- This topic has 22 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 7 months ago by Coronita.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 30, 2007 at 1:37 AM #10102August 30, 2007 at 4:24 AM #82537Ex-SDParticipant
It’s going to take a while for larger numbers of foreclosures to hit across the full spectrum of San Diego. We’re not likely to see the bottom for three or four years and even if you find a foreclosure that you like right now, you will be overpaying for the property. Then, you’ll be stuck with a mortgage and taxes on a property that you paid too much for. You may be frustrated but imagine how frustrated you will feel if you overpay by 20-30-40%?
Just look at these numbers that were posted in another thread:
Submitted by North County Jim on August 21, 2007 – 1:22am.
August 20 Report
283 NODs
161 NOTs
100 REOsSubmitted by North County Jim on August 30, 2007 – 2:30am.
August 29 Report
534 NODs
356 NOTs
254 REOsLook at how the numbers are climbing in just a short period of time. Believe me……………they’re going to get a lot worse.
The smartest thing you can do is to just keep renting and if you don’t like the rental you’re in, move to another.
August 30, 2007 at 6:07 AM #82538Alex_angelParticipantGive Carmel Valley some time. Sooner or later businesses will start leaving San Diego because they cannot attract talent here due to high cost of living. Then all of a sudden someone who was comfy in CV in a 4000 sqft making 200k a year is out of a job looking to move.
August 30, 2007 at 6:44 AM #82540CoronitaParticipantGive Carmel Valley some time. Sooner or later businesses will start leaving San Diego because they cannot attract talent here due to high cost of living. Then all of a sudden someone who was comfy in CV in a 4000 sqft making 200k a year is out of a job looking to move.
Yeah whatever. Techies these days that are making mid-sixes usually don't have to work for a company located here anymore. It's called tele-commuting to the Bay Area. And one thing for sure.. No matter how ridiculous your pay might be here, it's even more ridiculous in the Bay Area, so relatively it's still cheaper to pay someone here than over there. And in case you haven't noticed, Bay Area is picking up significantly again. I've worked with a few companies down here, that are all HQ'd in the bay area. Salaries are comparable to the Bay Area, because of the entire salary equalization thing.
But guess what? If there is a mass exodus that happens to these folks, I think most everyone else will be hit too. Why do people keep thinking that those that make the mid-six figures losing there job and move out will be affected ,while others for which are dependent on those people (retailers,support,etc) won't???
I would say these folks are probably 20% of the population overall. BUT, i would also say it's the 20% that still spending and keeping the rest of folks employed. Is this a concept that's hard to grasp? Take a look at higher end retail like Sak or Tiffany and Co and compare that to lower end retail like Walmart over the past two quarters. Which did well, and which ended up eating sh*t?
August 30, 2007 at 7:26 AM #82547SHILOHParticipantFor Boston area/New England Comparison:
Foreclosure filings in Massachusetts increased 66 percent in the second quarter, according to data released yesterday….lenders filed 4,292 notices of foreclosure against homeowners during the second quarter, up from 2,585 a year earlier, according to ForeclosuresMass Corp., which compiles the data from Massachusetts Land Court. That 66 percent surge in filings compares with a 30 percent rise in first-quarter filings.
By Kimberly Blanton, Globe Staff | July 25, 2006
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/07/25/foreclosure_filings_in_mass_jump_66/August 30, 2007 at 7:29 AM #82549BugsParticipantI don’t think the 6-figure salaries even come close to representing 20% of our wage earners.
August 30, 2007 at 7:43 AM #82552JESParticipantRefer to this link for data on incomes by city, area etc.,
August 30, 2007 at 8:09 AM #82554BugsParticipantI stand corrected. By that chart it looks like 18% of households are $100k or higher, that is, as of the beginning of last year. 18% is pretty close to 20%.
August 30, 2007 at 8:27 AM #82555JESParticipantAnd that’s reported income. Actual is probably higher due to the way some people report their income.
August 30, 2007 at 8:47 AM #82559ibjamesParticipantthat is depressing
August 30, 2007 at 8:53 AM #82560surveyorParticipantRichest Urban Areas
A somewhat incoherent article, but it does say that San Diego is one of the top three richest urban centers of the U.S. It certainly gives a lot of weight to the argument that San Diego incomes can hold up some of the housing prices…
“SAN JOSE, Calif. — Northern California’s largest city is also the wealthiest urban center in the nation, with a median household income of $74,000.
Two other California cities, San Francisco and San Diego, finished in the top three as well, according to newly released data by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. Seattle and Las Vegas rounded out the top five richest cities of 500,000 people or more.
Santa Clara County, epicenter of Silicon Valley and home to some of the world’s most successful technology companies, was California’s second richest. Santa Clara County’s median household income last year was $80,838, while Marin County, just north of San Francisco, topped the list at
$81,761.
Economists said rising median income reflects the improving fortunes of white-collar Silicon Valley workers since 2000, when the dot-com stock market bubble burst and tens of thousands of workers lost jobs. But some public policy experts said the high median masked a growing inequality between rich and poor and failed to take into account the exorbitant cost of living in the greater San Francisco Bay area.
Deborah Reed of the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California said Santa Clara County’s 9 percent poverty rate would be 12.2 percent if the rate included the local cost of living. The national poverty rate is about 12 percent.
Few homes in Silicon Valley cost less than $500,000, and rents have surged in the past year.”
From 10news.com…
August 30, 2007 at 9:39 AM #82564schizo2buyORnotParticipantThat explains a lot . . . the place I am looking at (and my wife is dying to buy in) 4S Ranch (zip 92127) has a median income of $97,000. I may be waiting a long time for prices to crater there . . . .
Looks like plan B may be looming . . . “house in a box” in Imperial county
http://news.com.com/Photos+Special+delivery+Your+house+in+a+box/2300-11392_3-6205133.html
In search of a crystal ball . . . .
August 30, 2007 at 9:50 AM #82565JWM in SDParticipant“has a median income of $97,000”
That is HHI not individual incomes. Very big difference. Everybody seems to be confusing the two. That number is essentially a DINK couple with maybe $45 and $50K individual incomes.
Try having a couple of kids and supporting a 300 to 400K fixed 30 yr mortgage on that income and see how you long you last without tapping debt. Hint: not very long.
August 30, 2007 at 9:57 AM #82569ArtyParticipantSo as a banker you will loan someone 600k without down payment for a house if he/she has a income of 200,000. Personally, I will take that a big red flag. 200,000 and no saving or enough saving to put down 5% at least.
August 30, 2007 at 10:08 AM #82574JESParticipantAgain, I have to share my own personal account. I made roughly 90k/year my last year in San Diego, had a 400k, 7yr, IO loan, no other debt, cars paid off, no kids in school, company car/gas, and I had negative cash flow of approx 100-400 per month.
Note: I included 5% towards 401k in my expenses.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.