Biggest Housing Boom Ever...

[lazs2]

guys... homes will continue to go up in price.   The cost of building is 4 times higher than it was even a decade ago and that is due to environmental and other regulations.

The developer spends millions on studies and environmental impact negations and infrastructure that is regulated by the EPA like wells, storm lift stations and wastewater treatment planet improvements along with "green areas" and parks...

even the water used during construction or rain must be stopped from going down the storm drains and hauled off at hazardous waste rates.  

If you were a California developer and the lots cost you upwards to $150,000 (if nothing too bad goes wrong)  to develop by the time all was said and done....

would you build houses that sold for $200K or $500K  ??

tighter EPA and other environmental regulations for sewer and water quality and insect life (90% of endangered species are insects)  will drive prices much higher in the next decade.

If you want what we have here in California then vote accordingly.  Vote the way California does.

A decade ago 20% of Californians could not afford housing... this year it is 27% and going up

lazs

[Sixpence]

We have been waiting for the prices to come down for almost two years. The avg price for a single family home in the state is well over 300k.

[AKIron]

I like my Accord.

[GRUNHERZ]

JAB you are wrong.

But lets test your theory here..

You can get a very well equpped Honda Accord for 25,000 dollars. What does that car lack in your opionon..

For that price you would want to add what to that car:

[phookat]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
For that price you would want to add what to that car:

Well you know that ricers stick wings on their cars, and type-XZRTSF decals.  All we need is some aftermarket fins and white paint for the tires.  Hot pink for the fins of course.  Same type of thing, no?  Also some sandbags for the trunk, the car is way too light.

Accord: the Marine Edition.


Lazs-- I think the high land prices in CA are more due to a glut of rich people moving in, more than environmental regs.  It's a great place to live, and everyone wants to be here unfortunately.

[J_A_B]

"JAB you are wrong. "

About what?   Cars, houses, and such cost more now in relation to the average income than they did 40 years ago; that's just numbers and is hard to argue with.   Or are you taking issue with my belief that an Accord is a spartan, plane-jane car with no positive features?

"what does that car lack in your opionon.. "   It lacks EVERYTHING Grun.   In my eyes it has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever.  Grun, do you think the $25 grand Accord represents some sort of bargain?   That $25 grand Accord 4-door doesn't even get you the V-6 (according to the Honda website).  So you're left with an expensive, small, underpowered, half-plastic tin can.  That same $25 grand can buy you a Chrysler 300 or a Ford Crown Victoria; both of which are utterly superior to the Accord in every possible aspect (and those are still overpriced and lack features).  

If you wanted to present the Accord as some sort of deal, at least use the cheapest possible version and present it for what it is--an econo-box.  Of course...then I'd just point out that $13 grand for a 2-door Accord is still several thousand more than other comparable econo-boxes.

To my line of thinking, the average car should cost about $20K and that money should get you something like a Crown Vic or a V-8 Bonneville.   That would be reasonable.  It'd be even better if they dressed them up a bit better; replace the plastic bumpers with chrome and such.  Obviously the sad reality is we live in the world of the $25K Honda.....so I refuse to buy new cars.  I think we're stuck with this overpriced junk forever now because too many people are happy to settle for mediocracy...a lot of them don't know any better.  

J_A_B

[phookat]

Originally posted by J_A_B
a lot of them don't know any better.

LMAO.  This is the part that gets me.  What do you know that they don't, other than your personal preference?  The people who buy Accords know just as much as the people buying Crown Vics.  A lot of people knowingly prefer an Accord to a Crown Vic.  Who wants to own a taxicab?  A bloated, wallowing whale.  "Mediocre" is right.  If you were talking about vettes and vipers that's one thing...this is another.

Have you actually driven a recent Accord?  After 100K miles, that car is still more tightly put together than a Crown Vic is when new.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by phookat
LMAO.  This is the part that gets me.  What do you know that they don't, other than your personal preference?  The people who buy Accords know just as much as the people buying Crown Vics.  A lot of people knowingly prefer an Accord to a Crown Vic.  Who wants to own a taxicab?  A bloated, wallowing whale.  "Mediocre" is right.  If you were talking about vettes and vipers that's one thing...this is another.

Have you actually driven a recent Accord?  After 100K miles, that car is still more tightly put together than a Crown Vic is when new.

No he hasnt.  

In fact he has no idea what he is talking about when it come to the facts of these cars. He obviously hasnt checked them out..

For example at 25K you can get a 3liter  V6 Honda Accord with 240HP. It does 0-60 in the very low 7 second range which is faster than my mustang...

A Chrsler 300 at this price only gives you a 2.7 liter 200HP V6...

A Cown vic gets you a V8 ok, but only 225HP and still that car is slower than the V6 accord...

And dont think 25K gets you any upmarket corown vic.. The BASE standard model starts at 24,915...

A 25K crown vic has no letater seats.

Has no standard side imact airbags.

No standard CD player..

No navigation sytem (not even available in any cv)

No keyless entry.

Its a breabones POS - no frills at 25K.

On top of that iot has poor build quality.

Poor handling.

Wallowy "smooth" ride..

Bad steering..

Bad fuel economy...

Etc etc...  

Crown Vics are terrible cars, very outdated, very uninspired, very mediocre...  And thats why very few people buy them comared to other MODERN cars in the 25K class like the V6 accords and Camrys..  


But its really pointless to discuss facts with JAB.  He obviously  doesnt care about facts, he cares about his emotions and I suppose his memories of some ideal time..  Thats what drives his like for these cars...  

Plus I think he just hates Japanese cars.  Which makes sense since high quality japanese cars thankuflly ended the era of mediocre garbage US cars of the 70s and 80s. But of course he liked those cars..

JAB is the sort of guy who if he were his age today in 1950 would have  bemoaned the arrival of new fangled cheap mass produced metal cars in favor of his dear old hand built wood coach limited cars of the 1920s...

I dont hold it against him, I'm just guessing he is an older man who has his old but outdated tastes and memories which cloud his judgement  about new things.

[J_A_B]

If liking quality things is outdated, then yeah I'm a relic of the past.  I don't try to be "trendy" or "cool" or whatever the latest buzzword is.  I never have.  If something isn't very good, I'll say so...whether said item is the latest fad or not.

You might like an Accord...but do you really think $25K for a dressed-up econo-box is some kind of value?  While I compared it to the CV, I also made the point of stating that in no way do I feel that the CV is a terribly good value either.  Both vehicles have their faults and IMO neither is worth $25K.  That's my point--stuff is overpriced across the board.  

And it isn't only cars, so lets not get too focused on those.   I brought up TV's as another example, in that you can spend huge obscene amounts on a TV nowdays and you're still left with the cheapest-possible ugly plastic box.  What ever happened to the notion of trying to make this stuff look nice?   Who wants their house to be full of plastic junk?  

Prices keep rising, but look at what we're getting for that extra money.  Economy cars at premium car prices, high-price TV's that don't even have their own woodworking, furniture that isn't even made out of real wood, bedframes that are just a bunch of metal bars; houses that cost as much as a mansion should; why should the public have to settle for this?  

Houses are getting to the point of unaffordability.  Is that accepable, that you should have to spend your entire life trying to pay off your house (only to lose it when you get sick and end up in a nursing home)?   The average number of hours worked in a week is on the rise again; do we want to go back to the days of 12 hours a day 6 days a week?  I for one am not far from that a lot of the time.

The American Dream wasn't about the poor kid who grows up to be president.  No, it was the idea that a typical guy, working a typical job, could afford to have better than a mediocre life.  That's an an idea which is gradually disappearing, bit by bit.  Increasingly we live in a world where both spouses work, and the fruits of their effort aren't even as nice or fancy as the stuff their parents had.    

Is this progress?

I wonder how things will fare after the consumer debt problem finally catches up with the country.  I'm not a pessimist; I know that things will eventually improve again.  But for that to happen, I sort of suspect "it will get worse before it gets better" is going to apply.


J_A_B

PS....no I'm not old although sometimes I feel like I am.

[phookat]

Overall I think despite lower purchasing power, quality of life has improved.  More reliable cars, asbestos-free houses, computers, cellphones, internet...we have it real good.  The personal style stuff is a matter of demand--most people prefer Accords to 69 impalas, so that's what companies make.  And most people prefer the crisp picture of a plasma HDTV to a fuzzy wooden box.


Coming back to purchasing power.  I wonder how much of that decrease in purchasing power is due to the national debt, and the tying up of large amounts of wealth in T-bills.  Seems like the debt is a "big picture" trend that is somewhat correlated with the big-picture purchasing power trend.  Cause and effect?

[GRUNHERZ]

JAB you do realize that modern TV's have vastly better picture quality, better reliability, much bigger screen sizes on average - and these bigger screen sizes are more afforadable to the average person.  The new TV's have much better sound quliaty, many now have progressive scan cpabilities to show smooth flicker free images, They have the resolution to support the advantages of DVD video, some have HDTV resolution as well, many have widescreens to show movies in the original aspect ration as in the theters.... Not to mention that we now have flat panel TVs that can be hung on a wall, and these are quickly dropping in price... On and on and on...

The modern TVs are vastly better performers and vastly better for your money than TVs of 10 or 20 yaeras ago...  Thats a fact..

You seem to be stuck on some outdated ideas like wood cabinets for TVs... This adds nothing to the performamnce or reliabilty of the TV.. It only raises the cost of manufcature which would raise the selling price which would make the TV less affordable to more people..  Which would reduce peoples real purchasing power. Eliminating such useless features makes TVs more affordable and accesible to the public.. Thats why modern homes have more TV screens on average today than in the recent past...  

Is an old fashioned wood cabinet more important to you than a TVs performance and affordability?

Similarly you seem to be stuck on solid metal chrome plated bumpers...  These only add costs too - to the manufcturer and to you..  They can rust, they cant withstand low speed impacts without damage like the flexible platic bumpers have to, they are more dangerous to pedestrians etc etc. All in all it just adds to production, acquisition, maintenance, repair and insurance costs while adding nothing to the performance or safety of the car..

And guess what, thats why they are no longer put on cars.  People, both car buyers and car designers  made the rational decision to eliminate these useless features...

[GRUNHERZ]

Every time JAB describes his dream car I think of this baby....

[lazs2]

cars are pretty much a bargin for what you get and  how long they last...  40 years ago cars needed a valve job a 60k and the motor was nmormally considered worn out at 100k... most did not have air conditioning or comfortable seats... no power options and drum brakes that lasted but could be tricky.... tires didn't go 10k... points needed to be adjusted every 5 or 8k and the plugs needed to be replaced.... don't forget to lube all the 20 or so lube fittings under the car every  couple thousand...  seat belt, lap belts were optional and you used leaded gas with no smog consideration.  

now... you have computers on board... AC and power everything is standard as is a stereo that is more powerful than you foung at theaters 40 years ago... there is no maintenance or tune ups for 100k except oil change and the drive trains can go 250k easily.

but.... the cost is high.... safety and smog are the main causes as are union labor wages... safety bumpers and air bags and crush zones and safety testing and all the rest... Smog devices add 2k easily to the cost of the car..

The EPA and democrats will make sure that the things that are expensive on cars double in cost in ten years.

lazs

[phookat]

Originally posted by lazs2
now... you have computers on board... AC and power everything is standard as is a stereo that is more powerful than you foung at theaters 40 years ago... there is no maintenance or tune ups for 100k except oil change and the drive trains can go 250k easily.

Yup.  Good stuff.

Originally posted by lazs2
The EPA and democrats will make sure that the things that are expensive on cars double in cost in ten years.

What are you talking about?

Besides, emission control equipment is hardly what is expensive on cars.  A cat is, what, a couple hundred bucks.  Probably even cheaper for OEMs.  All the other smog stuff (egr valve, etc) is small potatoes.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Accord hater.