Amgen needs to move to Texas

Here’s the difference…in 5 years the $4M WLV house will be selling fir $6M and your $600k house in TX will be selling fir $700k.

 

I think your numbers are as inflated as our current economy. You need to take into consideration that California went through a mass exodus (you lost 2 congressional seats due to 2020 Census). That mass exodus is not over. People are STILL leaving your state at a high level.

What happens to that California house when you have a housing busts? You also need to take into consideration COLA.

I would rather pay on the 600k mortgage vs. the 4 million dollar mortgage. Most of the people who work in TO commute into HQ. I am sure most are happy to still be working out of their INLAND homes or apartments.

 

How is a 2 million increase in population a mass exodus? Do you idiots think before you type these things? Assuming that people from home office live in the Inland Empire is foolish. That is a 2 hour drive to TO. Each point made by you fools is dumber than the last. We know that you want to believe that the home office people cannot afford our lives, but each time that we move to a new position our pay is increased. We don't have to wait on that wonderful 1.5% per year. A top PHD or MBA's earning power is much higher than you peons from the field. The person was correct. That $4 Million home will be worth 5 - 6 Million, easily. $600,000 in Texas, there is a high likelihood that you may not break even after selling in 5 years.

 

So you basically need to earn triple in Ca to have the same standard of living in Tx.

 

you stay in Texas, you stay in California. Problem solved. Now shut up, you're both embarrassing yourselves .

 

Let's run the numbers:

Take two people. Both make the same income (and will continue to make equal pay for 30 yrs), identical credit score, exact cash in saving.

First Person lives in TO and wants to purchase a 6 million dollar house in WLV or TO. They decide to put 25% down ($1,500,000) and take a loan for the remaining $4,500,000. They get a 4% (yes I know rates run now between 3-4%) rate on a 30 year fixed loan. Their monthly payment (before property tax or insurance) will be $21,484. Over 1 year they will pay $257,808. Over 5 years they will pay $1,289,040.

Second Person lives in Texas and wants to purchase a 6 million dollar house in Woodlands/Houston area. They decide to put 25% down ($150,0000) and take a loan for the remaining $450,000. They get a 4% rate on a 30 year fixed loan. Their monthly payment (before property tax or insurance) will be $2,148. Over 1 year they will pay $25,776. Over 5 years they will pay $128,880.

The difference in monthly payment for each person per month is $19,336. Let's now say that Second Person take that $19,336 and saves it. Over one year they would save $232,032. Over 5 years they would save $1,160,160.

Depending upon investments and the market, Second Person could invest that amount and easily turn it into 2 million in 5 years.

The questions then begs to answer, "what happens after year 5"? Person Two is investing $19,336 per month into the market vs the First Person that is only putting it into their mortgage. Over 30 years the Second Person will have saved 6,960,960. That amount could easily double or triple depending upon the smart investments.

I would rather be the Second Person in Texas that has more money to invest. They also don't have their fortune tied up in their house.

Show me how the Second Person in Texas makes less on the investment vs First Person in TO?

 

Your theory is ridiculous.

If I am purchasing a house for 4 Mil. You are out of your mind if you believe that I would consider one in another state for $600,000. The same goes for someone in TX. If that person can afford one for $4 Mil, then will look at something around $2 Mil. Your scenario is highly unlikely. If you are likely to purchase a $600K house in TX then you are probably looking in Camarillo, Moorpark, Newbury Park, or cheaper options in Agoura, Calabasas, and Westlake. for TO living.

 

Another World Wide Web Security Guard. Don't like what you are seeing. Don't read it or STFU, Lt. of the Internet Patrol.

 

Very well said!

 

Your example is that the TO person as no other money to be investing that month. If you can afford a $4M house you more likely than not, have funds for the equities markets to be invested. Also you are acting like the Texas person has that $19k to invest each month, my guess is if they are buying a $600k home that is what they can afford as clearly there are multi million dollar homes in Texas.

 

Maybe they only spend $600k on a house in Texas because they don’t need more than 4200 sq ft and/or that house is paid off....would rather spend that money on something else like kids college? I can wake up from a drunken stupor and rattle off a half dozen solid reasons a person who could afford a million dollar home decides to spend $600k instead.

 

I think what they are trying to say is that they can’t afford a $4 million house. But the house they can afford in Texas compared to a similar area as Westlake Village would be worth $4 million.

I had a marketing VP from Carlsbad work with me years ago.....her phone was dying and she left her charger in her hotel room. We were 5 minutes from my house so we swung by to grab an extra. She couldn’t believe a field rep lived so well.

 

No, what I was doing was comparing apples to apples. Take two people that are completely identical and will spend or invest the same amount of money per month. Put one in Texas and one in California. The Texan's investment opportunities are greater.

I was answering the previous poster that was saying that a 6 million dollar house in California was better than a 600k house in Texas. I disagreed and proved it with simple math. The Texan will come out on top.

 

“they are buying a $600k home that is what they can afford”......you know......there are some people who live well below their means because they would rather live in a very nice paid off home instead of living in a more expensive very nice home and be a slave to debt. These people who define wealth as what you have left over after paying their bills exist....really....I promise.

 

Math is clearly not your thing, nor is logic, and from the sounds of neither is wealth.

So a person making enough to afford a $6M house in Texas is going to buy a $600K house? I understand people living below their means, but that is quite a stretch. With that logic why not buy a $200k house and really sock it away. Heck buy a four plex and live in one and rent the other units out? Your linear example has more flaws than an Amgen IC forecast. Your equity market assumptions and housing market assumptions are wildly inaccurate. As is your amortization schedule.

 

If I can just get off of this L.A. freeway
Without gettin' killed or caught
I'll be down the road in a cloud of smoke
To some land I ain't bought, bought, bought

 

OK so the size of the home is the definer of a ‘nice home’. I would rather live in 2500 sq foot home with an ocean view built in the 1920’s giving it a lot of character and you want to live in a new build planned development in a 6000sq foot cookie cutter.

Real Estate is all about location…and if Texas was that desirable the real estate would be more valuable like CA.

 

Or you don’t have a bunch of environmentalists opposing new development.

 

Or labor unions driving up labor costs

 

That sounds like the place I rented right out of college when I got my first job.