House prices will never outpace inflation over time, its impossible.

House prices will never outpace inflation over time, its impossible.

Real Estate Investor · Wyandotte, MI · Member since 2014 · 66 posts · 41 votes

Let me start by qualifying the title of this post with a couple statements. First, I’m not talking about your neighborhood specifically, although given a long enough period the title is likely to be very close to applicable there as well, if not spot on.

Second, what I am talking about is national averages because that is how inflation is normally measured. You may say ‘NYC housing prices have soared over inflation with time!’, to which I would reply, ‘Yes, but have they soared over NYC inflation with time? Also, in NYC’s case, is it caused by market interference such as government imposed price restrictions?’ (A topic for another post)

What I seek to explain is a phenomenon central to, but rarely understood by, beginning real estate investors. House prices are simply a reflection of what people are willing and able to pay to live in a given area. Nothing more. Just like the cost of a bottle of Coke, or an Ipad, or a lap dance are real-time reflections of what the market will support for said product or service.

My quick Google search just now turned up the number of 26.88% as the average amount total pre-tax income that the average American family spent on housing in 2013. Depending on how you calculate it, this number could move up or down a bit but, for argument’s sake, lets assume it’s truth as is. The only possible way national housing price averages can or would diverge from inflation is A) a market correction or B) if the percent of total income people were willing/able to allocate toward their housing expense changed across the board. Ill address A) later in the article but for now lets focus on B).

Our Federal Reserve Bank aims for a 2% rate of inflation. Lets assume they are on track and achieving this goal of 2% consistently. Further, lets assume that average wages are rising at that same 2%. So basically, prices rise at the same pace as incomes so things may appear more expensive BUT the average item actually requires no larger percentage of your pool of money from which to pay. Finally, lets assume that I’m wrong and housing prices are actually beating inflation by a measly 1%, rising by 3% per year on average over time. What effect do you suppose this would have on the percentage of total income each family must spend on housing over time? Lets run some numbers.

My same Google search turned up these numbers for 2013. Average before tax family income was $63,784 and the average amount spent on housing was $17,148. From these numbers I derived the 26.88% figure mentioned earlier. If you assume that house prices will consistently rise by 3%, and wages/inflation by 2%, then with about 5 minutes and an excel spreadsheet you can see that in or around August of the year 2147 housing will cost 100% of the average family’s pretax income. But most real estate investors I know would be disgusted with a return that only beats inflation by 1% on average. If you assume that the Fed’s goal of 2% is still being achieved, however housing values are growing by 5% on average with time, a mere 3% above inflation, then you can pretty quickly figure out that in or around April of 2058 house prices would effectively eat up 100% of the average American family’s pre-tax income. Folks, April of 2058 is not all that far away.

Of course this would never happen, people have to pay taxes and eat food and buy diapers and indulge in the occasional lap dance, among other things. So if you observe housing prices outpacing wage growth with time know that something just isn’t right.

Fake increases in value because of lending ‘innovations’ allowed people to buy more house with less money out of pocket leading up to 2008. Our financial system created a fake disconnect between value and the price people had to pay for that value. What was the result? I seem to remember something about falling house prices recently…

Housing costs, cannot, continually occupy a growing percent of total wages on average. To operate under this premise, as a real estate investor, is to think the odds at a slot machine are in your favor. Its simply wrong. In fact, you should probably choose the later, slot machines rarely eat up 100K+ at a time.

As for A) above, this is where talented real estate investors live, and many untalented ones accidentally find themselves profiting in. Real estate exists in a very, very complex world with any large number of factors affecting possible investment outcomes. Additionally, the market is rarely, perhaps never, a perfect representation of its underlying fundamentals. In the Detroit area right now lots houses are failing to close at prices agreed to by both the buyers and the sellers because the appraisals are coming back low. These low appraisals are based on other recent sales with the same problem. Hence, the observed market price of houses is suppressed and the only way to fix it is to have a disproportionally large number of buyers come out of pocket with extra cash at closing, not likely in the short term. Across American banks would love to lend more money to homeowners or potential buyers but face having to keep the loans on their books if they don’t conform to stringent standards for reselling to Fannie or Freddie. Banks don’t like this so demand for capital is unmet due to a countercyclical regulatory hangover from the 2008 crisis. Being able to consistently generate above average returns in real estate, especially on a larger scale, takes the ability to spot markets that are out of sync and exploit them. This, people, takes homework, hard work, and talent.

Quitting your job and making millions in real estate is possible, not probable. Lots of people ‘in real estate’ may tell you otherwise. I’d contend that most of them are actually ‘in marketing’ and real estate is simply the seasoning they put on the crap they feed you. Like being good at anything else in life, you can do this, but its not easy.

So back to the title of the article and the main point behind it.  If you buy for appreciation only and disregard cash flow, you had better know exactly what you are doing. Buying for appreciation is highly speculative, capital intensive and its outcome is anything but guaranteed. Realize the driver of residential real estate prices is jobs and act accordingly. Don’t lie to your self and assume that house prices can increase at an increasing rate, or even consistently at an unreasonably high rate over time. Know that you CAN make money in real estate, but beware that its not as easy as many gurus may tell you.

12Reply
1,086 views

Most Popular Reply

Investor · Singapore · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 3k+ votes
11y

If your head is in boiling water and your feet are in ice, on average you should feel just fine. Your logic is based on averages which are totally meaningless. No investor buys the entire US housing market. There is no such thing. 

See this reply in the discussion

206 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    Historical data for both the housing price index and inflation is publicly available information. Within the last 30 years for instance (between 1984 and 2014), the average yearly inflation was 2.84%. The average increase in home prices within the same period was 6.46%. 

    What real fact is this assumption based on?

    One of the basics of economic theory is that the average cost of any widely available, limited good can't outpace inflation long-term -- if it did, by definition, it would become unaffordable. 

    This might hold true for some short period of time (years or even a couple decades), but cannot hold true long-term across a wide sample.  In other words, it could happen for some period of time or within a certain geographical area, but across a long period of time and across the entire geographic area of the economy, it just can't hold true.

    My questions to you would be:

    -  Are you looking at new home sales, existing home sales, or both?

    -  Are you using averages, weighted averages or regression to the mean?

    -  Are you accounting for the change in average size of houses?  Remember, that you should be looking at per-square-foot averages, as that is the true supply measure.

    -  Are you looking at *long-term* data, or just a subset of the data?

    -  Are you looking across the entire geography of of US housing or just a subset of the areas?

    -  Are houses currently unaffordable to the general population?

    If you account for all those things, I think you'll find that the average house price has not outpaced inflation -- it would betray the basic rules of economics.

  • Real Estate Investor · Wyandotte, MI · Member since 2014 · 66 posts · 41 votes
    11y

    @Account Closed summed up my thoughts very nicely.  The only thing I would add, and it ties back to what he mentioned about something becoming unaffordable, is that housing isn't a good one can easily forego.  When most items become unaffordable you can simply choose not to consume such items anymore, not the case with housing.

  • Jacksonville, FL · Member since 2015 · 183 posts · 22 votes
    11y

    Are you defining long term here as infinity? Seems like there would be some issues of practicality with that. For investment purposes 30 years would definitely be considered long term as shorter periods can and have been considered 'long term'. 

    Regarding some of the questions, this is Freddie Mac's description of its methodology which does seem as a reliable means of having some idea of home price movement:

    "The Freddie Mac House Price Index (FMHPISM) provides a measure of typical price inflation for houses within the U.S. ...Series are available at three levels of geographical aggregation: Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), state, and national. All series begin in January, 1975. The national index is defined as a weighted average of the 50 state indexes and Washington, DC. ..."

    The house price index only goes back to 1975. Whether looking just at the last 30 years or as far back as 1975, house prices outpaced inflation regardless of which interval is being utilized.

    This might help:

    http://www.freddiemac.com/finance/house_price_index.html

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    "The Freddie Mac House Price Index (FMHPISM) provides a measure of typical price inflation for houses within the U.S. ...Series are available at three levels of geographical aggregation: Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), state, and national. All series begin in January, 1975. The national index is defined as a weighted average of the 50 state indexes and Washington, DC. ..."


    Average house sizes have increased about 2.3 times since 1975.  Adjust for average square footage differences, and you'll find that on a per-square-foot basis (total supply), house prices and inflation are almost identical.

    Again, anything else would defy economic laws...are you suggesting that's the case?

  • Real Estate Investor · Wyandotte, MI · Member since 2014 · 66 posts · 41 votes
    11y

    @Account Closed hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the idea of economic theory.  That is the basis of the point I was making with the post.  I don't think real estate is a bad investment, often times I think its quite the opposite.  Nor do I dispute the notion that often appreciation for certain properties and certain areas out performs inflation for whatever duration is relevant to the investor.  But I think the key to understanding if one's rapid appreciation is the fault of dumb luck or strong fundamentals is a very important distinction and requires an understanding of the economic forces at work.  If housing prices consistently outpace the growth of one's ability to afford housing, and thus consistently represent a larger share of one's total personal expenditure, then eventually housing will cost 100+% of one's income and that is obviously impossible.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Ron Thomas:

    @Account Closed I will say that I think 1975 until present is too small a sample size to draw from for the point I was making with the article.

    Agreed with Ron...  

    There is housing data back to the 1930s and obviously there is inflation data that far back as well.  So, instead of using the past 30 years, why are you not using the past 80 years given that it's available?


  • Jacksonville, FL · Member since 2015 · 183 posts · 22 votes
    11y
    Originally posted by :

    I will say that I think 1975 until present is too small a sample size to draw from for the point I was making with the article.  In that time frame the US government has mostly focused on aggressive pro-homeownership policies that, I would argue, have distorted the market upward. 

    Really? 40 years to any investor is a mighty long time. Trying to use data from the 1800s in today's environment which is remarkably different in so many ways may also not be sound.

    If there seems to be a disparity between the growth rates of income, house prices and inflation, that is because there is. There also doesn't seem to be very much correlation (in terms of magnitude) between income growth rate and the growth rates of house prices or inflation.

    Between 1984 and 2013 (based on readily available credible data), median income growth rate per year has only been 0.29% per year or a meager 9% in 29 years. Compared to average house price growth of 6.16% per year or 178.6% in 29 years. Average inflation however within this period increased 4.37% per year or 126.7% in 29 years. 

    There appears to be more correlation (in terms of magnitude) between house price growth and inflation than with income growth and house prices or inflation. This is probably why the government would want to be involved in trying to address economic issues that appear to be depressing income growth significantly.

    The fact that is verifiable is that income growth has not kept up with inflation or that something beyond dramatic would have to occur for income growth to outpace inflation.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    Really? 40 years to any investor is a mighty long time. Trying to use data from the 1800s in today's environment which is remarkably different in so many ways may also not be sound.

    ...
    The fact that is verifiable is that income growth has not kept up with inflation or that something beyond dramatic would have to occur for income growth to outpace inflation.

    First, I already told you what your calculations were omitting -- the average size of house has increased quite a bit in the past 30-40 years...your house price inflation does not account for that.

    Regardless, to address your other points above:

    -  40 years to an investor might be a long time, but to an economist, it's not.  And we're talking about economics here, not investing.

    -  When you say income growth has not kept pace with inflation, are you referring to individual income growth?  Or family income growth?  The workforce has changed considerably in the past 40 years, and with women entering the work force in larger numbers since the 1970s, median family household income has increased dramatically.  Given that the purchase of some high-priced goods (houses, cars, electronics, etc) don't generally scale linearly as family sizes increase, this analysis is MUCH more complicated than you're making it out to be.

  • Jacksonville, FL · Member since 2015 · 183 posts · 22 votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @J Scott:

    The house pricing index is actually a tool utilized extensively by housing economist at the Federal Reserve. Just about every research publication by the federal reserve that has to do with home price movement, uses almost exclusively the home price index which is produced by a government agency. This isn't some sort of 'hit or miss' home value estimation algorithm by Zillow.

    Based on the scope of area and transactions covered and considering that it only looks at repeat sales of the same group of houses and going back as far as 1975, it is one of the most reliable sources of home price movement there is. 

    By the way, my response to the thread was not to defend investment in real estate or properties as some sort of inflation immune instrument but purely to clarify that the hypothesis (subject of the thread) wasn't/isn't scientifically verifiable with current data. I am also no stranger to economics or economist and there almost isn't any entity with more economist on the payroll than at the Federal reserve.

    Regarding income growth, I thought you should have caught this earlier but some clarification is required. 

    It is using the U.S household income but I had (for some reason) utilized series that had already been adjusted for inflation so a correction is required there.

    So the unadjusted US household income growth rate (without accounting for inflation) seems to suggest that the median income grew from $20,712 in 1984 to about $51,915 in 2013 and that about 104.6% in 29 years or 3.61% per year.

    Between 1984 and 2013:
    Home price growth: 6.16% per year
    Inflation growth: 4.37% per year
    Household income growth: 3.61% per year

    To recap, there isn't credible information going back 30 or 40 years that says 'home prices will never outpace inflation', it actually says that it has. Whether 30 or 40 years is adequate, if I can't find something concrete in the last 30 or 40 years that substantiates a hypothesis, I don't necessarily need to look 100 years.

    Information regarding the housing prices index may be accessed here:

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/USSTHPI.txt

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    To recap, there isn't credible information going back 30 or 40 years that says home prices will never outpace inflation, it actually says that it has. Whether 30 or 40 years is adequate, if I can't find something concrete in the last 30 or 40 years that substantiates a hypothesis, I don't necessarily need to look 100 years.

    There are two options here:

    1.  Basic economic theory is correct and you are incorrect.

    2.  You are correct and basic economic theory is incorrect.

    It's really that simple.  And, I think I know which one it is...

    Again, you're not looking at or thinking about the data being used to generate the numbers you're throwing around...you're just looking at some industry-defined statistics (inflation and home price indexes) and assuming that because they both spit out numbers in the same units (a percentage), they can be compared in an apples-to-apples way.

    It doesn't work that way.  Let me give you a simpler example you might understand:

    You're holding two bars of silver and I'm holding two bars of gold, and you say, "We both have two bars...we are worth the same!"  In this example, the unit (number of bars) is the same, but that doesn't make it an apples to apples comparison of value. 

    Just like in your example above -- the units are the same (a percentage), but you can't just line up those percentages and compare them in any meaningful way with understanding how they were calculated.


  • Jacksonville, FL · Member since 2015 · 183 posts · 22 votes
    11y

    I try to separate the emotional ramblings and noise from facts. Before we get distracted, we are talking about this erroneous claim "House prices will never outpace inflation over time, its impossible"


    People try to misapply and misinterpret economic theories all the time and in the process get both themselves and others misinformed. Some economic theories often fail to explain or contradict certain events in society. Within the field of economics, there are various schools of thought that don't often agree with each other on an array of issues.

    What is simple is this...one thing about science is that if you make claim regarding any theory, you (and others) have to be able to prove and validate it. You are not able to prove that inflation has outpaced home prices. That has not been the case in the last several decades and that is an undisputed fact. You are also not able to make a legitimate claim that inflation will outpace home prices in the long term. I don't need to get into behavioral finance and economics here.

    This is also something the you are not thinking about. The federal reserve exist as a matter of statutory mandate. In executing their very job description (which you should look into by the way), prices and inflation are things they exist to influence and control. So if the government of any country sees a pattern of problem with prices and inflation, what do you think will be the goal of its monetary policy? They will do what is necessary to correct any problem and most definitely with inflation. How effective they are is a completely different story.

    Not only does the data not validate your claim, in some ways for what you say to be true, that means the federal reserve would have to deliberately (through its policies) try to ensure that inflation remains higher than house prices and that would actually effectively violate their very reason for existence or stated objectives.

    Again this is very simple, if you have data which shows that inflation has outpaced home prices the last 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, lets see it. You don't. So you try to discredit the data that is being used by federal agencies, the methodology that the federal agencies are using, the time frame and everything else you can think of but fail to realize you have not provided anything to verify your claim which is essential.

    What are other economist saying? I am not trying to make some corny argument for home ownership as I am more for investments that generally outpace inflation significantly, especially in the long term, but these are some experts in the field that seem to think based on what they've observed that over the long run, home prices outpaces inflation. What I find looking back 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago sort of matches what they see.

    Andres Carbacho-Burgos, an economist at Moody's Analytics, said ...We expect house prices to settle into a price-growth trend that's slightly higher than inflation over the long term,” ( http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/HomeownershipPaysoffinLongRunNAR/)

    Again..

    "Lawrence Yun, chief economist at NAR, nominal home prices in the U.S. historically have risen 5.5 percent annually, outpacing inflation by anywhere from 1 percent to 2 percent." (http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/HomeownershipPaysoffinLongRunNAR/) .

    This is also a publication from the Bank of International settlement. Scroll to page 14 where you can see the nominal and real price home price movement not just in the US but in 15 countries covering a span of 22 years. What is clear is that house prices outpace inflation in the long run not just in the US but in other developed economies around the world.

    http://www.bis.org/publ/work20.pdf

     Your argument is moot.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y

    And this is why we need better education in this country... 

    Scientific theories cannot be "proven" true for all real world conditions. They can tested and validated under specific conditions; they can be extended and narrowed and retested under new conditions; and they can be proven false under specific conditions.  But a scientific theory cannot ever be proven true for all real world conditions.

    Only mathematical theorems can be proven (in fact, the formal process of doing this is called a "proof").

    It can be shown mathematically that under specific conditions that if the increase in the price of any limited good outpaces inflation long-term, it will become unafforable.  Go pick up an Economics 101 textbook and you will learn this. 

    As for proving that true under real world conditions, that is impossible.  You can only test it, expand or narrow the conditions and perhaps one day prove it false.  That day hasn't come. 

    Sorry,  but after the ridiculous opening,  I couldn't bring myself to read the rest of what you wrote...

  • Real Estate Investor · Wyandotte, MI · Member since 2014 · 66 posts · 41 votes
    11y

    You have some good points here @Account Closed

    I think its probably appropriate that I point out what I think the biggest flaw in the headline statement for this post was. It seems to me that the use of the word ‘inflation’ is only correct in a round about way. I somewhat wrongly conflate ‘inflation’ with ‘the ability of the average consumer to afford the average housing unit’. The two are certainly correlated but ‘inflation’ is too simple a word to capture the entire idea, which is why there is a whole post to convey the thought behind it.

    I believe, somewhere in the comments, a lady correctly pointed this out.

    Over the long run, think 100-200 years, the growth in cost of a given unit of housing cannot out pace the growth in a given consumer’s ability to afford said unit. Small, but consistent, discrepancies will create a compounding interest affect that make housing unaffordable because it will force housing to occupy an unreasonably large portion of consumer spending with time. A bubble is created, caused by an entire asset class that becomes affordable only because its unaffordable. Interestingly, an Australian friend of mine explained this exact scenario to me yesterday as something that is happening in his market now, just as how it happened here in 2008-ish. Is this idea relevant to a wholesaler in NJ, or a duplex owner in Sacramento? Perhaps not, but its still worth thinking about.

    I would say that ‘?House prices will never outpace inflation over time, its impossible!’ served it’s purpose as a sensational headline to get people to read and think about the case presented beneath it. To that extent it served its purpose, however inarticulate the choice of a particular word may have been.

  • Jacksonville, FL · Member since 2015 · 183 posts · 22 votes
    11y

    Sorry I don't have time for flimsy petty talks. I have looked through this thread and see you go in all sorts of weird direction -- focus!

    No amount of insult or name calling makes you correct. It was an incorrect statement and that is a fact. All you have and can do is try to dance around the issue.

    I think we need a section for salsa for some who like dancing around issues.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Ron Thomas:
    Over the long run, think 100-200 years, the growth in cost of a given unit of housing cannot out pace the growth in a given consumer’s ability to afford said unit.

    Exactly. 

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    I think we need a section for salsa for some who like dancing around issues.

    Personally, I think we need a primer on economics and science for those who clearly weren't paying attention in high school.

  • Jacksonville, FL · Member since 2015 · 183 posts · 22 votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @J Scott:
    Originally posted by @Ron Thomas:
    Over the long run, think 100-200 years, the growth in cost of a given unit of housing cannot out pace the growth in a given consumer’s ability to afford said unit.

    Exactly. 

    lol...this just doesn't stop does it... we are now on theory #2. Went from housing price increase and inflation to housing price increase and income. We might need an accountant to start keeping track of these theories. This is becoming incredibly amusing.

  • Rental Property Investor · Manteno, IL · Member since 2009 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    Interesting discussion.  And I will admin I only read the first few pages and the last few so I probably missed some of the key stuff in the middle. But I'm just wondering what it is you're trying to point out with the article? That investing in real estate won't keep up with inflation?

    One thing you're missing is that most investors are not paying cash for their rentals. They're buying with leverage. So the house doesn't have to keep up with inflation in order to provide a great return.

    In my model, I'm using hard money to buy, rehab and rent out my purchases. I may be out of pocket 5 to 7k per deal on a house that I'll have a mortgage of 90k to 100k that will appraise out between 135k to 160k.   Thats 5k to 7k total out of pocket.

    Houses here in the midwest double every 20 years historically. So in 20 years, that 150k house should be worth 300k and, in 20 years, that house should be paid off or very close to it.

    So you tell me, is a 5k to 7k investment that grows to 300k in 20 years a good return? If you don't use hard money and put down your 25% of the purchase/rehab (100k) on that same house - or 25k - would that be a good return on your money? And, oh by the way, add in the fact that you would making 300 to 400/mo in rental income that is tax free.

    Clearly, I wouldn't advise people invest in real estate if they're intending to pay all cash for the property. Thats not how you get the most value when investing in real estate. I'd tell you to take that 100k and buy 4 houses instead. Or do it my way, and take that 100k and buy 15 houses......

    But regardless of whether real estate keeps up with inflation or not, that has no bearing on whether your return is better than real estate than any other investment on the planet. And, to me, if you're using leverage to buy real estate, there is absolutely no doubt that investing in real estate is going to be far better than any other investment vehicle on the planet..... Home prices and their ability to keep up with inflation mean NOTHING.

  • Jacksonville, FL · Member since 2015 · 183 posts · 22 votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @J Scott:
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    I think we need a section for salsa for some who like dancing around issues.

    Personally, I think we need a primer on economics and science for those who clearly weren't paying attention in high school.

    Although I was fortunate to attain a graduate level education, I realize that there are many who did not. I literally have no need to prove anything to you. Try to contain some of the emotion.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y

    Let me guess... It wasn't an MBA. 

    BTW, you seem to be trying awfully hard to "literally" prove nothing to me...   😉

  • Specialist · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    Haha.. I forgot to grab the popcorn.

    @J Scott Kenneth G has some huge shoes to fill (@Bob) ;) But riddle me this, batman.

    Over the last 30 years (1985-present) SFH prices rose ~330% and condos ~310% where I live. I know you will say, well thats regional and market specific. But what do I care if houses in say Indy or Iowa have not outpaced inflation? I don't invest there.

    Secondly, what you mentioned about $/sf. doesnt really apply here because the overwhelming majority of SFH here are old clunkers untouched in size since before the 80s.

  • Jacksonville, FL · Member since 2015 · 183 posts · 22 votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @J Scott:

    Let me guess... It wasn't an MBA. 

    BTW, you seem to be trying awfully hard to "literally" prove nothing to me...   😉

    lol... I am trying awfully hard not to dent your (or others) feelings. Egos are often fragile. I am literally cringing as I type. Trying awfully hard to restrain myself from going after theory #2. Don't make me do it!!

  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Andrey Y.:

    Haha.. I forgot to grab the popcorn.

    @J Scott Kenneth G has some huge shoes to fill (@Bob) ;) But riddle me this, batman.

    Over the last 30 years (1985-present) SFH prices rose ~330% and condos ~310% where I live. I know you will say, well thats regional and market specific. But what do I care if houses in say Indy or Iowa have not outpaced inflation? I don't invest there.

    Secondly, what you mentioned about $/sf. doesnt really apply here because the overwhelming majority of SFH here are old clunkers untouched in size since before the 80s.

     Andrey, I was waiting for J to compare a 5,000sf Texas McMansion in one hand to a 500sf sf Diamond Head condo and come up with a value judgement.  Lemme see...bigger..oops, market value..?  Seems bigger probably appreciates less, on average.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @J Scott:

    Let me guess... It wasn't an MBA. 

    BTW, you seem to be trying awfully hard to "literally" prove nothing to me...   😉

    lol... I am trying awfully hard not to dent your (or others) feelings. Egos are often fragile. I am literally cringing as I type. Trying awfully hard to restrain myself from going after theory #2. Don't make me do it!!

    Wait... I thought you "literally" had nothing to prove to me.   I'm starting to get the feeling that's not true...

    I guess we'll see if you have the ability to restrain yourself or not.   I know which way I'm betting...

  • Rental Property Investor · San Francisco, CA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    oh goody...bob's here to save the day :)

    My 2c: why stop at averaging national housing stats?  Let's go global and include shanty towns in India, castles in the UK, mud huts in Yemen, Monaco penthouses and bombed out apartments in Beriut?  That'll surely give us more representation of a long term and broad based housing market to compare inflation with. 

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.