Real Estate Crash thread

[BC13]

Ha, actually it's the exact opposite. School districts these days don't want teachers with masters (or experience) because they are way more expensive to have on the payroll, and schools are chronically underfunded as we all know. They'll hire fresh out of college with a B.A. in education if they can. Especially if the person did their student teaching at the school and they got a chance to check you out and make sure you're not cray.

You want a masters, get a job first, then work on getting the advanced degree. And don't plan on moving anywhere because once you get expensive you're stuck.

I can definitively say this is not the case in New York State. Districts want experienced teachers whenever possible and are poaching tenured teachers from other Districts, which was nearly unheard of prior to the past two years.

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

[yeahman]

I can definitively say this is not the case in New York State. Districts want experienced teachers whenever possible and are poaching tenured teachers from other Districts, which was nearly unheard of prior to the past two years.

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

Glad to hear it. They have definitely gotten more desperate in some places. A few years ago there were 30 people applying for every job around here and they ALWAYS hired the cheapest one. And I can't blame them. Superintendent has final say on all hires and is also responsible for balancing the budget. Duh, why not save 15 grand by hiring the noob.

Part of the problem is the non-negotiable salary scale bargained for by the teachers unions. Works against teachers trying to move between districts. Favors teachers who "die in their tracks," as my former principal/boss used to say.

[I Skied Bandini Mountain]

FWIW most/many teachers i know work summer school, or tutoring/ or camp counselor, etc during the summers and so have 2 months pay unaccounted for there. The average salary for a teacher in my town is right at $60k according to public records, so a combined $120k/year for the family down the street. That affords you a 2/2 or 3/1 pretty easily.

Additionally, i would expect that a year 1-4 teach fresh out of college would likely have roommates to live with. Isnt that pretty normal for people in their early-mid 20s to split rent with other roommates?

We figuring housing affordability on gross wages now?

[californiagrown]

What I'm saying, is even in one of the, if not the most desirable places in the country, a family of teachers can live comfortably within 30 minutes of their jobs starting out fresh out of school.

But way to illustrate my point, where even when that is possible, it is a non-starter in terms of the entitlement of people looking for housing in modern America.

Standards for lifestyle are quite a bit higher now, than they were a few decades ago. We as a society have become accustomed to be reliant on expensive technology and so expensive tech along with paid services tethered to the tech have become standard basics. The internet and social media tend to only push the positives (it gets more clicks) and success stories which sets unreasonably high expectations for everything from your first house, to what the dinner recipe should look like when you cook it. People finance and buy things on credit as the normal these days (and have for a few decades now) which allows them to obtain more and nicer things than they can actually afford which again raises their acceptable standard of living. And finally, lots of people in their 20s and 30s will not be as financially successful as their parents because millenials and genZ are more likely to prioritize "life" over career, which is fine, but that will likely come at the expense of the financial success/security that they grew up with.

[californiagrown]

We figuring housing affordability on gross wages now?

Sure, if you have/had a similar gross wage, with the same life situation, in the same area. Seems like a fair comparison, no?

[altasnob]

A few years ago there were 30 people applying for every job around here and they ALWAYS hired the cheapest one. And I can't blame them. Superintendent has final say on all hires and is also responsible for balancing the budget. Duh, why not save 15 grand by hiring the noob.

That's called age discrimination. They let you get away with crap like that in race to the bottom places like Montana.

[phatty]

Standards for lifestyle are quite a bit higher now, than they were a few decades ago. We as a society have become accustomed to be reliant on expensive technology and so expensive tech along with paid services tethered to the tech have become standard basics. The internet and social media tend to only push the positives (it gets more clicks) and success stories which sets unreasonably high expectations for everything from your first house, to what the dinner recipe should look like when you cook it. People finance and buy things on credit as the normal these days (and have for a few decades now) which allows them to obtain more and nicer things than they can actually afford which again raises their acceptable standard of living. And finally, lots of people in their 20s and 30s will not be as financially successful as their parents because millenials and genZ are more likely to prioritize "life" over career, which is fine, but that will likely come at the expense of the financial success/security that they grew up with.

You just defined some of the entitlement that he was discussing.

[alpinevibes]

We figuring housing affordability on gross wages now?

Ha, this.

What I'm saying, is even in one of the, if not the most desirable places in the country, a family of teachers can live comfortably within 30 minutes of their jobs starting out fresh out of school.

How the hell are you deriving your supposed knowledge on the topic? IIRC - you no longer live near Jackson? I've worked at a school in the arguably other-most-desireable-and-expensive places in the country, for 11 years and this is absolutely not my experience. My school (private) and the public school here pay pretty well. No one is making $75k "fresh out of school" and very few teachers are "fresh out of school" without loans that need paying. Sure, plenty of double income households have bought homes or condos 30-40min away, but that reality is much farther out of reach in the last two years and probably wont change for a while.

But way to illustrate my point, where even when that is possible, it is a non-starter in terms of the entitlement of people looking for housing in modern America.

So what you’re saying is that they get to commute from the community they live in, provide your community with a huge benefit (education, emergency services, making your coffees, whatever), then go back into an underfunded schools system for their own kids cause fuck em?

I get that you (AR) want to hang this all on people like me wanting entitlements and everything with a cherry on top, but the other half of the balance here (see Supermoon) is that the community at large wants their essential workers living nearby, being part of the community, sending their kids to its school and supporting it from the ground up. That's why our communities support affordable housing, vote for affordable housing and protections and that's why our communities oppose outside overreach (like the CO house bill).

It's easy for outsiders to peg the working class in mountain towns/resort communities as entitled cry babies wanting their cake and wanting to eat it all too (that's ultimately some manifestation of the [misguided] American Dream combined with human nature). To me, though, there's also a symbiotic relationship wherein a town needs to maintain a local population, local culture, local employees and some shade of reality to keep it's brand and maintain the look+feel that makes the place what it is and keeps the tourism dollars flowing. Weeks ago, in this thread, other posters gleefully stated that workers should just be commuting from hours away to support Jackson and Jackson-esque communities - solely because that's what the housing/free-market economy dictates. I would argue that no town, no resort and no regular visitor (in the long run) wants "their place" to be eroded from locals and character and turned into a soulless free-market outcome. It's easy to write it off as simple entitlement for "those of us who got lucky here" but there's a bigger picture to consider, especially if you enjoy living or coming to these communities that are quickly changing.

See here for an additional layer: https://www.aspendailynews.com/opini...73d0e6849.html

My above musings are not a new idea; us maggots have been indoctrinated by the concept for 35 years:

[schuss]

Standards for lifestyle are quite a bit higher now, than they were a few decades ago. We as a society have become accustomed to be reliant on expensive technology and so expensive tech along with paid services tethered to the tech have become standard basics. The internet and social media tend to only push the positives (it gets more clicks) and success stories which sets unreasonably high expectations for everything from your first house, to what the dinner recipe should look like when you cook it. People finance and buy things on credit as the normal these days (and have for a few decades now) which allows them to obtain more and nicer things than they can actually afford which again raises their acceptable standard of living. And finally, lots of people in their 20s and 30s will not be as financially successful as their parents because millenials and genZ are more likely to prioritize "life" over career, which is fine, but that will likely come at the expense of the financial success/security that they grew up with.

This is fairly bullshit, honestly.
Technology is often pretty cheap, though things like cell phone bills have outstripped prior costs (though a $60 bill today is roughly $20 in 1980s dollars). Also things like appliances and clothes are cheaper than prior generations.
Schooling, medical and things like daycare are astronomical and housing is getting up there.
Sample graph to illustrate:
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart...-or-century-5/
You need to stop reading bullshit old people talking points of why the kids are wrong.

[I Skied Bandini Mountain]

Sure, if you have/had a similar gross wage, with the same life situation, in the same area. Seems like a fair comparison, no?

No.

If you're not budgeting anything on take home pay I don't know what the fuck you're doing.

2 teachers grossing a combined $120,000 a year sure aren't bringing that home and let's not forget the $500/month HOA fee on top of the mortgage these teachers are needing to pay for that "affordable" condo.

[altasnob]

That's why our communities support affordable housing, vote for affordable housing and protections and that's why our communities oppose outside overreach (like the CO house bill).

Guys, don't you know. Aspen is special and has already figured this housing affordability issue out.

[alpinevibes]

Guys, don't you know. Aspen is special and has already figured this housing affordability issue out.

No, Aspen certainly hasn't figured it out, but neither has some State Rep from the Front Range or a former front-ranger who wants to educate us entitled mountain bumpkins while also enjoying/taking Aspen's attributes without contributing to its economy.

[californiagrown]

This is fairly bullshit, honestly.
Technology is often pretty cheap, though things like cell phone bills have outstripped prior costs (though a $60 bill today is roughly $20 in 1980s dollars). Also things like appliances and clothes are cheaper than prior generations.
Schooling, medical and things like daycare are astronomical and housing is getting up there.
Sample graph to illustrate:
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart...-or-century-5/
You need to stop reading bullshit old people talking points of why the kids are wrong.

IDK, im looking at cost of technology that is pretty standard today vs the cost back in the 80s or 90s. No smart phones, home computer was a luxury, cell bill, internet bill, streaming services etc. Plenty of friends who work lower paying jobs still buy organic foods and drink $12 sixers of microbrews. And that graph you provided kinda reinforces my point that these days more people have "things" that they didnt have growing up because the price has come down just enough to not be an unaffordable luxury (E.g. now people buy 2 TVs for $300 when before they would only buy 1 TV for $200 because they couldnt afford 2).

Im not reading talking points, FWIW, just comparing how i grew up and what we had, to what i see around me now. Im not saying we shouldnt strive to be better (starting with socializing healthcare).

[Supermoon]

IDK, im looking at cost of technology that is pretty standard today vs the cost back in the 80s or 90s. No smart phones, home computer was a luxury, cell bill, internet bill, streaming services etc. Plenty of friends who work lower paying jobs still buy organic foods and drink $12 sixers of microbrews. And that graph you provided kinda reinforces my point that these days more people have "things" that they didnt have growing up because the price has come down just enough to not be an unaffordable luxury (E.g. now people buy 2 TVs for $300 when before they would only buy 1 TV for $200 because they couldnt afford 2).

Im not reading talking points, FWIW, just comparing how i grew up and what we had, to what i see around me now. Im not saying we shouldnt strive to be better (starting with socializing healthcare).

Yeah, if all those kids just gave up their iPhones it would only take them 200 years to save up a 20% down payment on a house. So irresponsible of them.

[californiagrown]

No.

If you're not budgeting anything on take home pay I don't know what the fuck you're doing.

2 teachers grossing a combined $120,000 a year sure aren't bringing that home and let's not forget the $500/month HOA fee on top of the mortgage these teachers are needing to pay for that "affordable" condo.

Im not budgeting based on gross, Im saying that my household made/makes the same gross, with the same life situation (kids, age, area etc) so i can pretty easily extrapolate what they can afford for housing. So yes, if 2 people in nearly identical situations gross the same, they will also net the same and should theoretically be able to afford the same.

[hatchgreenchile]

If we want to talk about "generational entitlement", avocado toast, cell phones and Starbucks are drops in the bucket.

Think bigger. Let's go with average square footage of a home (ex. 1289 in the 60s, 2650 in the 2010s), or average vehicles per home (ex. ~19% had 2, ~2% had 3+ in the 60s, ~28% own 2, ~22% own 3, + the 2020s), now we're getting somewhere, but that's not the main problem.

[neckdeep]

What I'm saying, is even in one of the, if not the most desirable places in the country, a family of teachers can live comfortably within 30 minutes of their jobs starting out fresh out of school.

But way to illustrate my point, where even when that is possible, it is a non-starter in terms of the entitlement of people looking for housing in modern America.

You are totally glossing over the commuting costs. In addition to the gas and maintenance costs eating up that theoretical teacher salary, anyone commuting from teton valley to Jackson has to deal with replacing their vehicles at a much faster rate. There's nothing comfortable about that commute and its costs. Between the cost of rent and the cost of the commute, $25/hr is just barely treading water in Victor these days. Just renting a room is $12,000 a year.

Basically, you're full of shit if you think that's "living comfortably". Your theoretical teacher has maybe $1000-1500 a month after tax to cover the remainder of their expenses and not much discretionary income. It will take them half a lifetime to save up a downpayment.

Jackson is so desperate for workers that it has to pay its dishwashers over $20 for no English. The guy cleaning hot tubs makes as much or more than your theoretical teachers and competes with them for housing.

[Conundrum]

Somewhere in the middle on this. To AR's point, "living comfortably" can be done in the mid-west. "Living an instagram life" comes at a cost. Shouldn't be on the teachers and EMS to figure out how to make it work. Should be on the community as a whole to figure what type of community they want and hopefully that includes the teachers and EMS. Commuting once or twice a week for fun is a lot easier than commuting five days a week for work and this is going to bite the affluent communities at some point.

[altasnob]

Think bigger. Let's go with average square footage of a home (ex. 1289 in the 60s, 2650 in the 2010s), or average vehicles per home (ex. ~19% had 2, ~2% had 3+ in the 60s, ~28% own 2, ~22% own 3, + the 2020s), now we're getting somewhere.

^This. And parking as well. Every year, America builds more three car garages than one bedroom apartments. The electrification of vehicles will only exasperate this as off site parking with charger becomes even more desirable.

[AdironRider]

Ha, this.



How the hell are you deriving your supposed knowledge on the topic? IIRC - you no longer live near Jackson? I've worked at a school in the arguably other-most-desireable-and-expensive places in the country, for 11 years and this is absolutely not my experience. My school (private) and the public school here pay pretty well. No one is making $75k "fresh out of school" and very few teachers are "fresh out of school" without loans that need paying. Sure, plenty of double income households have bought homes or condos 30-40min away, but that reality is much farther out of reach in the last two years and probably wont change for a while.





I get that you (AR) want to hang this all on people like me wanting entitlements and everything with a cherry on top, but the other half of the balance here (see Supermoon) is that the community at large wants their essential workers living nearby, being part of the community, sending their kids to its school and supporting it from the ground up. That's why our communities support affordable housing, vote for affordable housing and protections and that's why our communities oppose outside overreach (like the CO house bill).

It's easy for outsiders to peg the working class in mountain towns/resort communities as entitled cry babies wanting their cake and wanting to eat it all too (that's ultimately some manifestation of the [misguided] American Dream combined with human nature). To me, though, there's also a symbiotic relationship wherein a town needs to maintain a local population, local culture, local employees and some shade of reality to keep it's brand and maintain the look+feel that makes the place what it is and keeps the tourism dollars flowing. Weeks ago, in this thread, other posters gleefully stated that workers should just be commuting from hours away to support Jackson and Jackson-esque communities - solely because that's what the housing/free-market economy dictates. I would argue that no town, no resort and no regular visitor (in the long run) wants "their place" to be eroded from locals and character and turned into a soulless free-market outcome. It's easy to write it off as simple entitlement for "those of us who got lucky here" but there's a bigger picture to consider, especially if you enjoy living or coming to these communities that are quickly changing.

See here for an additional layer: https://www.aspendailynews.com/opini...73d0e6849.html

My above musings are not a new idea; us maggots have been indoctrinated by the concept for 35 years:

I literally posted the payscale for Teton County, starting teachers get 74.3k as of 2022 with a masters degree.

[AdironRider]

You are totally glossing over the commuting costs. In addition to the gas and maintenance costs eating up that theoretical teacher salary, anyone commuting from teton valley to Jackson has to deal with replacing their vehicles at a much faster rate. There's nothing comfortable about that commute and its costs. Between the cost of rent and the cost of the commute, $25/hr is just barely treading water in Victor these days. Just renting a room is $12,000 a year.

Basically, you're full of shit if you think that's "living comfortably". Your theoretical teacher has maybe $1000-1500 a month after tax to cover the remainder of their expenses and not much discretionary income. It will take them half a lifetime to save up a downpayment.

Jackson is so desperate for workers that it has to pay its dishwashers over $20 for no English. The guy cleaning hot tubs makes as much or more than your theoretical teachers and competes with them for housing.

Dude I lived the life for 15 years. Commuting isn't free but get the fuck out of here that a couple in Victor can't get by on 150k gross a year. My wife and I did exactly that with a kid (and for a significant part of our 20's, on significantly less income).

It isn't theoretical. That household of teachers making 150k fresh out of school is clearing at least 115k post tax (including Idaho state income), has their retirement paid for almost in full (and guaranteed). Your math doesn't add up saying that couple is only going to have 12k left over after their commute and mortgage. Broulims isn't that expensive.

[John_B]

Yeah, if all those kids just gave up their iPhones it would only take them 200 years to save up a 20% down payment on a house. So irresponsible of them.

It's those kids and their damn avocado toast. That's why they can't buy houses!!

[skaredshtles]

Somewhere in the middle on this. To AR's point, "living comfortably" can be done in the mid-west.

Yup.

But FTS.

[alpinevibes]

I literally posted the payscale for Teton County, starting teachers get 74.3k as of 2022 with a masters degree.

Fair fair, I didn't see that link. Pretty impressive pay schedule, especially compared to the District here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1446419217

I still disagree with the economic opportunity you paint for a $120k gross household buying a free market house within 30min. Looking at the two properties in Victor currently available for under $600k - their housing costs would be basically half their monthly net take home. I don't consider that particularly sustainable, let alone entitled.

[altasnob]

No, Aspen certainly hasn't figured it out, but neither has some State Rep from the Front Range or a former front-ranger who wants to educate us entitled mountain bumpkins while also enjoying/taking Aspen's attributes without contributing to its economy.

I vote alpinevibes most likely to become mayor of Aspen. Like everyone is the mountain town, they are raised, educated, and starts their career in a major metro then moves to the mountain town, spends a few years, and becomes an expert on the "uniqueness" of the mountain town's housing needs. The wealthy NIMBYs in the mountain town will fund your campaign becuase they don't really want anyone else to move there, but reluctantly concede they need some additional housing so they can find someone to raise their kids, clean their house, and serve them a drink.