Housing prices.

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Wolverine2349

Senior member
Oct 9, 2022
266
90
61
I am intrigued by this topic. Housing prices are so insanely bad and beyond out of control almost everywhere and that is a massive understatement.

Even pre covid 2018-2019 they were way too high, but today and last couple years are another something and its very sad for society.

Its hard to believe it was not that long ago where home prices crashed form an insane bubble in 2008-2009 and were flat or even a bit downward pressure in 2010-2011 and even 2012 to some extent. It was thought during those times prices would be flat for at least 5 years. Sadly they were so wrong

I posted an article above about 2010-2011 the call that home prices were depressed and needed to come back among many is a careful what you wish for moment as you just might get it and oh by have we ever and then some and not for the better.

The inventory situation on market has been a disaster and record low after low for over a decade now. Too many NIMBY and too low interest rate and lack of building (some intentional) have contributed to this mess.

Given what the housing market is like now, 2008-2009 massive fall doesn't seem so bad and 2010-2011 were golden as prices then were flat at reasonable levels after crashing from so high levels in 2005-2006.

But holy smokes 2005-2006 home prices are a dream and so tame and nothing compared to today's prices. And at least a crash was in sight to bring them to reasonable levels, but unfortunately they did not last too long at reasonable 2010-2012 levels. And even if they did not they were not near as bad and you know what there were actually homes to buy on the market then and no inventory crunch like there has been for actually over 11 years running maybe even 12 years.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,995
49,761
136
I am intrigued by this topic. Housing prices are so insanely bad and beyond out of control almost everywhere and that is a massive understatement.

Even pre covid 2018-2019 they were way too high, but today and last couple years are another something and its very sad for society.

Its hard to believe it was not that long ago where home prices crashed form an insane bubble in 2008-2009 and were flat or even a bit downward pressure in 2010-2011 and even 2012 to some extent. It was thought during those times prices would be flat for at least 5 years. Sadly they were so wrong

I posted an article above about 2010-2011 the call that home prices were depressed and needed to come back among many is a careful what you wish for moment as you just might get it and oh by have we ever and then some and not for the better.

The inventory situation on market has been a disaster and record low after low for over a decade now. Too many NIMBY and too low interest rate and lack of building (some intentional) have contributed to this mess.

Given what the housing market is like now, 2008-2009 massive fall doesn't seem so bad and 2010-2011 were golden as prices then were flat at reasonable levels after crashing from so high levels in 2005-2006.

But holy smokes 2005-2006 home prices are a dream and so tame and nothing compared to today's prices. And at least a crash was in sight to bring them to reasonable levels, but unfortunately they did not last too long at reasonable 2010-2012 levels. And even if they did not they were not near as bad and you know what there were actually homes to buy on the market then and no inventory crunch like there has been for actually over 11 years running maybe even 12 years.
Yes, it's been getting steadily worse and has reached crisis levels in recent years due to lack of supply.

It's sort of nuts, in 1970 the median house price in California was roughly the same as the median house price in the US as a whole. Then we stopped building in desirable areas - in the 1970's we had roughly double the housing starts for a population 130 million people smaller than what we have today.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,264
35,368
136
In related news everybody who thinks building more homes is wrong will be happy Trump plans to intern a huge chunk of the construction labor force. Obviously this will make things cheaper too.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,724
5,393
136
In related news everybody who thinks building more homes is wrong will be happy Trump plans to intern a huge chunk of the construction labor force. Obviously this will make things cheaper too.
Damn Trump for removing our peasant class.
You know why builders like hiring illegal's? You pay them cash, so there is no SSI, no workmens comp, no unemployment insurance, no overtime, no required safety equipment. If one gets hurt, you fire him. They also save on GL because they have a smaller payroll.
 

Wolverine2349

Senior member
Oct 9, 2022
266
90
61
Yes, it's been getting steadily worse and has reached crisis levels in recent years due to lack of supply.

It's sort of nuts, in 1970 the median house price in California was roughly the same as the median house price in the US as a whole. Then we stopped building in desirable areas - in the 1970's we had roughly double the housing starts for a population 130 million people smaller than what we have today.


Yes California is bad and has been insanely ore expensive especially and by a large margin LA, Bay Area and San Diego metros for a long long long time now. Even prices in 2010-2011 in those areas were far more expensive than 2018-2019 prices in 90% of United States.

Now in 2024 with extreme rises almost everywhere, I would say most of the United States seems kind of like Los Angeles 2010-2011 level prices. Not Bay Area 2010-2011 as those were far more than even LA. It seems Bay area is by far most expensive in the United States compared to all Metros. Though LA, Boston, NYC< Seattle, and Washington DC are only moderately but somewhat significantly behind in expense compared to the Bay Area.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
26,862
25,369
136
]
Damn Trump for removing our peasant class.
You know why builders like hiring illegal's? You pay them cash, so there is no SSI, no workmens comp, no unemployment insurance, no overtime, no required safety equipment. If one gets hurt, you fire him. They also save on GL because they have a smaller payroll.
The answer is to legalize the workers and punish those who hire people without work authorization
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,264
35,368
136
Damn Trump for removing our peasant class.
You know why builders like hiring illegal's? You pay them cash, so there is no SSI, no workmens comp, no unemployment insurance, no overtime, no required safety equipment. If one gets hurt, you fire him. They also save on GL because they have a smaller payroll.

I think you've mistaken me for somebody who hasn't desired to bring these workers into the system for many years. Instead your solution is to kick them out while we are hovering around full employment. You know full well what that will do to prices and availability. Next hurricane is going to tear through FL after Trump gets his wish and he'll be telling grandma she can get a new roof three years from then and it's going to cost at least double. The US literally held together by this workforce, getting rid of them will increase contractor rates which I'm sure you favor but will be an economic drain on the rest of the country.
 

pete6032

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2010
7,584
3,128
136
"Within the local building and zoning codes." Seems like those pushing for more housing density are the ones endorsing the Soviet model.
Actually the ones pushing for more housing density are often pushing for more freedom in the marketplace, not less freedom in the marketplace. People pushing for more housing density support allowing private land owners to build accessory dwelling units. Those are not allowed right now in most of America. You would think that with aging baby boomers that younger homeowners would be able to build a guest house in their backyard, but that's not the case. People pushing for more density also support things like allowing landowners to build duplexes and triplexes on single-family zoned land. Many single family neighborhoods would feel just the same with duplexes or triplexes but the zoning code doesn't allow it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,995
49,761
136
Actually the ones pushing for more housing density are often pushing for more freedom in the marketplace, not less freedom in the marketplace. People pushing for more housing density support allowing private land owners to build accessory dwelling units. Those are not allowed right now in most of America. You would think that with aging baby boomers that younger homeowners would be able to build a guest house in their backyard, but that's not the case. People pushing for more density also support things like allowing landowners to build duplexes and triplexes on single-family zoned land. Many single family neighborhoods would feel just the same with duplexes or triplexes but the zoning code doesn't allow it.
It is sort of hilarious that @BoomerD thinks the government having less say over what you can do is ‘Soviet’ while the government banning all construction other than what it approves is apparently American.

Truly remarkable.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,791
6,226
126
Actually the ones pushing for more housing density are often pushing for more freedom in the marketplace, not less freedom in the marketplace. People pushing for more housing density support allowing private land owners to build accessory dwelling units. Those are not allowed right now in most of America. You would think that with aging baby boomers that younger homeowners would be able to build a guest house in their backyard, but that's not the case. People pushing for more density also support things like allowing landowners to build duplexes and triplexes on single-family zoned land. Many single family neighborhoods would feel just the same with duplexes or triplexes but the zoning code doesn't allow it.
In my opinion they do not feel the same by a long shot. Where I live, single family homes with yards, the cost of purchase is so high that people have multiple vehicles and part them all over the street their garages used for living quarters, stuff, or are already full of cars. More and more people, more regulations on water usage so many have no need to worry about paying, higher and higher cost of garbage removal to truck away the waste, more plastic bags and trash more sirens screaming at all hours of the day, more toxic waste flowing into the bay.

Maybe we should allow the government only to own city land and use the best scientific knowledge on how to rebuild them so that multiple millions of people can live there as reasonably comfortable as our best wisdom and knowledge will allow us to create. Make them car free and accessible only by electric public transportation of people and goods and internally by subway.

In my opinion we need to socialize national income because the robots are coming for all jobs. Where would you live if you did not ever have to fear being helpless, used, or poor? You can kill the bird in the nest with sufficient repression but you can never kill all of human dreams.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,724
5,393
136
On the bright side of all of this, if some places are forced to reduce administrative cost, and they decide to allow high density housing to be built and somehow force the developer to sell below market value, the first buyers will clean up in a few years when the prices settle out to actual market value. It would be sweet to get in on that deal.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,995
49,761
136
On the bright side of all of this, if some places are forced to reduce administrative cost, and they decide to allow high density housing to be built and somehow force the developer to sell below market value, the first buyers will clean up in a few years when the prices settle out to actual market value. It would be sweet to get in on that deal.
Wouldn’t it be fun if the government just let developers build whatever they thought was viable?

We are both free market capitalists so I’m sure you agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K1052

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,619
13,153
136
Why is it impossible to build new? Really? Cause existing owners of real-estate don't want to see their investment devaluate? That's about all I can come up with...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,995
49,761
136
Why is it impossible to build new? Really? Cause existing owners of real-estate don't want to see their investment devaluate? That's about all I can come up with...
Read the rest of the thread. Your local government bans it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,791
6,226
126
Read the rest of the thread. Your local government bans it.
So I still can't get why banning density or mandating it isn't the government overriding the will of the people who vote locally. And how is free market capitalism a good thing. Laws are made by the people who can buy the lawmakers. That is never free.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,995
49,761
136
So I still can't get why banning density or mandating it isn't the government overriding the will of the people who vote locally. And how is free market capitalism a good thing. Laws are made by the people who can buy the lawmakers. That is never free.
It is overriding the will of the people who vote locally when we overturn housing construction bans but this is because the greater will and good of the people requires it.

Think of it like school segregation. It was the will of the local people that black and white kids couldn’t go to school together. It was good that we didn’t allow that to be controlling, right?
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,326
15,838
126

Yeah it's a townhouse. Near a GO train station so people can take the train down to downtown Toronto.

I think there should be lots of densification projects like turning a block of bungalows into condos in older part of town. They tend to be transit nexus so it makes sense to build up.

Our premier is friendly to developers, so he reduced the education development charge per unit. Since school boards depend on that to buy land for schools for the new development, now they are in deficit for that chunk. And he is cutting capital funding for school boards...

Population of Markham is only 344k.

Pasadena needs more medium density housing. 42 percent of housing units are single detached.

 
Last edited:

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,724
5,393
136
Wouldn’t it be fun if the government just let developers build whatever they thought was viable?

We are both free market capitalists so I’m sure you agree.
Absolutely, as long as it's not near me. I paid for a house in a particular location because I liked the house and the surrounding area. If someone want's to build dog boxes they're welcome to do that a few miles away where there is plenty of room for it. No need to screw up my neighborhood at all.
All of that is unlikely because homes here are affordable, there is no homeless population.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,995
49,761
136
Absolutely, as long as it's not near me. I paid for a house in a particular location because I liked the house and the surrounding area. If someone want's to build dog boxes they're welcome to do that a few miles away where there is plenty of room for it. No need to screw up my neighborhood at all.
‘I’m absolutely a free market capitalist but the government should ban construction of housing I don’t like on land I don’t own.’

Lol.

It’s ok that you aren’t a free market capitalist but you should at least be honest with yourself.

All of that is unlikely because homes here are affordable, there is no homeless population.
That is true. Most people find Mississippi to be a very undesirable place to live so housing demand is low and prices are similar. (There’s a reason it ranks last or almost last in almost every objective metric) West Virginia is the same way - one of the lowest homeless rates in the country and, well, it’s not because of West Virginia’s forward thinking housing policy.

What’s sort of funny is that people intuitively understand this half of the supply/demand equation - nobody wants to live there so housing is cheap. When asked to understand the supply half though they suddenly come up with a million reasons it doesn’t apply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,891
13,902
146
The problem with denser housing, walkable cities and public transportation is it combines three things conservatives absolutely hate.

1. They hate other people. Denser housing means living near other people. Public transportation means sitting or standing near other people. Instead of sitting in their truck comfortably raging at other drivers.

2. They hate walking. They didn’t like it when mommy made them walk around the mall or grocery store as a kid and they don’t like it now. Walking out to the driveway to get in their King Ranch F150 is already a long enough walk. They sure as hell won’t like a 4 minute walk to bus or train stop and another 5 minute walk just to get to their destination.

3. They hate carrying things. Mommy used to make them carry bags when they went to the store which hurt their hands. In a denser / walkable area could you imagine how you’d have to carry a bunch of bags from the store while walking to a train to ride with other people while being on good behavior.

Completely anxiety inducing.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
26,862
25,369
136
Absolutely, as long as it's not near me. I paid for a house in a particular location because I liked the house and the surrounding area. If someone want's to build dog boxes they're welcome to do that a few miles away where there is plenty of room for it. No need to screw up my neighborhood at all.
As usual you are the problem.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,724
5,393
136
‘I’m absolutely a free market capitalist but the government should ban construction of housing I don’t like on land I don’t own.’

Lol.

It’s ok that you aren’t a free market capitalist but you should at least be honest with yourself.


That is true. Most people find Mississippi to be a very undesirable place to live so housing demand is low and prices are similar. (There’s a reason it ranks last or almost last in almost every objective metric) West Virginia is the same way - one of the lowest homeless rates in the country and, well, it’s not because of West Virginia’s forward thinking housing policy.

What’s sort of funny is that people intuitively understand this half of the supply/demand equation - nobody wants to live there so housing is cheap. When asked to understand the supply half though they suddenly come up with a million reasons it doesn’t apply.
All true enough. What's odd is that I live in a really nice home that's had a fair few custom touches. I'm in walking distance of the largest supermarket I've ever seen. My doctor, dentist, and the vet are all within the same range. There is very little crime, no homeless, no day laborers at the big box stores. No trash along the roads. My utilities are about 20% of what they were in California for a house that's 50% larger, my insurance rates are about half of what they were in CA. My property taxes are also less than half of what I paid in CA.
In short, I love it here. This place is what California was in 1976. It's quiet, clean, well managed, and inexpensive. My life has never been better.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,995
49,761
136
All true enough. What's odd is that I live in a really nice home that's had a fair few custom touches. I'm in walking distance of the largest supermarket I've ever seen. My doctor, dentist, and the vet are all within the same range. There is very little crime, no homeless, no day laborers at the big box stores. No trash along the roads. My utilities are about 20% of what they were in California for a house that's 50% larger, my insurance rates are about half of what they were in CA. My property taxes are also less than half of what I paid in CA.
In short, I love it here. This place is what California was in 1976. It's quiet, clean, well managed, and inexpensive. My life has never been better.
Makes sense to me - you are a comparatively wealthy person in a desperately poor state and that’s better for you. It’s the same reason lots of Americans move to developing countries when they retire.

The thing is while that’s good for you that deal only lasts as long as the other residents stay desperately poor for the most part so I’m sure you understand why that’s not really relevant for general policy as ‘you all please remain destitute’ isn’t an answer.