Palo Alto considering subsidized housing for families with $250k income (San Francisco: condos, mortgage)

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Pretty much the same for most goods... the cost to purchase is not static.

The home I could afford to buy in 2012 has basically doubled and this is just 4 years.

My 3/4 ton truck cost $11,000 new... you would be hard pressed to replace it for 3 times the cost.

11000 is a rip off, you could get a new 1964 Cadillac Coupe Deville and be rich for only 5500

[plot]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

11000 is a rip off, you could get a new 1964 Cadillac Coupe Deville and be rich for only 5500

WOW

Your definition of rich in 1964 sounds really low. The average house price was probably like 10k+ and average incomes was probably 7k-10k.

I guess if I was homeless living in a Cadillac coupe Deville would be nice.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by plot

Your definition of rich in 1964 sounds really low. The average house price was probably like 10k+ and average incomes was probably 7k-10k.

You are missing a zero, sir. In 1964 dollars a one million dollar house would have been about 130,000 not 10,000.

See:
Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value From 1913-2016

This is basically the conversation I was having with a collegue at work who was a young adult in 1964 and remembers the numbers. He said a house in San Francisco (sfh) was only 100,000 BUT "you only made like 15 grand. So it was hard back then, too. This is nothing new."

Plug 15k into that calculator for 1964. It was about the same as 150k in today's dollars.

[Ultrarunner]

In 1964 a typical 5 year old home of 1150 square feet sold for about 21k

Not sure how I would transport my tools and supplies in a Coupe Deville?

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

In 1964 a typical 5 year old home of 1150 square feet sold for about 21k

In the middle of nowhere, sure. But not in a desirable, highly developed area like San Francisco or New York or London or Paris. In such areas it was more like 100k which is the median price now (100k then = 1 million now).

London is an ancient city. Already in the 1800s middle class housing was a flat, not a sfh.

Median income in London is 70k and median housing price is 700k. So same kind of thing as here.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

You are missing a zero, sir. In 1964 dollars a one million dollar house would have been about 130,000 not 10,000.

See:
Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value From 1913-2016

This is basically the conversation I was having with a collegue at work who was a young adult in 1964 and remembers the numbers. He said a house in San Francisco (sfh) was only 100,000 BUT "you only made like 15 grand. So it was hard back then, too. This is nothing new."

Plug 15k into that calculator for 1964. It was about the same as 150k in today's dollars.

100,000 for a house in SF my ass. It was WAY lower than that. A great neighborhood in RWC cost 50,000 in 1968 (how much my grandmother paid) so there's no way SF was 100000 4 years earlier especially since SF was ****ty and polluted back then.

[ssmaster]

According to 1960 census data for San Francisco single unit building home price was $17300 and medium family income $6700

[plot]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

You are missing a zero, sir. In 1964 dollars a one million dollar house would have been about 130,000 not 10,000.

See:
Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value From 1913-2016

This is basically the conversation I was having with a collegue at work who was a young adult in 1964 and remembers the numbers. He said a house in San Francisco (sfh) was only 100,000 BUT "you only made like 15 grand. So it was hard back then, too. This is nothing new."

Plug 15k into that calculator for 1964. It was about the same as 150k in today's dollars.

No you do not understand, the person said one would feel rich with 5500 in 1964. 5500 in 1964 is not Rich!!!! You could not buy an average house for 5500 but apparently the person is willing to buy an above average car. I was implying that the person 5500 is not considered rich in 5500 just because they can afford an above average car.

Also while it is probably true 1 million today is 130K in 1964 but that does not mean San Francisco real estate was the same, and it is completely wrong to assume that. This is wrong because San Francisco land was much less desirable and there was probably not much immigration. Today San Francisco thrives from Tech, in 1964 there was like no tech.

I know in manhattan New York you can get a 1k sqft estate for 20-25k in the 1950s. Adjust for inflation and that is about 250k..... ya good luck. Obviously there is more than inflation going on and America has been through a lot between 1964-2016.

An old lady I know I use talk about how San Francisco was mostly filled with poverty and was horrible back then but now it has changed.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

In the middle of nowhere, sure. But not in a desirable, highly developed area like San Francisco or New York or London or Paris. In such areas it was more like 100k which is the median price now (100k then = 1 million now).

London is an ancient city. Already in the 1800s middle class housing was a flat, not a sfh.

Median income in London is 70k and median housing price is 700k. So same kind of thing as here.

Homes across from Chabot College/Southland Mall, Hayward CA...

Should have been more specific.

My Godparents bought a similar home in Santa Clara in 1963 for 21,500.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

According to 1960 census data for San Francisco single unit building home price was $17300 and medium family income $6700

Thank you... on target with my findings...

Of course there were home many multiples and those for less...

Heck... Oakland had over a 100 homes listed for 80k and under in 2011.

Nothing near that now.