3 ms·

<They may have saw 100x gains on their house> I can't imagine a single unimproved residence being anywhere in that neighborhood (even going all the way to 1978

by DrScump 11y ago

<They may have saw 100x gains on their house> I can't imagine a single unimproved residence being anywhere in that neighborhood (even going all the way to 1978); examples are welcome.

xyzzy_plugh 11y ago
Not accounting for inflation, it's not hard to believe: Median Home Values: Unadjusted 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 California $211,500 $195,500 $84,500 $23,100 $15,100 $9,564 $3,527 The median alone is almost two orders of magnitude greater as of 2000, let alone 2016. I'm sure there is at least one bay-area home that has been untouched for 50 or 60 years that is now selling for well over a million. From: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/valu...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- DrScump 11y ago
  You realize that somebody who bought in 1940 or earlier is over 100 years old now, right? (assuming becoming a homeowner at age 25). Not a significant demographic. Beyond that, those numbers are fudged and do not reflect the changing value of the dollar. $3,537 in 1940 is $59,711 in 2015 dollars[0] (or $43,382 in 2000 dollars[0]), so your "two orders of magnitude" claim falls to a mere factor of less than 5 times, or < 5% of the "two orders of magnitude" claim. And again, that isn't even a level comparison given that housing construction costs are far higher (well beyond the rate of inflation) due to more features, stricter building codes, modern appliances, permits, ... [0] http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=3527&year1=1940&year2=2000 http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=3527&year1=1940...
drfuchs 11y ago
Parts of Palo Alto were very blue collar post WWII. I knew one nonagenarian who bought his house new in 1949 for $10k, and it sold, unimproved, for $2.2m on his death over a year ago. Also a centenarian still living in her original 1950 $10k house that Zillow now estimates at $2.3m. So, there's 220x gains. Clearly, all the value is in the land. Property tax in 2013 was about $1k in both cases; both have new neighbors in newly-built $4m houses on same-size lots paying $40k tax.
- DrScump 11y ago
  <So, there's 220x gains> In nominal dollars. <Property tax in 2013 was about $1k in both cases> I really doubt that. I just checked a friend's house who has lived in PA since 1952, and they are paying $3200. Anybody can look up what actual property taxes are paid here: https://payments.sccgov.org/propertytax/Secured https://payments.sccgov.org/propertytax/Secured
  - gberger 11y ago
    According to [1], $10k in 1950 corresponds to about $100k in 2015. So the gain is 23x, which is still insane. [1] http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
    - DrScump 11y ago
      I was using the official Federal government site estimator as I indicated above: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - drfuchs 11y ago
    Exactly the site I used. Exactly $1121.80 for 2013 (in both cases; same development, same lot size, so must have been same price).

by DrScump 11y ago

<They may have saw 100x gains on their house> I can't imagine a single unimproved residence being anywhere in that neighborhood (even going all the way to 1978); examples are welcome.

xyzzy_plugh 11y ago

Not accounting for inflation, it's not hard to believe: Median Home Values: Unadjusted 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 California $211,500 $195,500 $84,500 $23,100 $15,100 $9,564 $3,527 The median alone is almost two orders of magnitude greater as of 2000, let alone 2016. I'm sure there is at least one bay-area home that has been untouched for 50 or 60 years that is now selling for well over a million. From: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/valu...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
DrScump 11y ago
You realize that somebody who bought in 1940 or earlier is over 100 years old now, right? (assuming becoming a homeowner at age 25). Not a significant demographic. Beyond that, those numbers are fudged and do not reflect the changing value of the dollar. $3,537 in 1940 is $59,711 in 2015 dollars[0] (or $43,382 in 2000 dollars[0]), so your "two orders of magnitude" claim falls to a mere factor of less than 5 times, or < 5% of the "two orders of magnitude" claim. And again, that isn't even a level comparison given that housing construction costs are far higher (well beyond the rate of inflation) due to more features, stricter building codes, modern appliances, permits, ... [0] http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=3527&year1=1940&year2=2000 http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=3527&year1=1940...

drfuchs 11y ago

Parts of Palo Alto were very blue collar post WWII. I knew one nonagenarian who bought his house new in 1949 for $10k, and it sold, unimproved, for $2.2m on his death over a year ago. Also a centenarian still living in her original 1950 $10k house that Zillow now estimates at $2.3m. So, there's 220x gains. Clearly, all the value is in the land. Property tax in 2013 was about $1k in both cases; both have new neighbors in newly-built $4m houses on same-size lots paying $40k tax.

DrScump 11y ago
<So, there's 220x gains> In nominal dollars. <Property tax in 2013 was about $1k in both cases> I really doubt that. I just checked a friend's house who has lived in PA since 1952, and they are paying $3200. Anybody can look up what actual property taxes are paid here: https://payments.sccgov.org/propertytax/Secured https://payments.sccgov.org/propertytax/Secured
- gberger 11y ago
  According to [1], $10k in 1950 corresponds to about $100k in 2015. So the gain is 23x, which is still insane. [1] http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
  - DrScump 11y ago
    I was using the official Federal government site estimator as I indicated above: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- drfuchs 11y ago
  Exactly the site I used. Exactly $1121.80 for 2013 (in both cases; same development, same lot size, so must have been same price).