I stopped reading when I saw a house price of 170k . Why game your comparisons ? Starter homes if you can find them where I live are over 500k for low quality tract homes(Western Canada) I bought a starter home in the mid 90's for 80k (5 acres+ 10yr old 1500sqft house) I wouldn't want to guess it's current purchase price
I stopped reading when I saw a house price of 170k . Why game your comparisons ? Starter homes if you can find them where I live are over 500k for low quality tract homes(Western Canada) I bought a starter home in the mid 90's for 80k (5 acres+ 10yr old 1500sqft house) I wouldn't want to guess it's current purchase price
I'm gonna chime in here too. Housing prices in America are at record highs - even and especially starter homes. Starter homes in Massachusetts aren't under 350,000k right now. Unless they're total tear downs. My house, a starter home without question, no dishwasher, no AC, 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, and under 1,100 sf, sold for 345K in '21 and is now worth 480K. OH! and the commute to Boston? 1-1/2 hours. So it's value is not boosted by proximity to the city. Granted Massachusetts is in the top 3 most expensive states to live in (I think that's still accurate as of this year.)
While I'm certain 170K is a real figure in the middle states, a lot of us living in this country cannot afford housing or rentals. It's a real crisis. So I agree with A longer name in terms of that statement feeling like it's missing some context.
You are correct. housing at the extremes is... well... extreme right now and the plague of averages is just that. As I mentioned to A Longer Name, the 1950s number also took averages and there was a lot of pressure in those same areas of the country only offset by the extreme suburbanization that was happening at the time.
The prices for houses have gotten insane in the past 4 years even exceeding the heights of 2007. Here's a source for housing. It is slightly higher than what I listed and I'm afraid I made a slight error however, Zillow doesn't have the average prices as significantly higher (compared to your experience)
I took the average from Zillow and it's US based. If I gamed my comparison, I also gamed it to be cheaper in the past since it also discounted prices in the cities. It might be low but it's low on both comparisons. The argument still stands that the homes aren't even on the same level of quality, size, ammenities, etc.
By all means lets ignore that in the real world example there's a 5x difference in those figuresЁЯЩДЁЯдг. If you took figures
from a place in the US with a growing housing market.(Texas or Florida for example )The figures will be a lot closer to mine than yours....I think the actual numbers are important. Using an avg places like Kansas and other mid states mask rapid rises and lack of affordabilty in growth states ,clouding the actual picture.
As noted in my example the quality has dropped substantially, which I expect is also similar to growing US markets like Texas and Florida.
Remember, we aren't talking average home prices but average starter home. If I was going to follow your recommendation and focus on a growing market, then I'd have to do the same with the 1955 example which would balance it out again. I've given you apples to apples and you are demanding apples to oranges and accusing me of ignoring data. That's just playing funny with the numbers.
I'm also not sure what you mean by quality. The quality today is significantly better, even with tract homes. Code standards are higher, materials are better quality, and ammenities are much better.
??? Both my housing examples are starter homes not sure why you've decided its apples to oranges. My time line comparison is significantly tighter 90s-24, if you extrapolated to the 50s the difference would be even greater . Ive worked in the housing sector while finishing materials appear higher over all quality is lower. Plywood used to be used everywhere, now its chip board, lumber quality for walls has dropped dramatically as well. So no not higher quality just a fancy wrapper..
What's apples to oranges is that I used average data from the 50s and from today. Apples to apples. You want me to compare the 50s data against growing markets, read higher cost. That's apples to oranges. I looked, and can't find growing market data for the 50s and so I resist changing today's data to a different market.
In the 50s most markets were growing markets. Today we have markets that are seeing fairly dramatic contraction like the mid west, that skews the data. If you compared Austin circa 1950 to Austin today I doubt you have a 1x price increase . Same goes for Orlando, or Miami as well as most other locations people actually want to live
I stopped reading when I saw a house price of 170k . Why game your comparisons ? Starter homes if you can find them where I live are over 500k for low quality tract homes(Western Canada) I bought a starter home in the mid 90's for 80k (5 acres+ 10yr old 1500sqft house) I wouldn't want to guess it's current purchase price
I'm gonna chime in here too. Housing prices in America are at record highs - even and especially starter homes. Starter homes in Massachusetts aren't under 350,000k right now. Unless they're total tear downs. My house, a starter home without question, no dishwasher, no AC, 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, and under 1,100 sf, sold for 345K in '21 and is now worth 480K. OH! and the commute to Boston? 1-1/2 hours. So it's value is not boosted by proximity to the city. Granted Massachusetts is in the top 3 most expensive states to live in (I think that's still accurate as of this year.)
While I'm certain 170K is a real figure in the middle states, a lot of us living in this country cannot afford housing or rentals. It's a real crisis. So I agree with A longer name in terms of that statement feeling like it's missing some context.
You are correct. housing at the extremes is... well... extreme right now and the plague of averages is just that. As I mentioned to A Longer Name, the 1950s number also took averages and there was a lot of pressure in those same areas of the country only offset by the extreme suburbanization that was happening at the time.
The prices for houses have gotten insane in the past 4 years even exceeding the heights of 2007. Here's a source for housing. It is slightly higher than what I listed and I'm afraid I made a slight error however, Zillow doesn't have the average prices as significantly higher (compared to your experience)
https://www.zillow.com/learn/buying-starter-home/
Then you missed the best part! This is also US based so that's a consideration on pricing.
I took the average from Zillow and it's US based. If I gamed my comparison, I also gamed it to be cheaper in the past since it also discounted prices in the cities. It might be low but it's low on both comparisons. The argument still stands that the homes aren't even on the same level of quality, size, ammenities, etc.
https://www.zillow.com/learn/buying-starter-home/
By all means lets ignore that in the real world example there's a 5x difference in those figuresЁЯЩДЁЯдг. If you took figures
from a place in the US with a growing housing market.(Texas or Florida for example )The figures will be a lot closer to mine than yours....I think the actual numbers are important. Using an avg places like Kansas and other mid states mask rapid rises and lack of affordabilty in growth states ,clouding the actual picture.
As noted in my example the quality has dropped substantially, which I expect is also similar to growing US markets like Texas and Florida.
Remember, we aren't talking average home prices but average starter home. If I was going to follow your recommendation and focus on a growing market, then I'd have to do the same with the 1955 example which would balance it out again. I've given you apples to apples and you are demanding apples to oranges and accusing me of ignoring data. That's just playing funny with the numbers.
I'm also not sure what you mean by quality. The quality today is significantly better, even with tract homes. Code standards are higher, materials are better quality, and ammenities are much better.
??? Both my housing examples are starter homes not sure why you've decided its apples to oranges. My time line comparison is significantly tighter 90s-24, if you extrapolated to the 50s the difference would be even greater . Ive worked in the housing sector while finishing materials appear higher over all quality is lower. Plywood used to be used everywhere, now its chip board, lumber quality for walls has dropped dramatically as well. So no not higher quality just a fancy wrapper..
What's apples to oranges is that I used average data from the 50s and from today. Apples to apples. You want me to compare the 50s data against growing markets, read higher cost. That's apples to oranges. I looked, and can't find growing market data for the 50s and so I resist changing today's data to a different market.
In the 50s most markets were growing markets. Today we have markets that are seeing fairly dramatic contraction like the mid west, that skews the data. If you compared Austin circa 1950 to Austin today I doubt you have a 1x price increase . Same goes for Orlando, or Miami as well as most other locations people actually want to live
*... finishing materials appear higher quality , overall....