Are Americans paying too much for houses ?

[Wiregrass Willie]

Warning ! This post may be very boring !


This is a few thoughts on a subject that is very important to the American economy and to all of us. It is also a very dull subject !

I believe that all the figures used are correct, but I could have transferred them wrong in error.

My interests in this subject are twofold and I seek to find guidence in answering two questions (1) How can I profit and/or protect myself financially and (2) what can I do to help my country avoid a potential disaster ?

---------------------------

It is my theory that people today are paying far more for a house -- in relation to their income -- than they have in the past 40 years. When I bought my first house in 1972, the mortgage was just over 2.25 (the ratio) times my annual family income. That was considered a fair and safe amount to pay. The smaller the ratio, the safer the loan and the borrower. Today people are paying a much larger ratio. There are many who think there is real estate bubble over-hanging the U.S. economy with an impending crash.

In order for us all to decide if there is a housing bubble, we must first study median family income, the median cost of houses and the sub prime lending practices.

Below, I have four columns. The first is the year, the second is the median price of an American house in that year. The third is the median income for an American family for that year and the fourth is the ratio of income to the house. In other words how may years income the price of that house represents.

The smaller the ratio figure the more easily a family can make the payments on their mortgage. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume a minimum down payment of 10% or less. Those are the families who are most apt to get into trouble.

I could not find a good source for historical median family incomes prior to 1980. I have used the table on this page and I used "current Dollars" for Median income. I figure the top of the second fifth as being about median. That's not exact but I think it will be close.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01ar.html

The house prices are from :

http://www.realestateabc.com/graphs/natlmedian.htm

Year -- Price of house -- Family income -- Ratio

1968     $20,100             7,300            2.75
1973     $28,900            10,034            2.88
1978     $48,700            14,800            3.29
1983     $70,300            20,271            3.46
1988     $89,300            26,182            3.41
1993     $103,100           30,000            3.43
1998     $128,400           37,692            3.40
2003     $169,500           42,057            4.03

This is for the past year. This looks like a predators ratio.

2006        $225,300               46,207             4.88

http://realestate.netscape.com/story/2006/05/16/median-price-of-us-home-falls-33-percent/

I think this shows that with the price of houses rising quickly in this decade -- but the family income not rising as quickly -- set the stage for the possibility that a lending institution, using predatory practices, could saddle many American families with a much higher debt that they can comfortably handle.

Now the Federal Government is beginning efforts to bail out the lenders - while the victims will be left to shift for themselves. The rest of us will pay much more in inflation to support the governments efforts.

Here are a couple of thoughts to go with the above facts:

Since 1968, the price of a median house has gone up from $20,100 to $225,300. In that same time the median income has gone from $7,300 to $46,207. That means that the house is 11.2 times what it was in 1968. Income has only risen 6.3 times what it was in 1968.

Let me put this in a different perspective. Had houses advanced in
price the same as income, we would have the median house today priced
at $126,630. That sounds much better than $225,300.

And if people who are contemplating buying a home would realize that the house they
buy is inflated by about 44%, they may do well to stand back and let
the bubble burst. It would be cheaper for a young family to rent
for a while and see what happens.

Somebody is losing. And more people could lose as things worsen.

Thanks for your patience,

Willie

[Quantess]

1. Hey, don't insult my taste in subject matter.

:)
You make an excellent point. I think that maybe it isn't that houses cost too much, it's that the average income is too low. The disparity of wealth is too great, and is only getting bigger. A small percentage of Americans can afford several houses, while the majority has trouble paying for one.

[SoCalDem]

5. indeed.. the prices of EVERYTHING have continually risen

and the extra money paid has gone directly into the CEO's pockets..

To 'ease' the immediate pain, "easy credit" arrived on the scene.. Families have gone along for decades, just kicking that debt down the road, and making payments for things they used to be able to afford without credit cards..

Housing "prices" had to rise, so that stage two could happen... Voila'.. the house as your personal ATM!! and a clever way to turn unsecured credit card debt into long term mortgage debt, via re-financing and equity loans..

[no_hypocrisy]

2. One can make a cogent argument that they are due to the benefits

to certain demographics. For instance, appraising a property at a higher value than it really is would benefit a lender who collects greater profit via interest and points due to the alleged figure; or municipal and county governments that collect a greater amount of property taxes based upon the inflated value of such properties; the real estate brokers who get a buyer and seller together as the brokers collect 5 to 6% of the value of the contract price based on the appraised value of the subject property; and finally the property owners who use the house and property as another form of investment (the value of the property continues to be appraised at an inflated rate, it is sold, and greater profits gained as a result).

I get the feeling all the mania with real estate has been another confidence job perpetuated upon high rollers and the "little guys" who only wanted security via a roof over their heads.

[havocmom]

3. K&R

:thumbsup:

[partylessinOhio]

4. Are Americans paying too much for houses ? Absolutely YES!

Are Americans working for too low wages for their labor ? Absolutely YES!

I hope the market collapses and all prices fall to where they should be so most of us can afford living again.

[cliss]

6. Hi first of all,

This is not boring. This is probably the most important thread of the day here at DU. This is urgent stuff. You've done a very nice job with the stats.
==================
Ok, with that said, you are wondering about how to profit / protect yourself financially, and help your country. I would like to (humbly) suggest that the best thing would be to focus on #1, how to avoid the approaching Abyss, and hopefully profit. This is my take on the situation, and I would appreciate some feedback.

1) We're headed for the Abyss. I predict that home prices will go down to about half (50%) of their value. Maybe even more? As low as 10 cents on the dollar? I don't know. You are absolutely correct in that house prices are grossly too high.

2) There are between 2 and 7 million subprime mortgages which will be reset in the next 6 months. Expect to see A LOT of empty houses, with grass growing in the front yard 3 feet tall, and a lock box on the door handle.

3) How to profit? If it were me, I would either a) sell my house right away, even if it meant at a loss. Put the money in the bank, and WAIT. My friend in Seattle says, "wow, this is the time to buy!! There are so many houses in foreclosure. I could get one for 10% off. My friend doesn't realize, it's just the beginning of the storm. I would wait 2 YEARS before doing anything. In the meantime, I would be saving every last penny, be as debt-free as I could be.

4) Two years from now, I would be ready to make an offer on a house. For a $200,000 house, I would offer $30,000. That's right, $30K. I would buy it CASH. The owner will be incredibly grateful to get out from under his burden.

5) For anyone who does not want to sell their house, just plan to stay in it. Just be sure it's OK with you that your house is now worth only 1/2 what you thought it was. Be sure to get out of debt, pay off all debts, and you should be just fine.

6) Keep a small stash of cash in your home safe. You know, the little one you can get from Office Depot. Throw in about $1,000 just to be on the safe side. We're having a little run on the bank in England, and we need to see how things go.

7) Have a small hoard of canned food, some bottled water, a few boxes like Top Ramen, just to be on the safe side. NO I'm not a survivalist. Just.....wary.

8) Sleep well at night.

[truedelphi]

7. From an economic theory we probably are paying what they are

Worth at least in some cases.


We might not like what houses cost but here's the truth about housing costs: the simple economic notion is that IF Supply is Low and Demand is High, then prices can surge.

Until two years ago, I lived in Marin COunty. It is a highly desirable place to live.
The vacancy rate on apartment rentals runs about or LESS than 1% - usually, no matter what the economy is doing.

It is attractive to the rich because they can have a house there and then commute into San Francisco. With George Lucas of Star Wars movie fame having studios and setting up a great deal of the type of ventures that a movie needs for production, Los Angeles people started discovering in the 1990's that they could live in Marin for about one third of what it would cost them to live in L.A. Then either jet down to L.A. when they needed to,or if not that,then fax, email and/or video conference.

Meanwhile, the environmental movement is very strong and although Marin County is already EIGHTY FIVE per cent open space - the idea that building housing is wrong has prevailed. Occassionally after years of work with Planning Commissions, City COuncil meetings, public relations etc, a builder will receive permission to build a handful of homes.

Additionally, because Marin County is rather liberal, a network of clinics and social service agencies have encouraged newly arrived immigrants to move there. The immigrants are forced to live twelve people to a two bedroom apartment but they are willing to do that to escape the conditions of their old country. Landlords know that the sky is the limit - if the rent is too high the people will just add another two or three roommates. ("Day" laborers split up in shifts so that some of the roommates are there during the day and some at night.) Even fifteenyears ago, The Canal area of Marinhad a population density that rivals the denser parts of Tokyo.

So housing prices have soared. A rather crummy three bedroom bungalow style house in San Anselmo that survived the flooding of early 2006 and that needs at least 125K worth of work will set you back about $ 625,000.
(Prices may have dropped five or ten per cent since I researched that house last summer - but still)

If we want reasonable housing prices, we have to realize that environmental green belting will often result in a housing shortage and therefore high prices. Also if we are fond of the notion that those who are poor and from othr poor countries should come here unimpeded by immigration laws and regulations, then the housing shortage crunch will continue.

Greenbelting doesn't have to result in some of the weird things it now does - houses only permitted on one acre lots etc. There are sensible green belting plans wherein people live in apartments above offices and shops, and due to the fact that they can walk to work the fact that there are more residences allowed still results in a smaller environmental footprint because people are not getting into the cars and then the freeways.

[Zookeeper]

46. Delete. Wrong spot. n/t

[formercia]

8. Americans are also living in bigger houses.

I'm sure the square foot per occupant has increased as well.

People need to think smaller is better.

[raccoon]

42. Exactly! I wonder how much the sq. ft/ occupant has increased.

WHen you figure families are smaller and houses bigger. Houses built now are SO much bigger in square footage than houses built even in the '70's.

[AllyCat]

51. That's was what I was thinking too. Why does a family of 4 (or fewer)

need a 4,000 sq. foot house??? And a huge bluegrass lawn, with no sidewalk, a 3 car garage, and an enormous deck in back overlooking powerlines or the nearest highway. My favorite statement out of the owners of these places is "We live in the cornfields!" as if it's a rural area and they bought an old farmhouse or something. It's just exurbia folks. Don't get so excited.

[Skittles]

56. whatever happened to "starter houses" ?

they don't exist where I live - many of the houses I see are literally bigger than my apartment building (8 apartments)

[formercia]

57. Big houses= more profit per house

Developers want to build as big and expensive house as codes will allow for a given lot because they use more materials, have a bigger markup and resulting profit.

It's like big cars back in the 'old days'. Gas guzzling behemoths that 'people wanted'.

I bought a VW beetle new in 1970 because it was $1800. and got terrific mileage. My former car had been a Mercedes, but it was too big for me and I wanted to go to college and needed something more economical. I never regretted my choice.

Madison Avenue strikes again.

[CelticWinter]

9. Yes Americans are paying too much....

and off the the greatest you go. I enjoyed reading your post, the housing market is a pet peeve of mine. I think people are being given loans that can never be paid off, a house that they will never own. Homes shouldnt take a life time to pay off! A home, whether owned or rented is one of the basic needs in life and people are having a hard time meeting this basic need grrrrrrrr. Enough for now before I get on my broomstick and start flying around about this topic.
Thanks again for the post.
CelticWinter

[bbgrunt]

17. good point. Instead of blaming low income

people for wanting to own a home, the low initial rates and irresponsible lending practices coupled with the recent history of surging prices pushed people into buying much more in terms of housing than they could afford--expecting to swim in capital gains. A perfect ponzi scheme.

[uppityperson]

10. Yes, they are. No, your post isn't. Thank you for putting this together. k&r nt

[SoCalDem]

11. Here's a fantastic site that tells costs of all kinds of stuff through the years

http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/yearsanddecades.html

[CrispyQ]

15. Great site!

In his book "Take This Job & Ship It," Senator Dorgan (ND-D) states that if minimum wage had kept up with CEO pay through the 90s, it would be $23.08 today.

[SoCalDem]

16. and at that wage, people would not "need" credit cards...

:) see the problem for the bankers?

When I left my job in 1995, I was making $17.24 an hour with time & a half on Sundays & triple time on holidays.. My friend with THIRTY years seniority on her SUPERVISORY job is making $12.50 and they begrudgingly pay her that "much"..:grr: I was union..she is not

[CrispyQ]

21. My husband & I both worked union jobs through the 70s & early 80s.

Those good jobs paid for our college education & gave us each decent experience to put on our resumes, too. My mother used to bad rap unions & I finally told her to keep her negative comments to herself unless she wanted to help me with my tuition. That shut her up!

We frequent a local restaurant who has an employee who outstanding! One night, the owner of the restaurant was there, so we told him what a wonderful employee he had in her & his response was, "I pay her more than anyone else. I'd get rid of her if I could." :grr: We haven't been back.

[Wiregrass Willie]

23. Thanks. That is a great site - now I can expand on my theory n/t

[SoCalDem]

24. I did an oil price comparison today..

SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts)

Sun Sep-16-07 07:30 AM

Original message

Oil!.. (lest we forget)

This chart lists barrel prices through 2005... Just so we don't forget what this is all about...


the dots:

'68 gasoline cost 0.34 gallon( except for gas-wars when it was as low as 0.19 a gallon)
'73 gasoline cost 0.40 (and there was rationing )
'81 gasoline cost 1.32 (as reagan ascended the throne)
'93 gasoline cost 1.16 (GHWB's cuts didn't get him re-elected)
'01 gasoline cost 1.46 ( Opec helped Bushie by raising prices)



Edited to add that there WERE hurricanes back then..

[Wiregrass Willie]

29. I like to keep up with historic trends

This is one of my favorite pages for financial data -

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/html/datapage.htm

And if you like to check up on American towns, this can be very informative --

http://www.city-data.com/

[sandnsea]

32. The strength of the dollar

needs to be added into the oil equation. I still can't figure out how it benefits the multinationals to have a weak dollar, but I know in my gut that it does.

[Zodiak]

44. Some numbers

How Much things cost in 2000
Average Cost of new house $134,150.00
Average Income per year $40,343.00
Average Monthly Rent $675.00
Gallon of Gas $1.26
Average Cost New Car $24,750.00
US Postage Stamp 33 cents
1 LB of Bacon $2.97
Ground Coffee per IB $3.44
Loaf of Bread $1.72
Dozen Eggs 89 cents
Share Indexes Average Rough Guide Dow Jones Industrial Average FTSE 100 Average 6500



That's what the site says for the year 2000. Strangely, there is no dat for Chimpy's entire administration to compare prices. Isn't that weird?

[SoCalDem]

52. I guess they were too depressed to list them.. I noticed that too

Maybe the reports the need, to compile the data, are not forthcoming.. we all know how secretive this bunch is..

[AzDar]

12. An excellent post.

:kick:

[Gregorian]

13. Believe it or not, I have an explanation.

And if you read my posts you'll predict where I'm going to go.

The area on the planet is fixed. The population is growing exponentially. I can hear the voices already saying that there is SO MUCH land on earth. Just like the day I walked into the store as the trucks carrying 8 foot diameter old growth redwood went down the highway. And the person I was talking to said, "But there's PLENTY of trees left.". Not old growth redwood.

There is only so much "desirable" land. Or, location. A house in S. Carolina can be bought for $25k, still. And on an acre or two, yet.

What we're seeing is places like Palo Alto that used to be farms fifty years ago, now completely "housed over". Once that happened, the prices went from a very stable $30k up to a million in a very short period of time.

Believe it or not. That is one of the factors. The big factor. There is only so much "location" to go around.

[MindMatter]

22. That is a factos, but not the primary factor

After all, we still occupy less than 1% of the land. Over-population is a huge problem on many fronts, but the main reason housing costs more is that people are building bigger, fancier houses. If somebody can find the average space in today's construction, I bet you will find it has doubled during the time represented in that table.

And it isn't just size. Every gets central AC now, full carpeting, upgraded kitchens, walk-in closets, 2-car garages or larger, etc.

[SoCalDem]

25. the home of my childhood

was about 1200 sq ft..no AC..no dishwasher..ONE bathroom..ONE phone..One tv (got tv when I was about 12)

[Gregorian]

36. It's about the value of land that is desirable.

Size of the house is all but negligible. I'm not a novice. I spend every day of the last twenty years studying real estate. It's the ground that the house stands on. And that is valued by it's location. Now that is not completely true now. But historically it is. I can give examples galore. And location boils down to proximity to a metro area with marine influence. Of course that doesn't apply to Colorado. So there is an array of criteria. But it comes down to a few things. One very important one is the metro area, which is created by virtue of things like universities. In fact, you can almost peg location value by how liberal an area is. The same house in S. Carolina or Kentucky is $30k, but in Marin it's 3 million. Right now houses cost a lot. But even the more expensive houses are the same price as the land. I'm not talking about the run of the mill property. Those are no-brainers.

Maybe we're talking about two different things. Right now I'm in a house that's for sale for #1.3 million. It's a god damned tennis court club house conversion. The place is a matchbox. But it's on 3 acres in Mendocino. The house is substandard. The last four properties I sold were everything from a shack (literally), to a 1600 square foot cabin-like house. These all sold for the land value. My parent's house is a million, and it cost around $20k to build. In there town people buy two houses and knock one down, in order to build one house. And they pay a million for the place they knock down. It's the land.

But I'm talking about northern California. I'll admit it's not Nevada or Oaklahoma. But that is why it's called location.

And yes, building has doubled over the last few decades. But the land has more than doubled.

[MindMatter]

37. Your market is not very representative

Yes, of course land value can be an important factor, particularly in dense urban areas. But the major point of this thread is that we are all paying more for housing than we used to. The average consumer is getting 50%-100% more house than people built post-war. You cannot dismiss that. It is central to the statistics. If a person wants to live in a house that is like what families built post-war, they can get it for the same kind of proportion of today's salary in most markets. That is especially true now with the housing deflation that is happening across broad parts of the country.

[MindMatter]

38. Here's an article that tanlks about house size trends

http://prudential.starnewsonline.com/default.asp?item=666853

[Gregorian]

40. Argh. I kind of missed the point of the thread. :)

I totally agree.

The house I grew up in was the typical representative $5000 home. 1000 square feet. And it's now a half million, which is probably some horribly morphed geometry of it's original self.


Yes, I am off on a tangent of the kinds of homes in the northern California area.


I'm totally consumed by this thing. Partly because...never mind. It's a life story. :)

[girl gone mad]

45. Us population hasn't been growing that quickly.

California's population has grown fast, bu CA is a huge state with a lot of land. In the case of a land shortage, developers can always build up.

California's current bubble was caused by cheap money - easy access to credit and crazy loan products like ARMs and I/O loans - not by any land shortage.

[skids]

14. It doesn't help...

...that there is basically no such thing as entry level housing on the market anymore.

Any house that was affordable has been bought, a swinning pool and deck installed to bring its value up and
out of reach of first time buyers, and likely resold and improved further with more luxury items.

Condo prices are outrageous.

For goodness sake people, fix up what needs to be fixed up, but if you want more options, move the hell out to another house and leave the cheap ones for people that don't want the swimming pool.

[question everything]

18. Adjusted for inflation

prices of houses in 1990 was the same as 1890

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x28372

[EVDebs]

31. At around 4% annual price inflation for 35 yrs (2003-1968) , 1.40 factor is about right

the poster says a 44% inflation factor. He isn't wrong

[SeattleGirl]

19. In a word:

Yes.

Especially here in the Seattle area. Prices are jacked up so high, it's ridiculous. The house I'm living in was assessed at $150,000 a few years ago. Now, based on the house on the corner that is roughly the same size, and built around the same time, that went for $375,000, well, yeah.

It's ridiculous.

[EVDebs]

33. Are King County real estate taxes based upon sales prices as in CA ? Prop 13 may need a 'cap'

With sales taxes being very regressive, maybe local income taxes are the way to ameliorate fair government funding or a mix of income, Real Estate, and sales taxes.

[progressive_realist]

20. A minor quibble, but...

I think the standard method of estimating median income from your data would be to split the difference between the upper limits of the second and third fifths.

[leftofthedial]

26. American's pay too much for almost everything

Capitalism is by far the most expensive economic system ever devised. We pay not only the actual cost of the goods (which is almost always a fraction of pennies on the dollar of our cost), but the profit margins of middle men, wholesalers and retailers. We pay the costs of financing the "money" (credit) each of those parasites uses to horn their way into the supply chain. We pay the profit margins of each of the lenders involved in creating those loans. We pay the costs of the overhead of each of the middle men, plus the financing costs of all the money they borrow to pay for that. And when they cheat us, poison us or break other laws, we end up paying the costs for that too.

Housing is just one obvious example of a system gone horribly wrong. Capitalism is the worst mistake humankind ever made.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. I have refused to buy a house or even a condo, because all my calculations

tell me that I couldn't do it without becoming "house poor."

I'd rather travel or attend arts events than spend all my income on mortgages, property taxes, repairs, and remodeling, which is what homeowners seem to do.

It's bad enough that I have to own a car in this town and pay for gas, insurance, registration, and repairs.

[BlackVelvet04]

28. Wow.....

our house cost less than twice our yearly salary. Why don't I have more money?

[knitter4democracy]

30. Which is why I told Hubby we had to find a cheaper house.

We moved a couple of years ago, and in looking at houses, we were told that we could afford houses that were $200-250K, but when we sat down and added up our consumer debt and the med school debt, we could only afford something less than $175K. We found one for $155K, and we love it. We were told that it wasn't the "right" neighborhood for a doctor, but it's perfect for us and our kids and in walking distance from their school.

I think some of the housing prices are from people "needing" to live in the "right" neighborhood, but so many can't afford houses at all or are bankrupting themselves trying to. We need more affordable housing, and we need to reclaim the cities for real living again.

[SoCalDem]

35. We knew some people once, who bought so much house

the only had bedroom furniture & a kitchen set.. their TV sat on a crate and their huge living room was EMPTY.. She finally made some curtains from sheets & shower curtains, but they had NO furniture to speak of, and in the winter they closed off most rooms and used the fireplace for heat..

Their big beautiful showplace was actually an embarrassment to them since they could not really even entertain..

This was in "pre- credit card" days, so if you did not have savings, you had nothing extra..

[knitter4democracy]

41. Sounds like my BIL.

When he and his wife got their first apt. in Manhattan, they had no furniture. Just a couple of futon mattresses and lots of cardboard boxes. They're just now getting furniture.

[Larry Ogg]

34. Here’s a couple of video’s that might be of assistance.

It helps to know how money, wealth and debt is created, this video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&hl=en">Money As Debt is 47 minutes long and very informative.

The following video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1583154561904832383 "> The Money Masters Part 1 and http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-529716659023952808"> The Money Masters Part 2 are 3 ½ hours long and goes into great detail about the history of and how our money system works. I have to warn you thou, it might change the way you think about being in debt,and the people running our country...

[Zenlitened]

39. Um... not lately!

:D

[mike_c]

43. excellent post-- only 12 percent of folks in my community can afford...

...a median priced home, and despite making a salary that is well over twice the local household average, I'm not one of them.

[Progressive_In_NC]

47. WOW, I spent exactly 2.25 times my income; same as you did in 1972

must be why I don't have trouble making my payments huh?

[Ganja Ninja]

48. If you just go by the cost of building a house - yes we are. n/t

[earth mom]

49. Everyone has to live somewhere and everyone wants to own their own home.

I waited years to get my own house and it's far from the dream home I'd thought I'd get in this location for the amount it's now worth, that 10 or 15 years ago was a jaw dropping small fortune to me. However, I would NOT buy this house for what it's currently worth. Yet, I cannot find a house that's better for the same money or less. I've heard this same refrain from many people in my area: Houses are overpriced but what can you do?

The bottom line is that we all have to live somewhere and for many people the choice of living in their own home even if it's expensive or overpriced is a better choice than renting, since we all know how crappy most rentals are.

[Zookeeper]

50. But, but....if we don't have huge houses, where will we keep...

all of our cheap crap from China? :+

[TahitiNut]

53. Yet Housing, as a percentage of personal consumption, has remained constant at about 15% ...

... since the late 50s.

[Quantess]

55. Interesting...Sort of....

"Durable goods" (not sure what that is) remained steady, medical care went up (not surprising at all), and food went down (surprising).

But then again, I'm not sure what the source is. :shrug:

[TahitiNut]

58. These stats have been tracked for years - Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Commerce Department.

This same statistical set is the basis for monitoring inflation. I don't invent 'em - I graph 'em.

"Durable Goods" include furniture, major appliances - e.g. stoves, refrigerators, washers, dryers - and automobiles.

See http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/nipa_underlying/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=19&FirstYear=2006&LastYear=2007&Freq=Qtr

[Quantess]

59. Thanks. (no text)

[Ilsa]

54. I think there is collusion among real estate agents here to prop up

RE prices, even during down times. I've heard a rumor to that effect, also. I think our housing is over-priced and eats up too much of disposable income.