Instructions to my son on how to buy a house in the SF Bay Area (renting, refinance)

[CA4Now]

[quote=TR95;43189347]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Don't know, it's a well known fact.
http://www.usnews.com/cmsmedia/bb/a1...031-women2.JPG.

Your graph ends at 2008, coincidentally when the recession hit.

[TR95]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Your graph ends at 2008, coincidentally when the recession hit.

Ok, if you really think the percentage of women in these positions has really changed since then, may someone help you. There are numerous recessions in the time period from 1968-2008. Lest, you forget 73-75, 79-80, 81-82, 90-91, 2001. Was 2008, the worst since then, sure, but I seriously don't believe it impacts this graph. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate was higher in 81-82 recession than the Great Recession and GDP decline in 73-75 was about one percent below the Great Recession's GDP decline.

I don't know why you can't understand logic and numbers that clearly show that mortgage payments are not that much greater as a % of income even going back to the 1970s. And your logic about requiring a larger down payment. Sure, but once again salaries are significantly larger than 1981 as well. It's been pointed out that it is more difficult to buy a house, but not as difficult and impossible as a few posters on here want everyone to believe. A look at the numbers proves this, plain and simple.

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by MountainHi

I've been observing a certain trolling phenomenon on these California-related forums. It's curious, but there's a crowd phenomenon where a few people collect and bash some of the more knowledgeable posters.

Exactly. I think many of us are quite tired of it. I only wish the moderators would get more involved. It's basically a free-for-all and these trolls tend to work together to bully others. One of the nicest posters here sent me a private message complaining of such and how fed up she is with it. I only wish the moderators would get more involved with it. Unfortunately, their strategy is often just to lock a thread instead of handling the problem by deleting posts, or more appropriately, just banishing these people for a bit to send a message that it won't be tolerated.

[boulder2015]

Originally Posted by TR95

Ok, if you really think the percentage of women in these positions has really changed since then, may someone help you. There are numerous recessions in the time period from 1968-2008. Lest, you forget 73-75, 79-80, 81-82, 90-91, 2001. Was 2008, the worst since then, sure, but I seriously don't believe it impacts this graph. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate was higher in 81-82 recession than the Great Recession and GDP decline in 73-75 was about one percent below the Great Recession's GDP decline.

I don't know why you can't understand logic and numbers that clearly show that mortgage payments are not that much greater as a % of income even going back to the 1970s. And your logic about requiring a larger down payment. Sure, but once again salaries are significantly larger than 1981 as well. It's been pointed out that it is more difficult to buy a house, but not as difficult and impossible as a few posters on here want everyone to believe. A look at the numbers proves this, plain and simple.

Ever heard of "principal"? I dont see that word in your post. Also people disagrweing with you is not necessarily trolling... its just people disagreeing with you, body. And on something like this where you are very, very wrong, expect MANY people to disgree with you. Moderator cut: see note

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by MountainHi

This isn't what I've heard from my boomer family members. They say jobs were few, PhD's were working as janitors, the federal government initiated a special program to pay employers to create entry-level jobs, and the price of gas was irrelevant, because college students and college grads couldn't afford a car. There was some kind of recession going on at the time. This was for people graduating in the 70's.

Yeah, people were struggling for jobs back then, and college grads were grateful to get a gov't-subsidized receptionist job. College tuition wasn't sky-high, but many students were going to school on federal loans and college financial aid. Those loans had to be repaid. Then the oil embargo hit.

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Yeah, people were struggling for jobs back then, and college grads were grateful to get a gov't-subsidized receptionist job. College tuition wasn't sky-high, but many students were going to school on federal loans and college financial aid. Those loans had to be repaid. Then the oil embargo hit.

The mid 70s through the first 2-3 years of the 80s were not exactly fun times. Inflation was out of control (3 of the years had double digit inflation from 11-13 if memory serves me correctly). In 1982, mortgage interest rates peaked at 17.5% (nearly 5 times our low just a few years back). Think about that for a second. If you bought during that time, mortgage on that $110k house amount with property tax and insurance would have been roughly $1800. On a dual income of $50K, you're looking at the low 40% on the income you would have to allocate. But of course Ruth, you and Mountain shouldn't bring things like that up. No one here wants to hear about that (it ruins the sky is falling narrative). It's easier to dwell on the negative.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

Think about that for a second. If you bought during that time, mortgage on that $110k house amount with property tax and insurance would have been roughly $1800. On a dual income of $50K, you're looking at the low 40% on the income you would have to allocate.

But not to purchase the home. We bought our third home in the mid-80s. The allocation was 1/3 of our gross income.

Many people financed with adjustable rates back then and got screwed since the teaser rates were so low and although they had either hoped to sell or to refinance by the time their rate increased, they either couldn't sell at the time or failed to refinance. And their mortgages then DID become close to 40%.

Coming up with a down payment on an 80 K condo or a 120 K house was not as difficult then, even on those salaries.

But of course Ruth, you and Mountain shouldn't bring things like that up. No one here wants to hear about that (it ruins the sky is falling narrative).

Of course not. I guess some of us lived in an alternate reality back then.

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

But not to purchase the home. We bought our third home in the mid-80s. The allocation was 1/3 of our gross income.

Many people financed with adjustable rates back then and got screwed since the teaser rates were so low and although they had either hoped to sell or to refinance by the time their rate increased, they either couldn't sell at the time or failed to refinance. And their mortgages then DID become close to 40%.

Coming up with a down payment on an 80 K condo or a 120 K house was not as difficult then, even on those salaries.



Of course not. I guess some of us lived in an alternate reality back then.

Uh, you can't get much more screwed than an interest rate at near 18%. Just trying to give an apples to apples comparison (I didn't include a down payment and I'm not talking about adjustables...no need to try and go off on tangents). You don't have to come up with 20% now if you don't want to either (in fact, you can put roughly that same down payment you would have put on the $120K house you speak of if you choose). But you can pay exorbitant rent prices, which at this point, is not much different than getting that mortgage. Of course, people seem to want to dodge that fact (why is that?).

[TR95]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

But not to purchase the home. We bought our third home in the mid-80s. The allocation was 1/3 of our gross income.

Many people financed with adjustable rates back then and got screwed since the teaser rates were so low and although they had either hoped to sell or to refinance by the time their rate increased, they either couldn't sell at the time or failed to refinance. And their mortgages then DID become close to 40%.

Coming up with a down payment on an 80 K condo or a 120 K house was not as difficult then, even on those salaries.



Of course not. I guess some of us lived in an alternate reality back then.

So how is spending a third on your income, on your 3rd house nonetheless, that much different from today? I could only assume someone buying their first house had a much higher DTI ratio. Still SMH.

[TR95]

Originally Posted by boulder2015

Ever heard of "principal"? I dont see that word in your post. Also people disagrweing with you is not necessarily trolling... its just people disagreeing with you, body. And on something like this where you are very, very wrong, expect MANY people to disgree with you. Moderator cut: see note

??? How is this applicable to my post? I'm not Body.