U.S. Housing Prices Explosion Making Repatriation a Less Realistic Option for Many?

[EVENKEEL]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

This is why I was trying before to discourage an ideological political debate  it's a loaded black hole.

 

Regardless of political interpretations the lack of affordable housing.crisis in the US is clearly real and its a very serious negative factor for lower wealth expats that are considering or sometimes forced to repatriate.

You'll have to assign a dollar amount to the definition of lower wealth expat. In your eyes what is the monthly income and liquid assets of such a person. 

[EVENKEEL]

3 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

The progressive policies in California make it the most desirable place to live in the USA, therefore supply and demand has made it unaffordable for the average worker.

Housing rose 20% last year. 

Median price of a home in the state is $750,000 and will climb to over $800,000 this year. 
 

I'm wondering how the progressive policies are desirable for the working person. Seems the thieves and undesirables could find the appeal.

[Jingthing]

Just now, LarrySR said:

The progressive policies in California make it the most desirable place to live in the USA, therefore supply and demand has made it unaffordable for the average worker.

Housing rose 20% last year. 

Median price of a home in the state is $750,000 and will climb to over $800,000 this year. 
 

Well, not all of California is nice but has it occurred to you people want to live there because of the:

 

weather

the beaches

the mountains

the ganja

the tech and entertainment industries, etc.

the world class restaurants

the world class cultural offerings

the wonderful diversity

 

I do agree that often blue state cultural types want to live among similar (but that's different than being to afford it).

 

Of course I agree that Cali is burdened with over regulation and a lot of that NIMBY zoning problem I mentioned before.

But it's absurd to suggest this is a one state issue.

 

This massive housing inflation especially of RENTS is a national phenom red/blue/purple. Obviously not all localities are going up 30 percent in a year but the overall picture is VERY BAD indeed for affordability. No way are wage or social security check increases meeting these increases. 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

You'll have to assign a dollar amount to the definition of lower wealth expat. In your eyes what is the monthly income and liquid assets of such a person. 

Already posted on this but really I don't have to do anything. There are obviously many complex variables so in other words, bait ignored.

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I'm wondering how the progressive policies are desirable for the working person. Seems the thieves and undesirables could find the appeal.

As stated before I think both sides of the political spectrum have failed Americans seeking affordable housing. 

[LarrySR]

7 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I'm wondering how the progressive policies are desirable for the working person. Seems the thieves and undesirables could find the appeal.

Fox on the brain. 

[Yellowtail]

Just now, LarrySR said:

Fox on the brain. 

So what "progressive policies" benefit working people? 

[Rimmer]

A post has been removed:

 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So what "progressive policies" benefit working people? 

I like to think of myself as in the middle though in Australia the middle is probably a bit to the left compared to the United States.

So I say let the market do it's thing, except keep an eye on when it's not working, by having fair minimum wages, stop policies that disallow unions, compulsory superannuation, access to low cost health care, good schools for kids, sick leave, good infrastructure for roads bridges and things like internet. They're all lefty things that can help achieve stuff to help make the free market fair.

In terms of housing you can have tax discounts for first home buyers, some government housing for the physically or mentally disabled, and such. I heard that in California to get anything done such as building projects costs 10 times more than in France so the government is clearly inefficient or corrupt or something. 

[LarrySR]

18 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

Fox on the brain. 

Progressivism is a political philosophy in support of social reform that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions.

For example, the $75 billion budget surplus in California provides ample funds that improves services for average citizens. 

Of course if you watch Fox, they portray, everyone is fleeing California because it’s a crime infested hellhole due to progressive policies when in fact  the California standard of living is the envy of the world. 
 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

Progressivism is a political philosophy in support of social reform that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions.

For example, the $75 billion budget surplus in California provides ample funds that improves services for average citizens. 
 

On the housing issue for poorer seniors, there is a very good program, the HUD senior housing sliding scale program. For those able to get access to it, it's a life saver. However, the supply is radically lower than the demand. Now what side of the political spectrum do people think was responsible for that program (inadequate as it is but helping at least SOME people)? Obviously that is a liberal democratic type of program. Can you imagine a modern republican supporting such a thing?  If the democrats proposed a massive acceleration of that program to actually meet much more of the demand how many elected republicans do you think would support that? Zero, one, or two? 

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

Progressivism is a political philosophy in support of social reform that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions.

What changes and what actions? 

 

3 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

For example, the $75 billion budget surplus in California provides ample funds that improves services for average citizens. 

Can you provide an example of what services might be improved for the average citizens with these funds? 

[LarrySR]

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What changes and what actions? 

 

Can you provide an example of what services might be improved for the average citizens with these funds? 

I guess you never looked at the California Democrat Party platform. 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

On the housing issue for poorer seniors, there is a very good program, the HUD senior housing sliding scale program. For those able to get access to it, it's a life saver. However, the supply is radically lower than the demand. Now what side of the political spectrum do people think was responsible for that program (inadequate as it is but helping at least SOME people)? Obviously that is a liberal democratic type of program. Can you imagine a modern republican supporting such a thing?  If the democrats proposed a massive acceleration of that program to actually meet much more of the demand how many elected republicans do you think would support that? Zero, one, or two? 

You are assuming that HUD actually helps people more than it hurts. 

 

HUD is one thing driving prices up. More HUD subsidies may help the "poor", but it will drive prices up for everyone, which hurts the middle class disproportionately and primarily  benefits rich landlords. 

 

Look at tuition. Government funding/loans driving up the costs.  

[Yellowtail]

23 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

I guess you never looked at the California Democrat Party platform. 

CNN on the brain. 

[Jingthing]

HUD senior sliding scale housing has NOTHING to do with Section 8 and private landlords.

They are buildings typically administered by churches (but open to all religions or no religion) that comply with all HUD rules for the program. 

They tend to be well kept up and not slums. 

They supply such a tiny percentage of total U.S. housing that it's not credible that they have any impact on the larger private market.

Any lower wealth senior already in the US who is renting, I would suggest researching this and if you find a good one, get on the waiting list. 

 

I will add that the eligibility for the above is about INCOME not savings. They do not demand low assets at all. In fact application  evaluators are interested to hear that applicants have significant savings because they know that such applicants are much more likely to be successful long term tenants. In other words if you have a low income and paying sliding scale you don't have much money for everything else so may even default on low rent, so having a reserve is highly desirable. 

 

Section 8 options tend to be slummy and also as mentioned before numerous times there is a definite trend now for Section 8 private landlords to get rid of their Section 8 tenants to be able to ride the gravy train of obscenely inflated rents on the regular market. 

[Gecko123]

Repatriating as a senior is tough because you have to also consider potential long-term care and medical expenses, something which seemed far off when you were younger. Even if you had $500K - $1,000K to buy a nice property to live out your golden years, you probably aren't going to want to tie up a large portion of your net worth in real estate, in the event that you have to use those funds for long-term care and/or medical expenses.

 

There's this rather unpleasant superior tone creeping into some of the comments of people who happened to have retained properties back home. I retired at 50, and consider myself to still be financially well-off, even though I do not own property state side. It would have been very difficult for me to retire at 50, and retain a property in the US. Maybe if you happened to have bought property prior to the early 1980's, or purchased property in middle-America for dirt cheap, inherited a significant amount of money or real estate, had extremely lucrative employment, or timed the stock market just right, perhaps you could do both. But if you were on either coast where real estate prices started climbing 40 years ago, to pay off a mortgage and retire early was out of reach for the majority of people. You had to decide what your priorities were.

 

A couple of other thing worth pointing out: climate change has increased the risk of real estate ownership, it's an ill-liquid asset, and it's not inconceivable that real estate markets could enter a prolonged downturn in the near future.

 

Also, people compare the current Zillow estimate price with the purchase price they paid 40 years ago, and say, wow, I've doubled and tripled me money. But when you check what that works out to in terms of an annual percent return, it can often be surprisingly paltry, and that's even before you factor in property taxes and maintenance costs.

 

[EVENKEEL]

1 hour ago, LarrySR said:

Progressivism is a political philosophy in support of social reform that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions.

For example, the $75 billion budget surplus in California provides ample funds that improves services for average citizens. 

Of course if you watch Fox, they portray, everyone is fleeing California because it’s a crime infested hellhole due to progressive policies when in fact  the California standard of living is the envy of the world. 
 

It's not just Ca people are fleeing, funny thing the states where more people are leaving are Democrat run with high taxes and high crime.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/01/03/democrat-run-states-saw-residents-flee-in-2021/

[LarrySR]

11 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

It's not just Ca people are fleeing, funny thing the states where more people are leaving are Democrat run with high taxes and high crime.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/01/03/democrat-run-states-saw-residents-flee-in-2021/

Seriously, you're quoting Rupert Murdochs NY Post? 

Dwelling in the alternative reality of the right wing echo chamber, filling your head with nonsense. 

The idea of a "California exodus" has been spread on right wing media that wants to portray Californias progressive policies as a failure. 

California is more popular than ever, attracting more venture capital than all other states combined.

Now you know.

 

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

It's not just Ca people are fleeing, funny thing the states where more people are leaving are Democrat run with high taxes and high crime.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/01/03/democrat-run-states-saw-residents-flee-in-2021/

Again, this massive housing inflation phenom is NATIONAL and is showing up in all kinds of state colors.

Obviously relative.

If a place goes up 20 percent in a lower priced market it still sounds relative affordable when the initial basis was much higher. 

Possible to keep on the topic instead of sophomoric political scapegoating? 

[EVENKEEL]

37 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

Repatriating as a senior is tough because you have to also consider potential long-term care and medical expenses, something which seemed far off when you were younger. Even if you had $500K - $1,000K to buy a nice property to live out your golden years, you probably aren't going to want to tie up a large portion of your net worth in real estate, in the event that you have to use those funds for long-term care and/or medical expenses.

 

There's this rather unpleasant superior tone creeping into some of the comments of people who happened to have retained properties back home. I retired at 50, and consider myself to still be financially well-off, even though I do not own property state side. It would have been very difficult for me to retire at 50, and retain a property in the US. Maybe if you happened to have bought property prior to the early 1980's, or purchased property in middle-America for dirt cheap, inherited a significant amount of money or real estate, had extremely lucrative employment, or timed the stock market just right, perhaps you could do both. But if you were on either coast where real estate prices started climbing 40 years ago, to pay off a mortgage and retire early was out of reach for the majority of people. You had to decide what your priorities were.

 

A couple of other thing worth pointing out: climate change has increased the risk of real estate ownership, it's an ill-liquid asset, and it's not inconceivable that real estate markets could enter a prolonged downturn in the near future.

 

Also, people compare the current Zillow estimate price with the purchase price they paid 40 years ago, and say, wow, I've doubled and tripled me money. But when you check what that works out to in terms of an annual percent return, it can often be surprisingly paltry, and that's even before you factor in property taxes and maintenance costs.

 

You chose your priority which was to retire at age 50. That sounds great, I'm sure you had a good time. So, because you stopped contributing to the SS fund early you probably don't get as much as those of us who slaved away till age 62 and kept our US based homes. Now I can live a humble life here in Thailand or return to the US if and when I choose. 

 

What's not fair?

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

You chose your priority which was to retire at age 50. That sounds great, I'm sure you had a good time. So, because you stopped contributing to the SS fund early you probably don't get as much as those of us who slaved away till age 62 and kept our US based homes. Now I can live a humble life here in Thailand or return to the US if and when I choose. 

 

What's not fair?

It's not a matter of fair or not fair.

We've got a situation in the US now and people either need to deal with it which in some cases may mean homelessness or living in cars or perhaps a fitted van with a bucket to poop in, profit from it greatly if they are so positioned, or as I have been suggesting for lower wealth people: AVOID THE USA if at all possible.

[EVENKEEL]

8 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

Seriously, you're quoting Rupert Murdochs NY Post? 

Dwelling in the alternative reality of the right wing echo chamber, filling your head with nonsense. 

The idea of a "California exodus" has been spread on right wing media that want to portray Californias progressive policies as a failure. 

 

 

 

That's Venice Beach and SF, policies seem to be working fine.

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

 

 

That's Venice Beach and SF, policies seem to be working fine.

Awful but keep in mind that nice weather can't be discounted as a draw if living outdoors. 

 

To remind people again, because of impossibly high rents, the old canard that all or most homeless people are homeless out of choice or insanity is obviously false. There simply isn't nearly enough affordable housing available. 

[LarrySR]

10 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

 

 

That's Venice Beach and SF, policies seem to be working fine.

 

10 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

 

 

That's Venice Beach and SF, policies seem to be working fine.

There are homeless in every state but the really dumb ones reside in Alabama & Texas.

 

[Gecko123]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

You chose your priority which was to retire at age 50. That sounds great, I'm sure you had a good time. So, because you stopped contributing to the SS fund early you probably don't get as much as those of us who slaved away till age 62 and kept our US based homes. Now I can live a humble life here in Thailand or return to the US if and when I choose. 

 

What's not fair?

Did I say anything was unfair?

 

Just for the record, I work harder looking after my farm here in Thailand than I ever did back at my cushy desk jobs in the US. so spare me the "slaving away until age 62" comments.

 

As far as reduced social security benefits due to early retirement, you may be stunned to hear that I'm eligible to collect about 75% of the maximum age 70 benefit of $4194, even though I stopped employment at age 50. And, by the way, pray tell, what property back in the US do you own? Fish shack? Mobile home? One-room cabin in the woods? Nowhere's ville clapboard vinyl shingle, shotgun row house? Located in a tornado belt? Hurricane path? Flood zone? Drought stricken area? Right next to the freeway? Studio condo? Perhaps an RV? Am I getting warmer? ????

 

I can afford to return to the US anytime I please.  It's not finances which keep me from repatriating, it's that I enjoy living in the countryside here, and the political and social divisions in America are just not attractive to me. I haven't forgotten the numbing suburban loneliness and alienation which caused me to leave 19 years ago. Just biding my time, trying to enjoy life, taking advantage of the low cost of living, and letting those SS benefits accrue. Yeah, baby!

 

[EVENKEEL]

13 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

Did I say anything was unfair?

 

Just for the record, I work harder looking after my farm here in Thailand than I ever did back at my cushy desk jobs in the US. so spare me the "slaving away until age 62" comments.

 

As far as reduced social security benefits due to early retirement, you may be stunned to hear that I'm eligible to collect about 75% of the maximum age 70 benefit of $4194, even though I stopped employment at age 50. And, by the way, pray tell, what property back in the US do you own: fish shack? mobile home? one room cabin in the woods? nowhere's ville clapboard shotgun row house? tornado belt? hurricane path? flood zone? drought stricken? right next to the freeway? Studio condo? Perhaps an RV? Am I getting warmer? ????

 

I can afford to return to the US anytime I please.  It's not finances which keep me from repatriating, it's that I enjoy living in the countryside here, and the political and social divisions in America are just not attractive to me. I still remember the numbing suburban loneliness and alienation which caused me to leave 19 years ago. Just biding my time, taking advantage of the low cost of living, and letting those SS benefits accrue.

 

Wow, someone needs a hug. So many personal insults directed at me, I hope you feel better.

[Yellowtail]

 

1 hour ago, Gecko123 said:

Repatriating as a senior is tough because you have to also consider potential long-term care and medical expenses, something which seemed far off when you were younger. Even if you had $500K - $1,000K to buy a nice property to live out your golden years, you probably aren't going to want to tie up a large portion of your net worth in real estate, in the event that you have to use those funds for long-term care and/or medical expenses.

 

There's this rather unpleasant superior tone creeping into some of the comments of people who happened to have retained properties back home. I retired at 50, and consider myself to still be financially well-off, even though I do not own property state side. It would have been very difficult for me to retire at 50, and retain a property in the US. Maybe if you happened to have bought property prior to the early 1980's, or purchased property in middle-America for dirt cheap, inherited a significant amount of money or real estate, had extremely lucrative employment, or timed the stock market just right, perhaps you could do both. But if you were on either coast where real estate prices started climbing 40 years ago, to pay off a mortgage and retire early was out of reach for the majority of people. You had to decide what your priorities were.

 

A couple of other thing worth pointing out: climate change has increased the risk of real estate ownership, it's an ill-liquid asset, and it's not inconceivable that real estate markets could enter a prolonged downturn in the near future.

 

Also, people compare the current Zillow estimate price with the purchase price they paid 40 years ago, and say, wow, I've doubled and tripled me money. But when you check what that works out to in terms of an annual percent return, it can often be surprisingly paltry, and that's even before you factor in property taxes and maintenance costs.

 

The house I grew up in was $10K in 1954, with  30-year, 4% loan. So about $47 a month payment. The house sold for $535K in 2007. Zillow puts the value at ~$702K and the rent at ~3,050.

 

So on the face of it, that's about from 1954 to 2022 that's about an 8.5% return, which is pretty good.

 

But what would investing the same $47 per month in the S & P from 1954 to 1984, and then let the balance grow from 1984 to  2022? About $87,500. 

 

So $702K vs $87.5K Paltry indeed. 

 

Not to mention that after the first ten years the $47/month was less than they would have been paying for rent, and from 1984 to 2007 my folks lived in the house rent-free. In 2007 we could have rented the house for $1,800 if we hadn't sold it. 

 

 

[Gecko123]

2 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Wow, someone needs a hug. So many personal insults directed at me, I hope you feel better.

You weren't insulted a single time in my post. Only because you've lorded your property ownership over those who happen not to own property in the US, I challenged you to qualify what property you own. Sorry if you are offended, but that's not an insult.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, LarrySR said:

 

There are homeless in every state but the really dumb ones reside in Alabama & Texas.

 

What cities?