10 replies to this topic

[Steve Heard]

Cleveland requires $19K annual salary? That's less than $10 per hour. 

 

For San Francisco, on the other hand, you have to make $115K, that is, according to the article in HSH.com

 

Take a look: 

 

http://www.hsh.com/finance/mortgage/cleveland-19435.17.html 

[SacKen]

... which is the #1 reason why national pay scales and tax brackets are ridiculous notions.

 

BTW, link no worky. Should be:

 

http://www.hsh.com/f...-25-cities.html

[Stop South of 50]

Where's Detroit?  Too low of an income needed.

 

I wonder what the monthly payment for a 30yr is on a home that's $100?

 

http://www.realtor.c...&ex=MI564036377

[rip]

Cleveland requires $19K annual salary? That's less than $10 per hour. 

 

 

Yeah, but then you'd have to live in Cleveland.  

[Redone]

Sorry, but you can't buy a  $112,800 home on  $10 an hour in Cleveland or anywhere else.      If you read page 1 of this article the assumptions are   20% down and  principal and interest only.     Doesn't include  property taxes or homeowners insurance , etc.

 

It's a good read to find the median home prices though.

[Steve Heard]

Sorry, but you can't buy a  $112,800 home on  $10 an hour in Cleveland or anywhere else.      If you read page 1 of this article the assumptions are   20% down and  principal and interest only.     Doesn't include  property taxes or homeowners insurance , etc.

 

It's a good read to find the median home prices though.

 

Dammit. I guess I'll cancel my one-way ticket to Cleveland...and ask for my job back.   

[Redone]

Maybe  2 people making $10 an hour can buy.   

[chris v]

Sorry, but you can't buy a  $112,800 home on  $10 an hour in Cleveland or anywhere else.      If you read page 1 of this article the assumptions are   20% down and  principal and interest only.     Doesn't include  property taxes or homeowners insurance , etc.
 
It's a good read to find the median home prices though.

Probably not, but I did buy my first home for $40k while making $7/hour.

[tony]

Yeah, but then you'd have to live in Cleveland.  

Hey! Easy on my home town!  Yeah, I know, I left, but not because I didn't like it there. 

 

Interestingly, my aunt just sold her house in suburban Cleveland, "as-is" for $70,000. It's identical to and down the street from this one: http://www.zillow.co.../33715628_zpid/ but had not had any significant upgrades since 1952. But note the 10,000 SF lot size! My folks bought their 1500 SF house in Cleveland in 1953 (on the same street) for $12,000 (with $3000 down), which is now worth < $90,000.  Of course, in 1953 you probably could have bought in LA for what my parents paid in Cleveland. 

[Redone]

That's interesting that a home in Cleveland was $12,000 in 1953.   Palo Alto was probably the same price back then and  would be worth 2 million not $90,000.     

[tony]

That's interesting that a home in Cleveland was $12,000 in 1953.   Palo Alto was probably the same price back then and  would be worth 2 million not $90,000.     

Well, that was about the peak for Cleveland (and Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cincinnati, St. Louis and other rust belt cities), when it was the 7th largest city in the US, Detroit was 5th, and San Jose was not in the top 100 (it was 64th in metro area; I think San Jose did some major annexation after 1950) (Sacramento was 67th).  Now Cleveland is 48th, Detroit 18th, San Jose 10th, and Sacramento 35th.That has some bearing on the different paths of housing prices in the various cities.