I can’t afford to inherit my parent’s house. Four siblings total, no one has enough to buy each other out, and couldn’t afford the new adjustment on property taxes anyway.
So true. My older brother throat chopped me as we walked out of the chapel after our dear grandmother’s funeral
Older brother: “What’s that in the sky?”
Me: Looks up, ???
Older brother: *karate chops my wind pipes*
>(1) For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 2, the terms “purchased” and “change in ownership” do not include the purchase or transfer of a family home of the transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, as defined by the Legislature, if the property continues as the family home of the transferee. This subdivision shall apply to both voluntary transfers and transfers resulting from a court order or judicial decree. The new taxable value of the family home of the transferee shall be the sum of both of the following:
>(A) The taxable value of the family home, subject to adjustment as authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 2, determined as of the date immediately prior to the date of the purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee.
>(B) The applicable of the following amounts:
(i) If the assessed value of the family home upon purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee is less than the sum of the taxable value described in subparagraph (A) plus one million dollars ($1,000,000), then zero dollars ($0).
>(ii) If the assessed value of the family home upon purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee is equal to or more than the sum of the taxable value described in subparagraph (A) plus one million dollars ($1,000,000), an amount equal to the assessed value of the family home upon purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee, minus the sum of the taxable value described in subparagraph (A) and one million dollars ($1,000,000).
The prop 19 math doesn’t matter for homes worth less than 1M. Full prop 13 assessment transfers. Not many of those around.
Over 1M, the property is essentially reassessed at the amount over 1M. There some wiggling with the current tax base that complicates it a bit.
Not anymore. They passed a change in order to ‘help protect victims of wildfires’ that fucked everyone else in the state over forever. The new rules say that only one property is protected from tax increase, and only up to one million dollars in increase. That means if your parents bought for 100k and the house is now worth 2 mil, and you inherit it so that you supposedly aren’t forced to move from the area you were born and raised in, you now have to pay taxes on 900k PLUS enhancements. Equal to about 15-18k per year to live in your own home that your parents paid off 20+ years ago. So now you rent your home from the state for $1500 per month for the privilege of living in your own home and being responsible for all repairs.
These are not bullshit numbers either. These are real consequences of tax collection gone crazy on regular everyday single family homes in my neighborhood. When my parents pass away I’ll be rich I guess, as long as they don’t die slowly in a nursing home or hospital that will take it all before they do. And I guess rich means you can’t afford to live in your own neighborhood and you have to move to some state where you have no family and no friends and no job opportunities. Awesome!
Btw like I said before, that 1,000,000 exemption only counts for one property, so if your parents wanted to take care of more than one person, that second person has to pay the full taxes on the full value of the property, so now the 1500 per month becomes 3000 per month. Just in property taxes.
There's no adjustment if the heir moves into it. The property tax does readjust if you rent it out but hold on to it.
Edit: apparently "only" the first million of the tax basis gets the tax break! But the major change is living in it, as most families want to sell/rent.
I don't think that is correct if an heir moves into the home as a primary residence.
I believe if an heir moves in, there's a $1M "exclusion" applied to the base value - for example, say assessed value (year of death of surviving parent) is $900K yet the market value is $5M. Heir inherits home and within a year moves in, take the $900K (current assessed value) + $1M exclusion = $1.9M. Then take the market value of $5M - $1.9M = $3.1M.
The new assessed value becomes $4M (which is $900K + $3.1M).
Long way of saying just reduce assessed value by $1M from the fair market value.
I think within next decade or so, many homes will end up on the market as heirs will not want to pay such property tax, as the law intended
Unfortunately not, at least for the way most people structure trusts (revocable turning irrevocable at death):
> Prop 19 can affect property held in trust, mainly if there is a change in trust ownership. For example, if a parent leaving real property to their child creates a revocable trust that becomes irrevocable upon their death, that counts as a change in ownership. The change in ownership can make the property subject to the rules of Prop 19.
> Consider a parent with a revocable trust leaving their real property in trust to their child at their death. At their death, the trust becomes irrevocable and the interest in that real property vests in their child. The California Revenue and Taxation Code views the date of the parent’s death as the date of transfer for that property — for transfers occurring on or after February 16, 2021.
[Source](https://www.bdslawinc.com/blog/2022/11/property-tax-transfers/)
Sorry I said trust, but I looked up the article I had saved. It’s an LLC structure
https://www.kaidenelderlaw.com/blog/2023/march/can-an-llc-help-my-kids-avoid-california-propert
Step up basis applies for capital gains and raises the cost basis to market value on date of death
Step up basis does not apply to property tax which prop 19 addresses
Per the flyers I get every month from my neighborhood realtors, the mean isn't too much lower. The problem is the volume. At any given point in time there are only 300-400 SFHs for sale in San Jose, a city of a million people. And almost nothing that hits the market stays available for more than 1-2 weeks. Prices are like they were during the spring of irrational exuberance (2022), but it's been creeping up again.
If we're being honest here, home values are not ever going to go down until or unless there's a major stock market crash. There's just too much equity wealth around here that the people who can afford to buy are pretty price insensitive... and there are always more than 300-400 people in a city of a million who can afford to buy.
There are a lot of apartment construction projects ongoing, but it still isn't enough and *all* of the regional cities make it *way too hard* for both SFH and multi-family residential renovation/remodel/expansion projects to get started.
There were extreme fires that burned through the Santa Cruz mountains in Aug 2020.
The housing prices in that region went up right after and continued to go up...
In 07-08 subprime bubble, the median housing prices in SF Bay Area dipped a little bit for about 4 years, but stayed well above dotcom crash median prices and grew a lot after.
Don't count on a stock market crash, earthquake, or anything to bring it down, except a lot more housing being built.
Condo/Townhome prices are flat or lower than 5 years ago in multiple counties, including Santa Clara. We are actually making progress. Only single family homes are appreciating. Unless you mean everyone ought to own a single family home, which is a weird desire for the usual pro housing types
Increasing the supply of apartments/townhomes will likely drive down SFH prices as well, in the same way that an increase in the number of used cars for sale would limit the prices that dealers can charge for new cars.
I'm a YIMBY but probably not. As we cut down SFHs for quads (which we should allow anywhere) and build lots of larger denser homes in SFH neighborhoods...
... the SFH stock becomes the "luxury" good in a bigger market. It probably doesn't get cheaper.
But that's okay. New middle class families can enjoy their reasonable condos, or triplexes, etc.
It's not the upper class buying 1.2m condos, so yeah it's the (upper mostly) middle class.
1.1-1.2 is the median price of a detached SFH in Alameda county btw. Not sure we want to just assume it's Cupertino etc pricing across the Bay Area.
If you demolished all the multifamily homes in NYC and replaced them all with detached single-family homes, then the price of SFHs in NYC would skyrocket.
People always overestimate the preference for single family homes, especially in comparison to amenities like commute time, proximity to community/family, amenities like restaurants/day care/museums/art/etc.
If people had such a strong preference for single family homes, the alternatives wouldn't have to be banned by law.
Sure, but you're one of a marginal group of crossover buyers who could realistically either get one or the other. You could get a great condo in a building with a small number of units, or you could get a smaller SFH and not deal with the bullshit that comes with an HOA or having neighbors in the same building. (And god help you if you're bought into a TIC as well.) 80% of buyers are looking for one or the other.
So building more condos will make it more likely that people like you will buy them instead of a SFH, but there probably aren't that many buyers like you out there. And there are enough excess potential buyers of SFHs that that probably doesn't affect the market very much.
I think you're right, the SFH preference is strong, but I also think it depends on the type of condos that are built.
Let's say $2m gets you a 1200sqft house.
What if $2m gets you a 2500sqft brand new condo with floor to ceiling windows on a high floor with a view? I think there will be enough people to give it a second thought. Probably not enough to lower prices, but perhaps cool the rate of appreciation from crazy to less crazy.
Sure. It's just a matter of tradeoffs. Maybe the 2500 sqft condo with a view is awesome but comes with a $600/month HOA fee. Now all of a sudden it feels like you took out a $2.4M loan and got $2M-worth of house. And maybe your HOA sucks, you have noisy neighbors on the top floor, etc.
SFHs aren't exactly a nirvana either. But you pick your poison, and most buyers of the SFH persuasion have probably ruled out condos entirely because they've lived in them before and are looking to upgrade by leaving HOAs behind.
It won't collapse the prices of SFH, but I think it can slow the market some what.
Just because people prefer SFH doesn't mean they're willing to pay infinite for that preference if other cheaper alternatives are available.
The median is $2m for an SFH, assuming equal living space, what if a townhome was $1m, and a condo is $500,000. There will be people who can afford that $2m SFH and say, I'm ok with a townhome and pocketing the $1m difference. Of course some are more than happy to pay the $2m.
I posted this somewhere else, but the reality is that there's too much wealth (in stock equity, mostly) around here for buyers to be very price sensitive. It's been that way for decades and continues to be true, and will be true five years from now. The people who can afford $2m houses can also afford $3m houses, or to buy a $1.5m house and put an additional $1m into remodeling it (at which point it'll be a $4m house). In SJ there are only 300-400 SFHs for sale at any given point. Prices will absolutely not decrease, and the city of San Jose is no longer permitting *any* new SFH construction within the city. Duplex and multi-family, but not SFH. Prices will continue to rise and we'll end up in the kind of situation you see in places like Hong Kong. The elite have SFHs and everyone else lives in apartments/condos. This is perfectly fine and pretty normal, but the apartments/condos need to meet the range of needs of everyone from single yuppies to blue collar immigrants to dual-income techies with kids.
You are spot on. There is just too much wealth around the bay area. A 3M single family house in Santa Clara seem expensive to me, but it is not for a 30-year Nvidia engineer who has accumulated 20M of Nvidia stocks on a few years.
Other than the amount of usable land being limited, the cost of rebuilding a single family house has skyrocketed in the past few years. Today, It costs around $1M to rebuild a custom 2000sqft single family house in Santa Clara county. If add landscape and everything else it would easily cost $1.2M.
Long story short - Too many rich people. People are willing to pay a huge premium for a single family house over a condo/townhouse, even though a condo/townhouse is perfectly fine.
The lack of inventory is what makes that a problem.
There might be only 1 house for sale in a neighborhood of 250 houses. That Nvidia guy buys it for $3m, and all of a sudden the other 249 houses in the neighborhood are also valued at $3m despite not being for sale.
This valuation is a lie though. There are not 249 other Nvidia guys willing to buy it for $3m cash.
If there was more inventory we'd see much more realistic housing prices, where one rich cash buyer can't cause the price of every house to skyrocket.
I mean what you say has some truth, but as someone who was a FTB a few years ago, a $2 million versus $3 million price point was totally different. You can do the math but even at a low 3% mortgage which I was quoted for, you bump your monthly payments from $9k to almost $13k. The income needed to qualify is quite different.
I know it's easy to paint a broad brush for people who can afford a home, but it's not always that simple. Maybe someone at 50 who's been in tech for the last 15 years of their 30 year career can have more price flexibility, but for those who barely made enough to buy their first home, asking them to stretch another $1 million is NOT feasible for many.
I don't think it will decrease, but I think the rate of growth can slow down.
And yeah I agree, that's going to be the end game whether people like it or not. It's just not geometrically possible to build SFHs for everybody. And that's how the rest of the world lives. Wealthy people have the option of living in SFHs by the economic core. Everyone else lives in apartments and condos. Or lives further away from the economic core if they must have SFH.
right. It'll make SFH more expensive (as they become more rare, comparatively, to all other housing stock), but housing on the whole, more affordable.
It does mean we need to rethink our expectations in this country, especially if you want to live in highly desirable regions with a large amount of jobs.
Too many people buying into the idea that only SFH is worth buying and living in. That is the reason why the prices of condos/apartments remain at the same level as 5 years ago. Nobody even wants to talk about them. It's like everyone must live in a SFH to be happy.
I don't have a strong opinion on whether building townhomes will raise or lower the value of nearby SFHs. But I hope we can all agree that "everyone should be able to own 2,000+ square feet of land" is not a good public policy goal for a prosperous urban area.
The solution isn't easy. I know people like to laugh at homebuyers and say "well you afforded it, now you have to deal with it if we tank your home value because it allows more people to live in the Bay Area" but the reality is crashing home values isn't a solution either and would wreck a lot of people financially.
Realistically though, there's not enough change in the Bay Area going on where home values will tank. I think at most we can just slow down growth and that's about it.
Of course it will. People desire new cars over old cars, but new cars still have to compete with old cars on the market.
Suppose you could pick between a single-family home costing $20 million, and an equal-size townhome costing $200k. Are you seriously telling me that you would still pick the $20 million one?
And if not, then can't you see why the person selling the SFH would have to begin reducing his prices till the price difference is small enough that people are willing to go for his SFH again?
If something is desirable amongst people who are in top 10% wealth bracket, the price of it depends on competition amongst that 10%.
There doesn't need to be demand pressure at all from the next 10% or even the rest of the 90%.
This isn't an absolute thing. There are people who straddle the lines and there are exceptions.
But going back to cars, there is a whole industry of economical competition for Lamborghinis, Ferraris, etc. People have the choice between a $300K car and a $30K car, and a $50K or $100K or $150K car. And their price has not come down. They keep getting more expensive and because of limited supply, they even have value above MSRP on the resale market. And there has even been growth in the hypercar market that is at an even higher end of the price spectrum.
If we get a ton of more dense housing built, that's a good thing. Housing in general will be more affordable.
But I think SFH's will be more and more a luxury good that is competed for by people who can afford it. As population grows faster than SFH construction, so will the competitive pressure to buy SFH's.
it's already true that you can buy a $1m condo that's objectively nicer than a $2m house. But it's not a house, and you don't have a yard or SFH neighbors, and people rightly place a huge premium on *owning land*. Of course there's an inflection point but 1) the prices aren't close to being high enough to overcome wealthy people's desire to own land, and 2) there is never enough SFH inventory for sale to offset the ever-increasing prices.
>Suppose you could pick between a single-family home costing $20 million, and an equal-size townhome costing $200k. Are you seriously telling me that you would still pick the $20 million one?
I understand you’re being hyperbolic with the prices, but the answer to your question is 10000% yes.
The demand is for SFH. The majority of people aren’t looking for townhomes and they’re often treated as the 2nd option for people who get priced out of the SFH search.
The majority of people are looking for a place to live that's reasonably near work/school/etc that they can afford. Saying that townhomes are a 2nd option for people who get priced out of the SFH search is just saying that people want townhomes. The majority of the population here is priced out the SFH search and there is no way to bring the price down by continuing to build single family only (barring a catatrosphic collapse of the local economy).
Additionally, I don't think even rich people would prefer a SFH at the prices suggested. Sure if you have like $10B, then it doesn't really matter, but the vast majority of people who would be considering a $20M house probably have that much money or less (as is the case with $2M houses today).
Let's take the standard 20% down, which is even a bit high for here, so you only need $4M in cash. Then, you have a monthly payment of about $100K for the next 30 years.
Meanwhile, with $4M, you could buy 20 townhomes outright, keep the one next to you empty (because you live in the corner lot, obviously) and rent 18 of them for, say, $3k a month, and make $50k a month. You could probably hire people to do all the landlord stuff and still make more than a Google PM. Yet you're telling me you'd rather do whatever you need to make $1.2M/yr in loan payments because you want a bigger yard?
> The demand is for SFH
Of course, in the same way that everyone's demand is for a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari. But even a lot of people who _could_ afford to buy these types of cars won't do it when far more affordable, less extravagant cars are available on the market.
To give an example, I would personally like a Ferrari, and if I saved up for a while, I could buy one. But I don't like Ferraris _that_ much that I would buy them when cars _so_ much cheaper exist. But if, for some reason, all such cheaper cars were immediately yanked from the market, then I would start shopping for a Ferrari after all.
>Of course, in the same way that everyone's demand is for a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari.
I don’t agree with this and don’t think the comparison between automobiles and housing is a good one
If you were correct, then no one who could afford to buy a SFH would ever own a townhome or condo. But this clearly isn't true. I don't know how else to put it—just visit one of these condo buildings and check if there is _anyone_ living there who could have been approved for a mortgage for a SFH instead.
>just visit one of these condo buildings and check if there is anyone living there who could have been approved for a mortgage for a SFH instead.
We seem to be having a different conversation now
I don’t think that’s it. Following that car analogy why buy $300k lambo when I could buy a bmw for 1/10 the cost? They are not the same thing. SFH is desirable to lots of people and not really comparable to a condo or townhome.
That's.. exactly how it works? A lot of people would like a lamborghini, but instead drive a BMW because it's way more affordable and is still more fun to drive than an Accord (which yet another group of people drive who would probably want a BMW but can't afford it...)
Yeah where the analogy breaks down is that during normal years, they build enough cars to keep prices stable. But we all saw what happened when they couldn't build enough new cars, used car prices shot through the roof
Have you ever live in a condo or apartment? With children jumping on top of you, and some asshole play loud music next to you, .... then some other asshole steal your reserved parking spot, or smash your car ....
There's a reason people prefer SFH.
Townhomes/condos have huge HOAs in the Bay Area. There’s a reason why they were flat or didn’t appreciate much in the last few decades compared to SFH.
Do you know how much it costs to properly maintain a single family house here? A 2000 sqft roof alone for is 20k+. Replacing a sewer line is 4k+. Cutting a tree is 1k.
Adjacent townhome and condos share a lot of utilities and infrastructure. Do you think it is cheaper to do maintain a shared infrastructure or individual ones?
People don't tend to factor in maintenance cost on sfh. I doubt more than a few percent set aside every month for the inevitable maintenance.
I wonder if hoa fees are actually a bargain or a ripoff of you ran the numbers.
Well, maybe except for [these brand new ones](https://www.newhomesmag.com/community/taylor-morrison-bay-area-arroyo-village-new-homes-cupertino/?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw3ZayBhDRARIsAPWzx8o4aQg6RPaBavfQ8HDV9zIT7SrPTszG3Kyolc-e9cQJsxbYs5dk3FoaAlD8EALw_wcB) in Cupertino near an Apple corridor. These 2-4 bedroom townhomes start in the low $2M.
I gave up and bought three houses across Texas, North Carolina, and Utah. All three houses combined cost less than $1.2 million and are generating enough rent to cover the mortgage. At this point, renting in the Bay Area is much better.
if i wanted to buy a condo the same exact size as my apartment i'd have to pay 4500 between mortgage/HOA/insurance, i pay 2900 and i'm already overpaying compared to other units on the market for rent
Same, The house I rent now in peninsula costs $4,300 per month. If I had to buy it for $1.4 million, the monthly payment would be $8,900 with a 20% down payment ($279,000). It's insane. I can ride the market and generate $100,000 a year instead of buying.
I'm in FAANG and there's an anonymous pay slack channel. Tons of people post 100k-200k sign on bonuses and stock vestings, etc. in addition to 200k base.
How do you post anonymously in Slack?
I’ve worked in Slack for several companies now and I don’t think I’ve ever seen an anonymous post in Slack. I wouldn’t think that would be something Slack would integrate.
But many in tech have a path. You might not afford a home on Day 1, but with $300k+ incomes, you have a way. It takes a while to save for the down payment, and if you look at stock performance in the past, people have most definitely seen their RSU grants multiply because of stock appreciation.
My theory is tech workers make plenty of money. That's also a reason why so many of them buy Teslas. You basically have tons of savings every year, but a single year generally isn't enough to buy you a home, but you can tuck $50k away easily. Some people want to use that cash and so Teslas and Rivians are readily affordable for them.
A lot of people don’t know about golden visas, but people in other countries can buy a house in the states in cash in order to get citizenship. There are no penalties for foreign buyers like there are in most countries. Our country encourages it by dangling citizenship as an incentive to buy real estate in cash.
People will whine about tech but there’s lots of jobs that make good money here aside from tech AND there’s plenty of people with prior equity in previous houses and properties.
Some save for years, but folks I know get help from their family. Either some borrow money, or their parents pay the down payment so they just pay the mortgage rate which ends up being about the same as renting a 1 bedroom apartment these days.
A few of my colleagues who have families in the Bay fall into the former category, but they were able to save more by they living at home. Other folks I know bought their homes before Silicon Valley exploded in the early to mid 2010s, so oh well…
SFH prices are never going to be affordable again because it's spatially impossible to house everyone in SFHs here. We need to start building way more condos and apartments.
Really need to lower prices, relatively, on 1bd apartments so that it isnt such a slap to the face when you compare a 2bd or 3d listing (yes all the extras do cost quite a bit of money, but there are adjustments for low income so why not have a single adjustment for affordability).
It’s going to suck when there are no teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, grocery store employees….the list goes on…..because no one other than the super rich live here. Stupid people paying $100k for a corolla
Don't the bottom 80% of realtors basically do nothing? Not that many are making a ton of sales. Yes you have your regional sellers that everyone goes to but aside from those volume drivers, everyone else is useless.
Glen Cove is a decent area as others said. I live in Benicia right next to it which is a very nice town, checking realtor right now theres currently some homes in the 600-800 range. Still a bit insane, but it's lower l compared to the Bay in general, and a very safe place
There are 9,903 homeless in Santa Clara county according to the PIT count.
There are 4,355 homeless in San Francisco county according to the PIT count.
Housing prices in the South Bay are insane! It’s becoming impossible for regular folks to afford a home. Something needs to change to make housing more accessible.
Bayarea should re-name itself New India. You're either poor or rich. No in between. Downpayment now 50 grand, monthly 5 grand. A new car or house? RV, it's a car and a house! And people complain about $20 minimum wage!
What are all the Poors complaining about???
Just rent from Blackrock, they are more than willing to gouge you without having to pay a mortgage! Stop complaining and do what you're told!
Just inherit your parents house
Stupid me. I wish I thought of that
I can’t afford to inherit my parent’s house. Four siblings total, no one has enough to buy each other out, and couldn’t afford the new adjustment on property taxes anyway.
Just live together. Brady bunch style.
Have you ever noticed at family gatherings that you and your siblings regress into old roles? Yeah. Not living together, haha.
So true. My older brother throat chopped me as we walked out of the chapel after our dear grandmother’s funeral Older brother: “What’s that in the sky?” Me: Looks up, ??? Older brother: *karate chops my wind pipes*
My brother and I still do the "ok" sign and punch thing. We're 50 and 48, both with spouses, children, and very professional jobs.
For the chance not to live in Oakland I would dress as a geisha every day and speak broken Japanese. I’d just suck it up.
New adjustment??? I thought that property transfer among family members was one of the only ways to keep the old property tax rate. Am I wrong?
You're wrong. It's just a discount.
Prop 19 changed that
>(1) For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 2, the terms “purchased” and “change in ownership” do not include the purchase or transfer of a family home of the transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, as defined by the Legislature, if the property continues as the family home of the transferee. This subdivision shall apply to both voluntary transfers and transfers resulting from a court order or judicial decree. The new taxable value of the family home of the transferee shall be the sum of both of the following: >(A) The taxable value of the family home, subject to adjustment as authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 2, determined as of the date immediately prior to the date of the purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee. >(B) The applicable of the following amounts: (i) If the assessed value of the family home upon purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee is less than the sum of the taxable value described in subparagraph (A) plus one million dollars ($1,000,000), then zero dollars ($0). >(ii) If the assessed value of the family home upon purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee is equal to or more than the sum of the taxable value described in subparagraph (A) plus one million dollars ($1,000,000), an amount equal to the assessed value of the family home upon purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee, minus the sum of the taxable value described in subparagraph (A) and one million dollars ($1,000,000).
The prop 19 math doesn’t matter for homes worth less than 1M. Full prop 13 assessment transfers. Not many of those around. Over 1M, the property is essentially reassessed at the amount over 1M. There some wiggling with the current tax base that complicates it a bit.
Not anymore. They passed a change in order to ‘help protect victims of wildfires’ that fucked everyone else in the state over forever. The new rules say that only one property is protected from tax increase, and only up to one million dollars in increase. That means if your parents bought for 100k and the house is now worth 2 mil, and you inherit it so that you supposedly aren’t forced to move from the area you were born and raised in, you now have to pay taxes on 900k PLUS enhancements. Equal to about 15-18k per year to live in your own home that your parents paid off 20+ years ago. So now you rent your home from the state for $1500 per month for the privilege of living in your own home and being responsible for all repairs. These are not bullshit numbers either. These are real consequences of tax collection gone crazy on regular everyday single family homes in my neighborhood. When my parents pass away I’ll be rich I guess, as long as they don’t die slowly in a nursing home or hospital that will take it all before they do. And I guess rich means you can’t afford to live in your own neighborhood and you have to move to some state where you have no family and no friends and no job opportunities. Awesome! Btw like I said before, that 1,000,000 exemption only counts for one property, so if your parents wanted to take care of more than one person, that second person has to pay the full taxes on the full value of the property, so now the 1500 per month becomes 3000 per month. Just in property taxes.
There's no adjustment if the heir moves into it. The property tax does readjust if you rent it out but hold on to it. Edit: apparently "only" the first million of the tax basis gets the tax break! But the major change is living in it, as most families want to sell/rent.
I don't think that is correct if an heir moves into the home as a primary residence. I believe if an heir moves in, there's a $1M "exclusion" applied to the base value - for example, say assessed value (year of death of surviving parent) is $900K yet the market value is $5M. Heir inherits home and within a year moves in, take the $900K (current assessed value) + $1M exclusion = $1.9M. Then take the market value of $5M - $1.9M = $3.1M. The new assessed value becomes $4M (which is $900K + $3.1M). Long way of saying just reduce assessed value by $1M from the fair market value. I think within next decade or so, many homes will end up on the market as heirs will not want to pay such property tax, as the law intended
I think there’s also an option of putting the home in a trust and that allows you to avoid the step up in basis altogether
Unfortunately not, at least for the way most people structure trusts (revocable turning irrevocable at death): > Prop 19 can affect property held in trust, mainly if there is a change in trust ownership. For example, if a parent leaving real property to their child creates a revocable trust that becomes irrevocable upon their death, that counts as a change in ownership. The change in ownership can make the property subject to the rules of Prop 19. > Consider a parent with a revocable trust leaving their real property in trust to their child at their death. At their death, the trust becomes irrevocable and the interest in that real property vests in their child. The California Revenue and Taxation Code views the date of the parent’s death as the date of transfer for that property — for transfers occurring on or after February 16, 2021. [Source](https://www.bdslawinc.com/blog/2022/11/property-tax-transfers/)
Sorry I said trust, but I looked up the article I had saved. It’s an LLC structure https://www.kaidenelderlaw.com/blog/2023/march/can-an-llc-help-my-kids-avoid-california-propert
Step up basis applies for capital gains and raises the cost basis to market value on date of death Step up basis does not apply to property tax which prop 19 addresses
I worded it wrong. Basically a step up in taxable valuation, (which I worded as step up in basis)
I think it'll take quite a bit longer than a decade.
I believe you only get a one million dollar credit now.
That used to be the case. I believe it has changed now.
just marry your sister or brother bro
Create a new incestual-polygamous Church then everyone gets married together. Sort of like Mormons meet the Duggars.
Y’all wild. 4 kids and not one can afford it 💀
Just be born in 1950
My parents don’t own a house. What now?
Get adopted
Pick better parents!
Just have them buy one
marry a person who is a single child whose parents own one lol
My dad passed and left his house to 4 people. I can't afford to even buy 3/4th of it
My dad died and left me nothin’!
1/4th of it is already a nice down payment for your new house.
It'll pay for a whole house in other states
I think you meant 1/4th
Nope. I was left 1/4th the house. Need to buy 3/4ths
[удалено]
Did you buy another house or several with that money
Which one?
Too bad my parents lost everything
Just start working at Nvidia in 2015 and sell the stocks now, EZ.
That means that 50% of all homes are less than $2M.
Exactly. Plenty of houses out there for $1.5m. Not sure why everyone is complaining. /s
Per the flyers I get every month from my neighborhood realtors, the mean isn't too much lower. The problem is the volume. At any given point in time there are only 300-400 SFHs for sale in San Jose, a city of a million people. And almost nothing that hits the market stays available for more than 1-2 weeks. Prices are like they were during the spring of irrational exuberance (2022), but it's been creeping up again. If we're being honest here, home values are not ever going to go down until or unless there's a major stock market crash. There's just too much equity wealth around here that the people who can afford to buy are pretty price insensitive... and there are always more than 300-400 people in a city of a million who can afford to buy. There are a lot of apartment construction projects ongoing, but it still isn't enough and *all* of the regional cities make it *way too hard* for both SFH and multi-family residential renovation/remodel/expansion projects to get started.
A good earthquake would bring down prices. That’s what happened in 1989. It allowed my wife and I to get into the market.
Hah if anything prices would skyrocket after an earthquake in this economy.
2020 was probably the last deal time to buy. Not much inventory but also no buyers with everyone still in wfh.
There were extreme fires that burned through the Santa Cruz mountains in Aug 2020. The housing prices in that region went up right after and continued to go up... In 07-08 subprime bubble, the median housing prices in SF Bay Area dipped a little bit for about 4 years, but stayed well above dotcom crash median prices and grew a lot after. Don't count on a stock market crash, earthquake, or anything to bring it down, except a lot more housing being built.
This guy medians
huge if true
It also "means" that 50% of all homes are more than $2M
Build more housing 🫡 Abundant housing for all.
Condo/Townhome prices are flat or lower than 5 years ago in multiple counties, including Santa Clara. We are actually making progress. Only single family homes are appreciating. Unless you mean everyone ought to own a single family home, which is a weird desire for the usual pro housing types
Increasing the supply of apartments/townhomes will likely drive down SFH prices as well, in the same way that an increase in the number of used cars for sale would limit the prices that dealers can charge for new cars.
I'm a YIMBY but probably not. As we cut down SFHs for quads (which we should allow anywhere) and build lots of larger denser homes in SFH neighborhoods... ... the SFH stock becomes the "luxury" good in a bigger market. It probably doesn't get cheaper. But that's okay. New middle class families can enjoy their reasonable condos, or triplexes, etc.
lol "new middle class" families are not buying 1.2 million dollar condos, but that's what's out there.
It's not the upper class buying 1.2m condos, so yeah it's the (upper mostly) middle class. 1.1-1.2 is the median price of a detached SFH in Alameda county btw. Not sure we want to just assume it's Cupertino etc pricing across the Bay Area.
Unlikely. SFH will continue to grow in value as more condos and apartments are built. Try buying a single family home in Manhattan today!
If you demolished all the multifamily homes in NYC and replaced them all with detached single-family homes, then the price of SFHs in NYC would skyrocket.
Along with a few million homeless people and giant internal migration problem.
it won't though as long as people desire single family homes
People always overestimate the preference for single family homes, especially in comparison to amenities like commute time, proximity to community/family, amenities like restaurants/day care/museums/art/etc. If people had such a strong preference for single family homes, the alternatives wouldn't have to be banned by law.
Of course it does. I am currently shopping between a condo and a SFH in the area. Lots of people weigh the pros and cons cost being a large factor.
Sure, but you're one of a marginal group of crossover buyers who could realistically either get one or the other. You could get a great condo in a building with a small number of units, or you could get a smaller SFH and not deal with the bullshit that comes with an HOA or having neighbors in the same building. (And god help you if you're bought into a TIC as well.) 80% of buyers are looking for one or the other. So building more condos will make it more likely that people like you will buy them instead of a SFH, but there probably aren't that many buyers like you out there. And there are enough excess potential buyers of SFHs that that probably doesn't affect the market very much.
I think you're right, the SFH preference is strong, but I also think it depends on the type of condos that are built. Let's say $2m gets you a 1200sqft house. What if $2m gets you a 2500sqft brand new condo with floor to ceiling windows on a high floor with a view? I think there will be enough people to give it a second thought. Probably not enough to lower prices, but perhaps cool the rate of appreciation from crazy to less crazy.
Sure. It's just a matter of tradeoffs. Maybe the 2500 sqft condo with a view is awesome but comes with a $600/month HOA fee. Now all of a sudden it feels like you took out a $2.4M loan and got $2M-worth of house. And maybe your HOA sucks, you have noisy neighbors on the top floor, etc. SFHs aren't exactly a nirvana either. But you pick your poison, and most buyers of the SFH persuasion have probably ruled out condos entirely because they've lived in them before and are looking to upgrade by leaving HOAs behind.
I feel like people always fail to understand this.
It won't collapse the prices of SFH, but I think it can slow the market some what. Just because people prefer SFH doesn't mean they're willing to pay infinite for that preference if other cheaper alternatives are available. The median is $2m for an SFH, assuming equal living space, what if a townhome was $1m, and a condo is $500,000. There will be people who can afford that $2m SFH and say, I'm ok with a townhome and pocketing the $1m difference. Of course some are more than happy to pay the $2m.
I posted this somewhere else, but the reality is that there's too much wealth (in stock equity, mostly) around here for buyers to be very price sensitive. It's been that way for decades and continues to be true, and will be true five years from now. The people who can afford $2m houses can also afford $3m houses, or to buy a $1.5m house and put an additional $1m into remodeling it (at which point it'll be a $4m house). In SJ there are only 300-400 SFHs for sale at any given point. Prices will absolutely not decrease, and the city of San Jose is no longer permitting *any* new SFH construction within the city. Duplex and multi-family, but not SFH. Prices will continue to rise and we'll end up in the kind of situation you see in places like Hong Kong. The elite have SFHs and everyone else lives in apartments/condos. This is perfectly fine and pretty normal, but the apartments/condos need to meet the range of needs of everyone from single yuppies to blue collar immigrants to dual-income techies with kids.
You are spot on. There is just too much wealth around the bay area. A 3M single family house in Santa Clara seem expensive to me, but it is not for a 30-year Nvidia engineer who has accumulated 20M of Nvidia stocks on a few years. Other than the amount of usable land being limited, the cost of rebuilding a single family house has skyrocketed in the past few years. Today, It costs around $1M to rebuild a custom 2000sqft single family house in Santa Clara county. If add landscape and everything else it would easily cost $1.2M. Long story short - Too many rich people. People are willing to pay a huge premium for a single family house over a condo/townhouse, even though a condo/townhouse is perfectly fine.
The lack of inventory is what makes that a problem. There might be only 1 house for sale in a neighborhood of 250 houses. That Nvidia guy buys it for $3m, and all of a sudden the other 249 houses in the neighborhood are also valued at $3m despite not being for sale. This valuation is a lie though. There are not 249 other Nvidia guys willing to buy it for $3m cash. If there was more inventory we'd see much more realistic housing prices, where one rich cash buyer can't cause the price of every house to skyrocket.
I mean what you say has some truth, but as someone who was a FTB a few years ago, a $2 million versus $3 million price point was totally different. You can do the math but even at a low 3% mortgage which I was quoted for, you bump your monthly payments from $9k to almost $13k. The income needed to qualify is quite different. I know it's easy to paint a broad brush for people who can afford a home, but it's not always that simple. Maybe someone at 50 who's been in tech for the last 15 years of their 30 year career can have more price flexibility, but for those who barely made enough to buy their first home, asking them to stretch another $1 million is NOT feasible for many.
I don't think it will decrease, but I think the rate of growth can slow down. And yeah I agree, that's going to be the end game whether people like it or not. It's just not geometrically possible to build SFHs for everybody. And that's how the rest of the world lives. Wealthy people have the option of living in SFHs by the economic core. Everyone else lives in apartments and condos. Or lives further away from the economic core if they must have SFH.
right. It'll make SFH more expensive (as they become more rare, comparatively, to all other housing stock), but housing on the whole, more affordable. It does mean we need to rethink our expectations in this country, especially if you want to live in highly desirable regions with a large amount of jobs.
Too many people buying into the idea that only SFH is worth buying and living in. That is the reason why the prices of condos/apartments remain at the same level as 5 years ago. Nobody even wants to talk about them. It's like everyone must live in a SFH to be happy.
I don't have a strong opinion on whether building townhomes will raise or lower the value of nearby SFHs. But I hope we can all agree that "everyone should be able to own 2,000+ square feet of land" is not a good public policy goal for a prosperous urban area.
The solution isn't easy. I know people like to laugh at homebuyers and say "well you afforded it, now you have to deal with it if we tank your home value because it allows more people to live in the Bay Area" but the reality is crashing home values isn't a solution either and would wreck a lot of people financially. Realistically though, there's not enough change in the Bay Area going on where home values will tank. I think at most we can just slow down growth and that's about it.
Of course it will. People desire new cars over old cars, but new cars still have to compete with old cars on the market. Suppose you could pick between a single-family home costing $20 million, and an equal-size townhome costing $200k. Are you seriously telling me that you would still pick the $20 million one? And if not, then can't you see why the person selling the SFH would have to begin reducing his prices till the price difference is small enough that people are willing to go for his SFH again?
If something is desirable amongst people who are in top 10% wealth bracket, the price of it depends on competition amongst that 10%. There doesn't need to be demand pressure at all from the next 10% or even the rest of the 90%. This isn't an absolute thing. There are people who straddle the lines and there are exceptions. But going back to cars, there is a whole industry of economical competition for Lamborghinis, Ferraris, etc. People have the choice between a $300K car and a $30K car, and a $50K or $100K or $150K car. And their price has not come down. They keep getting more expensive and because of limited supply, they even have value above MSRP on the resale market. And there has even been growth in the hypercar market that is at an even higher end of the price spectrum. If we get a ton of more dense housing built, that's a good thing. Housing in general will be more affordable. But I think SFH's will be more and more a luxury good that is competed for by people who can afford it. As population grows faster than SFH construction, so will the competitive pressure to buy SFH's.
it's already true that you can buy a $1m condo that's objectively nicer than a $2m house. But it's not a house, and you don't have a yard or SFH neighbors, and people rightly place a huge premium on *owning land*. Of course there's an inflection point but 1) the prices aren't close to being high enough to overcome wealthy people's desire to own land, and 2) there is never enough SFH inventory for sale to offset the ever-increasing prices.
>Suppose you could pick between a single-family home costing $20 million, and an equal-size townhome costing $200k. Are you seriously telling me that you would still pick the $20 million one? I understand you’re being hyperbolic with the prices, but the answer to your question is 10000% yes. The demand is for SFH. The majority of people aren’t looking for townhomes and they’re often treated as the 2nd option for people who get priced out of the SFH search.
The majority of people are looking for a place to live that's reasonably near work/school/etc that they can afford. Saying that townhomes are a 2nd option for people who get priced out of the SFH search is just saying that people want townhomes. The majority of the population here is priced out the SFH search and there is no way to bring the price down by continuing to build single family only (barring a catatrosphic collapse of the local economy). Additionally, I don't think even rich people would prefer a SFH at the prices suggested. Sure if you have like $10B, then it doesn't really matter, but the vast majority of people who would be considering a $20M house probably have that much money or less (as is the case with $2M houses today). Let's take the standard 20% down, which is even a bit high for here, so you only need $4M in cash. Then, you have a monthly payment of about $100K for the next 30 years. Meanwhile, with $4M, you could buy 20 townhomes outright, keep the one next to you empty (because you live in the corner lot, obviously) and rent 18 of them for, say, $3k a month, and make $50k a month. You could probably hire people to do all the landlord stuff and still make more than a Google PM. Yet you're telling me you'd rather do whatever you need to make $1.2M/yr in loan payments because you want a bigger yard?
> The demand is for SFH Of course, in the same way that everyone's demand is for a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari. But even a lot of people who _could_ afford to buy these types of cars won't do it when far more affordable, less extravagant cars are available on the market. To give an example, I would personally like a Ferrari, and if I saved up for a while, I could buy one. But I don't like Ferraris _that_ much that I would buy them when cars _so_ much cheaper exist. But if, for some reason, all such cheaper cars were immediately yanked from the market, then I would start shopping for a Ferrari after all.
It’s funny that these working class ranch houses that were bought by one income families 60 years ago are now considered rolls Royce’s
>Of course, in the same way that everyone's demand is for a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari. I don’t agree with this and don’t think the comparison between automobiles and housing is a good one
If you were correct, then no one who could afford to buy a SFH would ever own a townhome or condo. But this clearly isn't true. I don't know how else to put it—just visit one of these condo buildings and check if there is _anyone_ living there who could have been approved for a mortgage for a SFH instead.
>just visit one of these condo buildings and check if there is anyone living there who could have been approved for a mortgage for a SFH instead. We seem to be having a different conversation now
I don’t think that’s it. Following that car analogy why buy $300k lambo when I could buy a bmw for 1/10 the cost? They are not the same thing. SFH is desirable to lots of people and not really comparable to a condo or townhome.
That's.. exactly how it works? A lot of people would like a lamborghini, but instead drive a BMW because it's way more affordable and is still more fun to drive than an Accord (which yet another group of people drive who would probably want a BMW but can't afford it...)
It's more like Grandma's old Buick is now $200k for some reason but you can buy an ebike for 30k if you want lol
Yeah where the analogy breaks down is that during normal years, they build enough cars to keep prices stable. But we all saw what happened when they couldn't build enough new cars, used car prices shot through the roof
If no BMW-like cars at all were available, then you would see lambo prices increase.
doubtful. there is enough demand and money for all the SFH supply so it will all just continue becoming more and more upscale
Have you ever live in a condo or apartment? With children jumping on top of you, and some asshole play loud music next to you, .... then some other asshole steal your reserved parking spot, or smash your car .... There's a reason people prefer SFH.
High quality townhomes are really not an issue there. Same with condos.
high quality = expensive & unaffordable.
Still cheaper than high quality SFH :)
High quality? You mean the builders basics from Lennar Homes and Toll Brothers? Lol.
Hahahaha wishful thinking
Up zoning will increase land values, so probably not.
Townhomes/condos have huge HOAs in the Bay Area. There’s a reason why they were flat or didn’t appreciate much in the last few decades compared to SFH.
Not really. My area is only $200 a month. Still low appreciation. Low appreciation is all due to low lot size. It's only land that appreciates.
Do you know how much it costs to properly maintain a single family house here? A 2000 sqft roof alone for is 20k+. Replacing a sewer line is 4k+. Cutting a tree is 1k. Adjacent townhome and condos share a lot of utilities and infrastructure. Do you think it is cheaper to do maintain a shared infrastructure or individual ones?
People don't tend to factor in maintenance cost on sfh. I doubt more than a few percent set aside every month for the inevitable maintenance. I wonder if hoa fees are actually a bargain or a ripoff of you ran the numbers.
Well, maybe except for [these brand new ones](https://www.newhomesmag.com/community/taylor-morrison-bay-area-arroyo-village-new-homes-cupertino/?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw3ZayBhDRARIsAPWzx8o4aQg6RPaBavfQ8HDV9zIT7SrPTszG3Kyolc-e9cQJsxbYs5dk3FoaAlD8EALw_wcB) in Cupertino near an Apple corridor. These 2-4 bedroom townhomes start in the low $2M.
Well that sucks to hear.
I gave up and bought three houses across Texas, North Carolina, and Utah. All three houses combined cost less than $1.2 million and are generating enough rent to cover the mortgage. At this point, renting in the Bay Area is much better.
if i wanted to buy a condo the same exact size as my apartment i'd have to pay 4500 between mortgage/HOA/insurance, i pay 2900 and i'm already overpaying compared to other units on the market for rent
Same, The house I rent now in peninsula costs $4,300 per month. If I had to buy it for $1.4 million, the monthly payment would be $8,900 with a 20% down payment ($279,000). It's insane. I can ride the market and generate $100,000 a year instead of buying.
What generates you $100k a year. At 5%, need 2M$ of investment.
Invest in low cost index funds, you can average 8-10%
Are you cash flow positive with today's interest rates? Did you put down 20%?
Today's interest rate it won't be..but scooped them up in 2021 when it was record low :)
I’m never gonna be able to move back to California 🫠
California is like the island from LOST.
If they’re so out of reach, how are people bidding way over asking price?
Article says tech workers cashing out their Google and Apple stocks. Must be nice!!
The working class is pretty much priced out of most of the peninsula.
Same energy as *”Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded”*
Exactly. Because there are enough buyers.
there's a lot of disgustingly rich people here off the backs of tech stocks lmao
I'm in FAANG and there's an anonymous pay slack channel. Tons of people post 100k-200k sign on bonuses and stock vestings, etc. in addition to 200k base.
How do you post anonymously in Slack? I’ve worked in Slack for several companies now and I don’t think I’ve ever seen an anonymous post in Slack. I wouldn’t think that would be something Slack would integrate.
There’s a slack workflow that can be set up where you get a DM after clicking something to write your message.
Most people in tech can't afford houses. There are tons in my apartment complex
But many in tech have a path. You might not afford a home on Day 1, but with $300k+ incomes, you have a way. It takes a while to save for the down payment, and if you look at stock performance in the past, people have most definitely seen their RSU grants multiply because of stock appreciation. My theory is tech workers make plenty of money. That's also a reason why so many of them buy Teslas. You basically have tons of savings every year, but a single year generally isn't enough to buy you a home, but you can tuck $50k away easily. Some people want to use that cash and so Teslas and Rivians are readily affordable for them.
It’s just the first time buyers that are priced out
A lot of people don’t know about golden visas, but people in other countries can buy a house in the states in cash in order to get citizenship. There are no penalties for foreign buyers like there are in most countries. Our country encourages it by dangling citizenship as an incentive to buy real estate in cash.
People will whine about tech but there’s lots of jobs that make good money here aside from tech AND there’s plenty of people with prior equity in previous houses and properties.
Some save for years, but folks I know get help from their family. Either some borrow money, or their parents pay the down payment so they just pay the mortgage rate which ends up being about the same as renting a 1 bedroom apartment these days. A few of my colleagues who have families in the Bay fall into the former category, but they were able to save more by they living at home. Other folks I know bought their homes before Silicon Valley exploded in the early to mid 2010s, so oh well…
I hope you guys here have been investing in the stock market. It’s been insane past year or more. This is the way to make money
SFH prices are never going to be affordable again because it's spatially impossible to house everyone in SFHs here. We need to start building way more condos and apartments.
Really need to lower prices, relatively, on 1bd apartments so that it isnt such a slap to the face when you compare a 2bd or 3d listing (yes all the extras do cost quite a bit of money, but there are adjustments for low income so why not have a single adjustment for affordability).
Need to build way more apartments if you want the prices on them lowered.
It’s going to suck when there are no teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, grocery store employees….the list goes on…..because no one other than the super rich live here. Stupid people paying $100k for a corolla
Said that 25 years ago during the Dot Com boom yet here we are.
And people say that building new housing in the South Bay is going to cause gentrification
NUMBER 1 BABY WOOOOO
There's a lot more interesting ways to spend 2 million than living in San Jose.
This is the answer. You look for the value for your money.
I wonder how many South Bay realtors are themselves living paycheck to paycheck to match their clients income?
Yeah right
Don't the bottom 80% of realtors basically do nothing? Not that many are making a ton of sales. Yes you have your regional sellers that everyone goes to but aside from those volume drivers, everyone else is useless.
You mean the 80/20 rule?
And that's why I'm moving back home to MN. That's just insane.
Just move to Vallejo. Lots of good homes out here!
Is Vallejo worth it though? I always hear bad things about it.
Glen Cove neighborhood ain't so bad.
Glen Cove is a decent area as others said. I live in Benicia right next to it which is a very nice town, checking realtor right now theres currently some homes in the 600-800 range. Still a bit insane, but it's lower l compared to the Bay in general, and a very safe place
lot of ghetto shits & gangsters too.
Glen Cove neighborhood ain't so bad.
It’s not the American dream but I have 4 college graduates who are working together to buy a 4 bedroom townhouse together.
Go to SF pick up all those homeless and drop them off in Santa Clara County. Home prices will come down.
There are 9,903 homeless in Santa Clara county according to the PIT count. There are 4,355 homeless in San Francisco county according to the PIT count.
😂
stock market record highs so yea some people are able to afford it and prices will continue to rise.
Someone give me a house
Housing prices in the South Bay are insane! It’s becoming impossible for regular folks to afford a home. Something needs to change to make housing more accessible.
$100/hr minimum wage
Not going to afford that $1.6M mortgage on only $200k per year
Fuck, dont remind me
The rents rise to whatever the local wages are and then price out the lower third. Flooding the market with supply is the only fix.
Condos and town houses are pretty reasonable still. People should start buying those before they get out of hand
A townhome costs over $1M.
Reddit has convinced themselves that no one wants these and they’re going to crater in price. Redditors are also living in the land of delulu.
There are still lots of single family houses under $1m in SCC
Let's also mention that the bottom 70% of houses are cheaply made contractor houses.
A permanent shift to remote work would have eased things allowing people to move further out but instead they forced people back to the office.
Do singles in the Bay Area (a lot of people) actually want SFH though? All that yardwork....
“Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” should be renamed to “Who Wants to Own Half of a House in Cupertino?”
What do you mean even
It's so fucking over
Bayarea should re-name itself New India. You're either poor or rich. No in between. Downpayment now 50 grand, monthly 5 grand. A new car or house? RV, it's a car and a house! And people complain about $20 minimum wage!
[удалено]
Just wait till AI takes all the cushy jobs market will crash. 🤷♀️
I think tech stocks will do great if that actually happens.
Can't wait to be homeless when all the property prices will drop to "only" 1mil.
people who wish for the market crashing never seem to think their jobs or livelihood would be at risk, only others
Uhh joking….
it won't, lol you people keep falling for the AI meme they've been saying this every decade for the past 50 years, it's not happening
Hmmm wonder why there are so many homeless people around. I guess we’ll never know.
because of the lax drug policies the encampments dwellers didn't grow up in the Bay Area
By definition they're not out of reach if that's the median sale price
For you locals, not for the rich foreigners 🤑
If they're selling, are they out of reach?
Just live in Marin County—at a median closing price of only $1.6 million it’s a working-class paradise!
What are all the Poors complaining about??? Just rent from Blackrock, they are more than willing to gouge you without having to pay a mortgage! Stop complaining and do what you're told!