[HN Gopher] Only 15% of Californians can afford a home, new data...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Only 15% of Californians can afford a home, new data shows
        
       Author : LinuxBender
       Score  : 25 points
       Date   : 2023-11-11 22:15 UTC (44 minutes ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (ktla.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (ktla.com)
        
       | gustavus wrote:
       | > The new figures represent the lowest home affordability rate
       | since 2007, a news release said.
       | 
       | Oh that's interesting.... What year came after 2007?
        
       | jeffbee wrote:
       | Ah I love that last paragraph. The good news is you can always
       | move to Mono County, a place with no economy or population to
       | speak of. Simply move to Bridgeport.
        
         | s0rce wrote:
         | Winters are also quite cold in Bridgeport, even by non-
         | California standards.
        
       | zerr wrote:
       | https://web.archive.org/web/20231111221611/https://ktla.com/...
        
       | woeirua wrote:
       | Don't worry, I'm sure the usual real estate shills will be by to
       | assure us that were not in a bubble and that prices only go up.
        
         | jeffbee wrote:
         | People who own houses in expensive coastal markets can't easily
         | be dislodged. We can't force them to put their houses on the
         | market or adopt reasonable prices. The rental market, however,
         | is a quite different thing. I track the rental market in
         | Berkeley very closely and while rents have been steadily
         | declining since 2019, in the past few months they have been
         | plummeting. Current market price for older 1-bedroom apartments
         | has fallen back to 2009 levels. Almost sort of affordable.
         | 
         | I have a feeling that a lot of small-time landlords who thought
         | they were signing up for a lifetime of "passive income" are
         | getting kicked in the teeth right now.
        
           | 2devnull wrote:
           | I find that dubious but want to believe. Can you cite the
           | numbers at least?
        
             | jeffbee wrote:
             | All my data and methods are at
             | https://observablehq.com/@jwb/berkeley-rent-board-data
             | 
             | The key graph is https://observablehq.com/@jwb/berkeley-
             | rent-board-data#cell-...
        
           | YeBanKo wrote:
           | California has one of the lowest property tax rate, yet one
           | of the highest income tax. We need the opposite to
           | incentivize the right behaviors .
        
             | tqi wrote:
             | Yeah San Francisco "natives" love to shit on transplants
             | for pricing out locals, while conveniently ignoring the
             | fact that "natives" are the ones jacking up the rent. For
             | years 1/3 of every paycheck went to an SF "native", but I'm
             | the asshole?
        
           | rcpt wrote:
           | > We can't force them to put their houses on the market or
           | adopt reasonable prices
           | 
           | At the very least we could stop sinking tens of billions of
           | dollars every year into tax cuts that essentially force them
           | to never sell.
           | 
           | Every single California housing issue is because of Prop 13.
        
         | lmm wrote:
         | Assuming they can keep making it illegal to build new homes,
         | prices will keep going up. It's worked fine for them so far.
        
       | slt2021 wrote:
       | thanks to newsom, it is all his legacy that he is trying to
       | expand nationally by trying to become presidential candidate
       | sometime in the future
        
       | pauldenton wrote:
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4 If only Californians
       | didn't actively try to stop construction. If you want to build
       | housing and that will cast a shadow on a nearby playground,
       | that's no good. California is literally the worst and most
       | expensive place to develop anything.
        
       | WillPostForFood wrote:
       | Title is misrepresents what the report says. The report says that
       | 15% can afford the *median* priced home, not "afford a home". 15%
       | isn't good, not is bad as the article suggests.
        
         | pixl97 wrote:
         | So, a better dataset would be breaking housing prices down into
         | availability brackets with matched with earnings. What does the
         | data look like then?
        
       | dangus wrote:
       | As far as home ownership _rate_ , over 50% of Californians own
       | their home.
       | 
       | https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/homeownership-rate-...
       | 
       | It is the second lowest number in the country, but I always find
       | articles like these a bit of a contrast compared to the actual
       | home ownership statistics.
        
         | habitue wrote:
         | Home ownership rate is a lagging indicator, affordability is a
         | leading indicator.
         | 
         | Many people in California own their homes because they bought
         | them a long time ago and held on.
        
           | fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
           | I wonder if there's some measure to forecast this, though: if
           | the median age of a homeowner is x years (and the trend is
           | aging), then in y years, half the currently owned houses will
           | have changed owners. What are the values of x and y?
        
       | xyzelement wrote:
       | What that means is that significantly more Californians are
       | trying to buy a home compared to what is available as inventory.
       | If you somehow "reset" the price to some arbitrarily "low" level,
       | it would immediately get bid back up to what it is today.
       | 
       | On the other hand, if you somehow flooded the market with
       | thousands of homes and there were fewer buyers than that, the
       | price would plummet.
        
         | bequanna wrote:
         | It would take many, many thousands of homes.
         | 
         | Demand is so much greater than supply almost everywhere in the
         | US.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-11-11 23:00 UTC)