lots of millennials looking to burbs for homes and big suvs
08-28-17 | 01:45 PM
#106
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 57,970
Likes: 2,781
From: Maryland
Wasting our breath lol.
One thing that will help, when we have self driving cars commuting will be much easier, so people can buy cheaper homes further out and let their cars commute to work for them
One thing that will help, when we have self driving cars commuting will be much easier, so people can buy cheaper homes further out and let their cars commute to work for them
08-28-17 | 01:58 PM
#107
Read past the first two sentences of your own article, because the author's intent is to prove my point. Included in "urban areas" for the purposes of reaching those census figures are towns with at least 2,500 residents!
You said the vast majority of people live in large cities like NYC. This statement is true if your definition of "large cities like NYC" includes towns like Bellvue, Iowa, population 2,543--a town which is so small it has neither a McDonald's nor a Starbucks. However, if you look at the actual population numbers of large cities, which can be found here or here, you'll see that my numbers are accurate.
You said the vast majority of people live in large cities like NYC. This statement is true if your definition of "large cities like NYC" includes towns like Bellvue, Iowa, population 2,543--a town which is so small it has neither a McDonald's nor a Starbucks. However, if you look at the actual population numbers of large cities, which can be found here or here, you'll see that my numbers are accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tistical_Areas
08-28-17 | 02:09 PM
#108
Pole Position
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,412
Likes: 15
From: CA
Yeah SF bay area, yikes. I was out in CA a couple years ago at a property management conference (35% of my business is that) and I met a lot of managers and real estate agents from the SF bay area. Crazy expensive.
Its really different than it was before the meltdown, the biggest difference is qualification of borrowers. Before the meltdown plain and simple, people were being given mortgages they could not actually afford. Fraud was happening, people were victims of predatory lending. We had these 3-2-1 buy downs where people were qualified on a low 3% below market rate that would step in over 3 years, well...no duh the people couldn't make the payments when it got to the full rate...3% has a HUGE impact on the payment. Stated income loans, crazy.
I bought my house in 2007. I kid you not, nobody asked me for one bank statement...not one tax return, not anything. I did not seek out a no doc loan either, they just didn't care. Like buying a car.
It is TOTALLY unlike that now. Income has to be documented in a very strict way, borrowers are underwritten thoroughly and vetted. You can find stated or alt doc (meaning they will document say bank statements instead of tax returns) loans, but they are not mainstream nor will they ever be again. That will always be a weird pseudo hard money portfolio deal. 99.9% of all loans involve a thorough income and asset verification process, thats not going to change.
Even with lower down payments, if you have good borrowers with good credit and good jobs, they're not walking away from their homes, and in any event...thats what mortgage insurance is for. The MI insures the loan against default...you have MI on ANY loan with a less than 80% LTV, whether you pay it monthly or if its LPMI (lender paid mortgage insurance) its built into the rate.
So no, we are not headed for that sort of thing again.
Its really different than it was before the meltdown, the biggest difference is qualification of borrowers. Before the meltdown plain and simple, people were being given mortgages they could not actually afford. Fraud was happening, people were victims of predatory lending. We had these 3-2-1 buy downs where people were qualified on a low 3% below market rate that would step in over 3 years, well...no duh the people couldn't make the payments when it got to the full rate...3% has a HUGE impact on the payment. Stated income loans, crazy.
I bought my house in 2007. I kid you not, nobody asked me for one bank statement...not one tax return, not anything. I did not seek out a no doc loan either, they just didn't care. Like buying a car.
It is TOTALLY unlike that now. Income has to be documented in a very strict way, borrowers are underwritten thoroughly and vetted. You can find stated or alt doc (meaning they will document say bank statements instead of tax returns) loans, but they are not mainstream nor will they ever be again. That will always be a weird pseudo hard money portfolio deal. 99.9% of all loans involve a thorough income and asset verification process, thats not going to change.
Even with lower down payments, if you have good borrowers with good credit and good jobs, they're not walking away from their homes, and in any event...thats what mortgage insurance is for. The MI insures the loan against default...you have MI on ANY loan with a less than 80% LTV, whether you pay it monthly or if its LPMI (lender paid mortgage insurance) its built into the rate.
So no, we are not headed for that sort of thing again.
08-28-17 | 02:23 PM
#109
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 57,970
Likes: 2,781
From: Maryland
No problem. The lessons have been learned. Its funny, as always everybody overreacted and clamped things down too tightly, now over time you see the industry find its footing loosening up here and there.
08-28-17 | 05:49 PM
#110
08-28-17 | 08:56 PM
#112
drives cars
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 8,644
Likes: 3,961
From: GA
There are plenty of cheap Podunk homes, but I don't think millennials can afford to go that route because it would be a tiresome commute to work.
I mean look at socal, if you go far east to palm desert or apple valley, there are super cheap homes. But who wants to live there?
Maybe when more and more jobs shift to telecommuting, podunk suburbs will be more attractive.
I mean look at socal, if you go far east to palm desert or apple valley, there are super cheap homes. But who wants to live there?
Maybe when more and more jobs shift to telecommuting, podunk suburbs will be more attractive.
Also to be honest, I am damn glad I got a significant pay bump last year. We really underestimated the monthly costs of maintaining a home... (Lawn care, plumbing issues, higher utility bills, etc. add up even if they seem inexpensive on their own) Gladly, we seem to have figured things out - a 17% pay increase helps with that I suppose.
In any case, part of me thinks we jumped the gun on buying a house, the other part thinks, well, at least we are not wasting money on rent. Our rent was about the same as our mortgage payment is now.
08-28-17 | 11:36 PM
#113
Racer
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,581
Likes: 133
From: PA
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge
It explains your responses to SW15 in this thread though.
Anyways, my wife and I were happy to get a starter town home in 2010 and then move into a single family two years ago. The housing market is doing good in our area. most of my friends (all millenials) have started buying homes but further out from the philly area.
Last edited by evident; 08-28-17 at 11:56 PM.
08-29-17 | 05:12 AM
#114
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,491
Likes: 372
From: PA
Your numbers are not accurate and irrelevant. Your figure of 8% is simply laughable. Once again, NYC alone is almost 9 million people, but if you take NYC metro area its 22 million people. NYC metro area alone is about 7% of US population, and anywhere in NYC metro area is ridiculously expensive. Same goes for other metro areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tistical_Areas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tistical_Areas
08-29-17 | 05:26 AM
#115
Racer
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,581
Likes: 133
From: PA
There are places like that all over. In some places in south jersey, transaction prices on a home are way cheaper than where i live, but you would be paying double the taxes that I do in PA, and taxes don't go away!
08-29-17 | 05:32 AM
#116
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,491
Likes: 372
From: PA
PA woulda been a disaster if Christie removed the reciprocity. I think it would have cost me over 3% add'l as I work in NJ. Other than that, I get that a flat income tax makes no sense, but what are you gonna do? It helps me though I know it's regressive, thank the govt. If you choose wisely in PA, you can get a decent public school system and reasonable taxes (I think this should be factored-in for those who plan on having a family). Right now, Tredyffrin/Easttown seems to be one of the best school districts, that's Chester Co. This isn't like MASS where every public school under the sun has a 2100+ median SAT score...you're right, the taxes never go away, they just go up, so it should play into the buy decision...lower taxes with a better school system, higher house price, is how I went about it...
08-29-17 | 05:52 AM
#117
Super Moderator
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 8,099
Likes: 317
From: IL
They're not my numbers, they're the US Census Bureau's. Perhaps you can teach them how to count, and thereby elevate them from their apparent irrelevance.
22 Million is the population of the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical Area, not the Metropolitan area. The CSA is comprised of 8 MSAs:
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area
New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area
Trenton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area
Torrington, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area
Kingston, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area
East Stroudsburg, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area
It includes most of the area across 4 states within 140 miles of NYC, and a total area of 13,318 square miles. If your position is that the majority of the US population lives within 140 miles of a major city, then I agree with you, particularly if we're using the definitions from the article you posted that defines an "urbanized area" as a city with at least 50k residents. To use the CSAs that you're clinging to as defining the "NYC Metro area", the combined population of the top 20 CSAs, which is comprised of 105 MSAs--what most people would call a "metro area"--you do get to a little less than half the total population (142M). But to get that far, you start including the areas surrounding "major cities" like Orlando, population 280k.
Regardless of how we choose to define "metro area", the real problem then comes when you say that housing is expensive in all Metro areas, which simply is not true.
As others have pointed out to you in this thread, NYC is not representative of the entire country. I live in the third largest (by population) MSA, and paid $420k for a 4100 sqft house on 1/3 acre with a pool, in an excellent school district. My parents are in another town a little farther out, and their 3500 sqft house on 1/2 acre in a very good school district is worth about $280k. This is not "super expensive" by any stretch of the imagination. Even if I restricted my search to be within the Chicago city limits, there are TONS of nice single-family houses in good neighborhoods for under $300k. Condos and Townhouses are even cheaper. Of course NYC is more expensive than Chicago, but even so there are neighborhoods inside or just outside NYC where decent single family homes are available for $300k or less, and are yet a 20 minute (express) train ride from the port authority.
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area
New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area
Trenton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area
Torrington, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area
Kingston, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area
East Stroudsburg, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area
It includes most of the area across 4 states within 140 miles of NYC, and a total area of 13,318 square miles. If your position is that the majority of the US population lives within 140 miles of a major city, then I agree with you, particularly if we're using the definitions from the article you posted that defines an "urbanized area" as a city with at least 50k residents. To use the CSAs that you're clinging to as defining the "NYC Metro area", the combined population of the top 20 CSAs, which is comprised of 105 MSAs--what most people would call a "metro area"--you do get to a little less than half the total population (142M). But to get that far, you start including the areas surrounding "major cities" like Orlando, population 280k.
Regardless of how we choose to define "metro area", the real problem then comes when you say that housing is expensive in all Metro areas, which simply is not true.
As others have pointed out to you in this thread, NYC is not representative of the entire country. I live in the third largest (by population) MSA, and paid $420k for a 4100 sqft house on 1/3 acre with a pool, in an excellent school district. My parents are in another town a little farther out, and their 3500 sqft house on 1/2 acre in a very good school district is worth about $280k. This is not "super expensive" by any stretch of the imagination. Even if I restricted my search to be within the Chicago city limits, there are TONS of nice single-family houses in good neighborhoods for under $300k. Condos and Townhouses are even cheaper. Of course NYC is more expensive than Chicago, but even so there are neighborhoods inside or just outside NYC where decent single family homes are available for $300k or less, and are yet a 20 minute (express) train ride from the port authority.
08-29-17 | 07:24 AM
#118
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,271
Likes: 70
From: New York
I think millenials will be fine and I'm one of them.
But if you think that there is a bunch of them buying houses for $900k or more is ludicrous.
There is maybe 1% and even those people either lived at home with parents or relied on family for tuition/downpayment etc.
What I see a lot of my millenial coworkers that make north of $100k - they are moving down south to FL, Carolinas or Georgia. These are ones that have growing families.
If your making $200k or less and have 1-2 kids in NYC, you cant afford to rent a decent place much less buy $900k house.
Also any good area in Long Island, Westchester, NJ with a reasonable commute to NY and good schools, have house prices that are $800k plus for the most part with taxes of $15k+ And that is the very low end for a house that needs work.
But if you think that there is a bunch of them buying houses for $900k or more is ludicrous.
There is maybe 1% and even those people either lived at home with parents or relied on family for tuition/downpayment etc.
What I see a lot of my millenial coworkers that make north of $100k - they are moving down south to FL, Carolinas or Georgia. These are ones that have growing families.
If your making $200k or less and have 1-2 kids in NYC, you cant afford to rent a decent place much less buy $900k house.
Also any good area in Long Island, Westchester, NJ with a reasonable commute to NY and good schools, have house prices that are $800k plus for the most part with taxes of $15k+ And that is the very low end for a house that needs work.
Last edited by RNM GS3; 08-29-17 at 07:34 AM.
08-29-17 | 08:18 AM
#119
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 57,970
Likes: 2,781
From: Maryland
What I see a lot of my millenial coworkers that make north of $100k - they are moving down south to FL, Carolinas or Georgia. These are ones that have growing families.
08-29-17 | 08:37 AM
#120
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,491
Likes: 372
From: PA
I can't tell you how many people I know who have moved to SC and rave up and down how nice people are there (relatively)......