4 ms·

In the central valley of California, a house cost $130k in 1993 and today sells for $400k. In those 30 years you probably painted it a few times, changed the ro

In the central valley of California, a house cost $130k in 1993 and today sells for $400k. In those 30 years you probably painted it a few times, changed the roof just recently, changed the kitchen, and so forth. Plus 30 years of property tax. So you're probably in for $200k on that $130k house. And that's not even counting interest on mortgages that most buyers had in 1993. Doubling your money in 30 years isn't great at all. And this is within about 50 miles of tech jobs, although the drive will take 90 minutes in the morning and 60 minutes at night.

peregren 5y ago
You also get to live in the house which is a pretty good return.
vikingerik 5y ago
Houses do have utility. Doubling your money in an asset that provided living space for 30 years instead of paying rent is pretty great.
- namecheapTA 5y ago
  Ok yes but even if this was a rental home and the renters basically paid the mortgage.. so you didn't get any utility out of it. 30 years later you made $200k, even if you put basically nothing down. As a return it's a lot percentage wise. Overall though, it's not life changing for most people. It only gets crazy money in the most desirable of areas. And that desire circle is basically described as driving range from the highest paying jobs.
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  But they don't have so much utility that they should offer such returns on top of depreciation. The market is broken.
  - iso1210 5y ago
    It's not the house that appreciates much in value, its the land the house sits on.
    - Mikeb85 5y ago
      I'm aware. But the land mainly has so much value because cities refuse to expand despite the demand.
      - iso1210 5y ago
        Expanding horizontally doesn't solve land price values -- prices will still be higher in the dense centre The solution is to make better use of valuable land by encouraging (or enforcing) high density
ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>In the central valley of California, a house cost $130k in 1993 and today sells for $400k Holy shiz, is California real estate really that cheap? 400K is a very basic house in the outskirts of a city in Austria(Europe), and tech jobs here pay 1/4 of what you can make in California. I feel we're being scammed over here with housing and wages.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- axiolite 5y ago
  > is California real estate really that cheap? California is bigger than most European countries... As with them, some remote areas are much cheaper than others. The Central Valley is the most remote and depressed part of the state, used overwhelmingly for farming.
- sneak 5y ago
  The central valley isn't really "on the outskirts of the city" in the American sense. It's a lot of farmland.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- namecheapTA 5y ago
  If houses are so expensive vs labor, you could always buy some land and have one built? The central valley city I was talking about is Tracy, CA. Without traffic, it's takes 1 hour driving to get to the tech companies. Monday to Friday at rush hour it would take 2 hours. 90 minutes offpeak at 9am instead of 7am. Virtually zero tech workers are willing to make that drive. Also, quality of life in Tracy is pretty poor. Property crime is pretty big. Virtually nothing for children to do. Young adults go to the same 5-6 average restaurants and that's it. I'd much prefer to live in a town near a nice city in Austria.
  - aeyes 5y ago
brailsafe 5y ago
Seems like that's just standard appreciation. You replace the bits that deteriorate and conceptually lose value, so by replacing it, you just bring it up to par with what it would ideally be worth since buying it. Although my father did buy his house in 96 for $80k in Canada, hasn't replaced fuck all, and it's now worth hypothetically $250k just because that's what houses are going for in the neighbourhood

peregren 5y ago

You also get to live in the house which is a pretty good return.

vikingerik 5y ago

Houses do have utility. Doubling your money in an asset that provided living space for 30 years instead of paying rent is pretty great.

namecheapTA 5y ago
Ok yes but even if this was a rental home and the renters basically paid the mortgage.. so you didn't get any utility out of it. 30 years later you made $200k, even if you put basically nothing down. As a return it's a lot percentage wise. Overall though, it's not life changing for most people. It only gets crazy money in the most desirable of areas. And that desire circle is basically described as driving range from the highest paying jobs.
Mikeb85 5y ago
But they don't have so much utility that they should offer such returns on top of depreciation. The market is broken.
- iso1210 5y ago
  It's not the house that appreciates much in value, its the land the house sits on.
  - Mikeb85 5y ago
    I'm aware. But the land mainly has so much value because cities refuse to expand despite the demand.
    - iso1210 5y ago
      Expanding horizontally doesn't solve land price values -- prices will still be higher in the dense centre The solution is to make better use of valuable land by encouraging (or enforcing) high density

ChuckNorris89 5y ago

>In the central valley of California, a house cost $130k in 1993 and today sells for $400k Holy shiz, is California real estate really that cheap? 400K is a very basic house in the outskirts of a city in Austria(Europe), and tech jobs here pay 1/4 of what you can make in California. I feel we're being scammed over here with housing and wages.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
axiolite 5y ago
> is California real estate really that cheap? California is bigger than most European countries... As with them, some remote areas are much cheaper than others. The Central Valley is the most remote and depressed part of the state, used overwhelmingly for farming.
sneak 5y ago
The central valley isn't really "on the outskirts of the city" in the American sense. It's a lot of farmland.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
namecheapTA 5y ago
If houses are so expensive vs labor, you could always buy some land and have one built? The central valley city I was talking about is Tracy, CA. Without traffic, it's takes 1 hour driving to get to the tech companies. Monday to Friday at rush hour it would take 2 hours. 90 minutes offpeak at 9am instead of 7am. Virtually zero tech workers are willing to make that drive. Also, quality of life in Tracy is pretty poor. Property crime is pretty big. Virtually nothing for children to do. Young adults go to the same 5-6 average restaurants and that's it. I'd much prefer to live in a town near a nice city in Austria.
- aeyes 5y ago

brailsafe 5y ago

Seems like that's just standard appreciation. You replace the bits that deteriorate and conceptually lose value, so by replacing it, you just bring it up to par with what it would ideally be worth since buying it. Although my father did buy his house in 96 for $80k in Canada, hasn't replaced fuck all, and it's now worth hypothetically $250k just because that's what houses are going for in the neighbourhood