Started By
Message

re: What is the income range for "middle class" per the board?

Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:20 pm to
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:20 pm to
quote:

Look Shorty, you don’t get it. No body buys those houses anymore. All the demand for them drove the prices up too high

All I know is, I want to start a business selling widgets........and, then once I start it...........I'm going to, with zero economic drivers whatsoever, start increasing the price of my widgets.

And, when I do so, I fully expect to not only keep selling my widgets....but INCREASE volume on my sales!!!

I'm gonna be friggin rich!
Posted by Tigerdev
Member since Feb 2013
12287 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:21 pm to
quote:

The fact that you’re touting $400-$500k houses as “middle class family could have afforded” is kinda proving everyone’s point

By your logic that means that there are entire cities where no "middle class" person could live...
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:22 pm to
quote:

So whats the point of stating this if its not feasible for someone to live in a fictional home?
Well, I mean. By definition, the information provided not by TA or me, but by the opposite side, indicates this isn't the case.
Posted by NYNolaguy1
Member since May 2011
21764 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:23 pm to
quote:

Thats existing houses, which has zero effect on average sizes over time.


Wat?

Last I checked the quantity of houses lived in was directly attributable to the number of houses built.

If baby boomers are living in these houses longer, wouldnt that move the market center of mass toward newer bigger homes?
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
63261 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:23 pm to
quote:

By your logic that means that there are entire cities where no "middle class" person could live...

Its why suburbs exist
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:23 pm to
quote:

Its why suburbs exist

Shhhhh
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
298472 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:24 pm to
quote:

quote:
I guess there are some overpasses available for free too .

ya sure. 1,500 sf house is about the same as living under an overpass....


I think he's trying to be pretentious.
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
63261 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:26 pm to
quote:

Thats existing houses, which has zero effect on average sizes over time.

quote:

Last I checked the quantity of houses lived in was directly attributable to the number of houses built.
good grief.

If zero houses are built, does the average size...
A/ go down
B/ stay the same
C/ go up
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 3:26 pm
Posted by NYNolaguy1
Member since May 2011
21764 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:26 pm to
quote:


I think he's trying to be pretentious.


Just equally unrealistic.

Like I said, what I see here in NYC is often not relevant to "flyover country" (as HHATW stated).
Posted by NYNolaguy1
Member since May 2011
21764 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:27 pm to
quote:

If zero houses are built, does the average size...
A/ go down
B/ stay the same
C/ go up


Now you're just ignoring me.

Do you think that new construction homes are the only ones on the market?
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
63261 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:28 pm to
quote:

If baby boomers are living in these houses longer, wouldnt that move the market center of mass toward newer bigger homes?
YES!! But only if people have been buying newer and bigger homes.
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 3:30 pm
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
63261 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:31 pm to
quote:

I think he's trying to be pretentious.
While elegantly proving your point about how some won’t live in such a home.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
298472 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:32 pm to
quote:



Just equally unrealistic.

Like I said, what I see here in NYC is often not relevant to "flyover country" (as HHATW stated).


Look man, if you're basing this conversation on NYC or SF, then you really shouldn't be in the discussion.

It's been mentioned many times a few select areas have a very different market
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:32 pm to
This might also be a great time to point out an element of the market that no one has brought up.

Another driver against smaller homes is that many people, especially younger people, simply don't want mortgages.

Younger people, as is evidenced by tons of studies, are FAR more transient and are far more interested in being transient than they used to be.

ALSO, younger people are willfully avoiding buying cars and choosing to live IN cities more frequently.

Many of them would rather rent a tiny place IN the city than buy a small home in the burbs at a similar monthly cost.

This is but one example of how ACTUAL MARKETS dictate what gets built.

30 years ago.......people were willingly buying 1200sf homes a 60 minute commute from their homes. Hell, my parents bought a 1200 sf home in 1980 and my dad commuted AT LEAST 60 minutes. Which, frankly, was asinine.

FAR MORE of those people are deciding that isn't worth it. So, they save until a later point when they can get what they want(if they ever leave the city at all).

And we haven't even gotten in to marriage rates today among young people!

Ya don't suppose those homes are getting built less because there's a lower rate of 24 year old married couples looking for their starter homes do ya?
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 3:35 pm
Posted by Tigerdev
Member since Feb 2013
12287 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:33 pm to
Well apparently I'm upper class by you guy's standards. Ill take it
Posted by NYNolaguy1
Member since May 2011
21764 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:34 pm to
quote:

YES!! But only if people have been buying newer and bigger homes.


So lets play the logic game.

Follow me here. If the center of gravity for a market is trending toward newer bigger homes, and if the likewise fewer smaller, cheaper, and older homes are fewer and not easily available...

How are homebuyers supposed to find these homes to reduce the amount of amenities and lower their cost of living?
Posted by Tigerdev
Member since Feb 2013
12287 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:34 pm to
Its not just SF and NYC. NOLA doesnt have near that economy and it has seen steep rises in housing prices while income and employment are basically the same.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
298472 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:36 pm to
quote:

Its not just SF and NYC. NOLA doesnt have near that economy and it has seen steep rises in housing prices while income and employment are basically the same.


There are affordable places in the NOLA area though.
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:36 pm to
quote:

Follow me here. If the center of gravity for a market is trending toward newer bigger homes, and if the likewise fewer smaller, cheaper, and older homes are fewer and not easily available...
What drove that?

quote:

How are homebuyers supposed to find these homes to reduce the amount of amenities and lower their cost of living?
Are we talking about a significant group of people? Cause, if we're talking about a significant group of people, then you have one very odd market where people who CAN sell a thing can see a huge market for that thing.....and don't provide it.
Posted by Tigerdev
Member since Feb 2013
12287 posts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 3:39 pm to
True enough. I hate the suburbs so i never enter it into my calculus.
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 3:40 pm
Jump to page
Page First 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 10 of 15Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram