-“Once real estate in the most expensive cities no longer seemed to be a can’t-miss investment, you might have thought more people would flee, bringing prices down sharply. That would further shrink the gap between a place like San Francisco and one like Sacramento. Instead, the gap is growing again.”
-“What, then, can explain the contours of this housing bust? The best answer is that the sheer scale of the bubble obscured another — in all likelihood, more lasting — trend: despite all the ways that technology has made distance matter less, geography matters more. It may be easier to transport an individual job from [San Francisco to Sacramento], but the value of being in [San Francisco] is actually greater than it used to be.”
-“In recent years, New York, Boston, Washington and San Francisco have widened their lead in household income and educational attainment over much of the rest of the country. So it makes perfect sense that they have widened their lead in housing prices, too.”
-“Mark Zandi, who runs Moody’s Economy.com, has built a statistical model designed to predict the proper level for housing prices in every major metro area. The model is based on population, housing supply, income and various other factors. As of the end of last year, Zandi estimated, prices were still 30 percent too high in much of Florida and roughly 25 percent too high in Las Vegas and Phoenix. But prices looked somewhat more sensible in New York (16 percent overvalued), Los Angeles (10 percent), Washington (9 percent), Boston (7 percent) and San Francisco (6 percent).”
And from an entirely different article in the New York Times, we direct you to yet another reason San Francisco will always attract top level talent, and top level earnings potential.
–Cafe Capitalism, San Francisco Style [New York Times]
–Holding On [New York Times]