off i.e. Unfavorable demographics. Just look at regions with declining populations....... Their housing naturally becomes very cheap. Hopefully we keep allowing immigration! Prop our housing values up!

Short term, yes, SF area will see gains. Oakland will continue to gentrify. But longer term.... There will be major issues. Maybe you'll be gone by then anyway?

The best bet (if you're young and can swing it) is renting and re-investing the capital in actual assets. Real estate historically follows inflation; SF long term will not be different.

[AtlasTraveler]

Originally Posted by jmking

Money is much more concentrated now in certain areas of the US than anytime in its history. The last time money was concentrated near this extent was during the Robber Baron era. During that time monopolies was the main culprit. These days its a lack of Anti-Trust legislation enforcement and the slow elimination of such laws over the past 30 years. That is why you see what you see. Seattle, Washington DC metro, NYNY.....

THIS. It's a issue not just in SF, although SF experiences a significant portion.

Millennials are just a scapegoat.

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by AtlasTraveler

Lol that image only goes back to the 80s. Real estate follows inflation, unless it's a distorted market like SF (that's besides the point). That is why most of Texas never experienced a housing bubble: Supply and demand meet each other appropriately.

Another thing brought up in my economics coursework: Why don't we put up an image of Detroit during the 1st half of the century! Auto boom! Those housing prices will skyrocket forever! LOL the "Paris of North America...."

30 years is nothing in economic history. Remove the tech boom and you don't have such significant gains.

I also question anyone buying for long term with the drought and baby boomers dying off i.e. Unfavorable demographics. Just look at regions with declining populations....... Their housing naturally becomes very cheap. Hopefully we keep allowing immigration! Prop our housing values up!

Short term, yes, SF area will see gains. Oakland will continue to gentrify. But longer term.... There will be major issues. Maybe you'll be gone by then anyway?

The best bet (if you're young and can swing it) is renting and re-investing the capital in actual assets. Real estate historically follows inflation; SF long term will not be different.

You've got nothing. We're done here.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by AtlasTraveler

THIS. It's a issue not just in SF, although SF experiences a significant portion.

Millennials are just a scapegoat.

There are 2 separate issues.

1. wealth concentration making it hard for the region to stay "diverse."
2. cultural changes in our society (in which the millennials are most representative of, as they are the first generation of exclusively the internet era)

All of these are colliding to make the Bay Area a very different place!

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

Feel free to point out where it says "native". I won't hold my breath. Also, I would spell the word "loses". The "smart" ones would have been better to cash out now instead of a while back. But then again, that same comment will probably hold true for years to come as houses here will probably go from being worth over $1 million now to $2 million, twenty years from now. As much as the "newbies" want to whine about it.

I understand what the graph is saying, but what point are you specifically trying to make with it? I thought your issue was that it wasn't easier for people in the past to purchase than it is now. This shows that not to be the case.

I think if you really want to get to the heart of that issue, you can plot median income on the same graph to see how it increases over this same time period. I think we all know what that would show - that income has not come close to keeping pace with housing. And we should really include rent prices in this comparison, since that is the housing arrangement for a very significant portion of San Franciscans.


Regarding the comment about today's $1 million homes being tomorrow's $2 million homes - sure, that is possible. And if income increases continue at the rate they're going (i.e. not keeping up with housing), I imagine it'll be even more difficult for people in that time compared to people buying now. I would have no issue saying that people of that time will have a harder time than people today. This isn't an offensive statement to me. I do hope that the next generation (my children, if I have any) don't have a harder time, though - that would make me sad.

Again, this isn't helping your argument.


That said, I have my doubts that SF's market can continue the way it is going forever. Something will have to give eventually, especially since this is now more of a regional issue and not just exclusive to the city limits of SF. But this is another discussion for another thread.

[bodyforlife99]

HockeyMac,

You have claimed numerous times that you are not comprehending what I'm saying. I agree with you. Since the last time you claimed that, I haven't bother reading any of your posts (shy of a cursory glance). It seems fruitless to try and explain things to you when you selectively edited what I said, so as to take things completely out of context. That's similar to what the media does with politicians and I felt no need to just copy and paste my comment, because as you said, you simply don't understand it. So now that we have acceptance that you do not comprehend my posts, we can move on. I have enjoyed conversing with others that do comprehend what I'm saying (whether they want to agree with it or not). Hopefully there will be other posts that you do comprehend and you can contribute to them. Best of luck to you.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

HockeyMac,

You have claimed numerous times that you are not comprehending what I'm saying. I agree with you. Since the last time you claimed that, I haven't bother reading any of your posts. It seems fruitless to try and explain things to you when you selectively edited what I said, so as to take things completely out of context. That's similar to what the media does with politicians and I felt no need to just copy and paste my comment, because as you said, you simply don't understand it. So now that we have acceptance that you do not comprehend my posts, we can move on. I have enjoyed conversing with others that do comprehend what I'm saying (whether they want to agree with it or not). Hopefully there will be other posts that you do comprehend and you can contribute to them. Best of luck to you.

So basically instead of having an honest debate, where I've posed legitimate points/questions against your "theory" (i.e. "things have always been this way!") you want to just run away. OK. Thanks for participating.

I understand what your points are - I just don't think YOU understand what the data that you're presenting means in relation to your points. Or put another way, as I framed the question: "I understand what the graph is saying, but what point are you specifically trying to make with it? I thought your issue was that it wasn't easier for people in the past to purchase than it is now. This shows that not to be the case. " The data you presented contradicts your points. This is not the first time you've presented contradicting rhetoric/data in this thread.

[AtlasTraveler]

Originally Posted by jade408

There are 2 separate issues.

1. wealth concentration making it hard for the region to stay "diverse."
2. cultural changes in our society (in which the millennials are most representative of, as they are the first generation of exclusively the internet era)

All of these are colliding to make the Bay Area a very different place!

Please. Every era has changes. This time isn't unique. The industrial revolution changed everything, too. The history of human progress involves technology.

keep up or become Amish.

[AtlasTraveler]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

So basically instead of having an honest debate, where I've posed legitimate points/questions against your "theory" (i.e. "things have always been this way!") you want to just run away. OK. Thanks for participating.

I understand what your points are - I just don't think YOU understand what the data that you're presenting means in relation to your points. Or put another way, as I framed the question: "I understand what the graph is saying, but what point are you specifically trying to make with it? I thought your issue was that it wasn't easier for people in the past to purchase than it is now. This shows that not to be the case. " The data you presented contradicts your points. This is not the first time you've presented contradicting rhetoric/data in this thread.

These people aren't rational. All they want is their "nest egg." All the data in the World wouldn't change their mind. Me, me, me....