80s & 90s sitcoms. Middle class families from those shows would today be priced out of their houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Cosby show house

He ran his own OBGYN practice and I’m pretty sure she was a partner in her law firm. I don’t think it would be unrealistic for such a couple to buy that home.

That show was the most realistic. Two professional elites owning their own home in a large metro. In today's world they'd clear 750K/year+ easily in a bad year (350 + 400).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t Full House take place in SF?

yes!

SF is SO different from Full House's days...

They owned a painted lady house- those were always out of the reach of all but the most well off UMC families

What did the Bob Saget character do? Wasn’t he a newscaster/sportscaster? I was too old to watch that show.

yes, he was the host of a local morning news show "Wake up San Francisco."

When the show started, he covered local sports, and already owned the painted lady house. Those jobs don't pay that well, either (I mean, they're solid jobs, but the 28yo at the sports desk isn't making bank).

The house was recently on the market for $6 million. In 1990, it sold for $725K. https://www.google.com/amp/s/money.com/full-house-for-sale/%3Famp%3Dtrue

$6 million seems low to me. I know that’s crazy but it does.

Adjusted for unflation, the cost in 1990 was about $1.5 million. Shows the run up in SF real estate, but that was never a “middle class” house.

He also had 3 other adults living in the house whom I assumed contributed at least something to the household finances. You can live in a house well above your means when you're renting out half the bedrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Cosby show house

He ran his own OBGYN practice and I’m pretty sure she was a partner in her law firm. I don’t think it would be unrealistic for such a couple to buy that home.

That show was the most realistic. Two professional elites owning their own home in a large metro. In today's world they'd clear 750K/year+ easily in a bad year (350 + 400).

They'd make way more than that. She'd probably make 1.5M to 2M. Not sure what OBs make, but I'd think one running and owning a practice could make seven figures also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Cosby show house

He ran his own OBGYN practice and I’m pretty sure she was a partner in her law firm. I don’t think it would be unrealistic for such a couple to buy that home.

That show was the most realistic. Two professional elites owning their own home in a large metro. In today's world they'd clear 750K/year+ easily in a bad year (350 + 400).

They'd make way more than that. She'd probably make 1.5M to 2M. Not sure what OBs make, but I'd think one running and owning a practice could make seven figures also.

I think those numbers are for 3-4 years out of grad school - when they would have bought; they'd make substantial more by the time the kids grew older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but I’m told I’m entitled for wanting a nice home with my good salary.

Fed and bank policies caused an unprecedented increase in home values in the last 25 or so years. (The primary beneficiaries were the boomers of course.) Once those home values go up in major metropolitan areas, they rarely go back down significantly. I don’t see it happening in DC anytime soon. Unfortunately, some generations got more screwed over than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Cosby show house

He ran his own OBGYN practice and I’m pretty sure she was a partner in her law firm. I don’t think it would be unrealistic for such a couple to buy that home.

The actual house sold in 2015 for 10.2 million dollars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but I’m told I’m entitled for wanting a nice home with my good salary.

Fed and bank policies caused an unprecedented increase in home values in the last 25 or so years. (The primary beneficiaries were the boomers of course.) Once those home values go up in major metropolitan areas, they rarely go back down significantly. I don’t see it happening in DC anytime soon. Unfortunately, some generations got more screwed over than others.

The housing bubble started January 1, 2000, up till then homes were just a hedge against inflation. After 9/11 housing stalled shortly and was not till 2002 it took off. Then we had 2009-2011 correction.

I bought my first home Feb 2000, I paid $278k. Brand new in 1954 was $13,500. The first 45 years rose in value in average $5877 a year. Steady rise.

However, from 2000 to 2005 my home shot up to $540k. Around 52,000 a year. In 2000 the youngest boomer was born 1964 making him or her 36. First time buyers were mainly Gen x.

My old house rose in value from 2000 to 2005 the same $ amount it did from 1954 to 2000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t Full House take place in SF?

yes!

SF is SO different from Full House's days...

They owned a painted lady house- those were always out of the reach of all but the most well off UMC families

What did the Bob Saget character do? Wasn’t he a newscaster/sportscaster? I was too old to watch that show.

yes, he was the host of a local morning news show "Wake up San Francisco."

When the show started, he covered local sports, and already owned the painted lady house. Those jobs don't pay that well, either (I mean, they're solid jobs, but the 28yo at the sports desk isn't making bank).

The house was recently on the market for $6 million. In 1990, it sold for $725K. https://www.google.com/amp/s/money.com/full-house-for-sale/%3Famp%3Dtrue

$6 million seems low to me. I know that’s crazy but it does.

Adjusted for unflation, the cost in 1990 was about $1.5 million. Shows the run up in SF real estate, but that was never a “middle class” house.

He also had 3 other adults living in the house whom I assumed contributed at least something to the household finances. You can live in a house well above your means when you're renting out half the bedrooms.

He bought the house before they lived there. But maybe his wife made a lot of money. I don't think they ever said what she did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but I’m told I’m entitled for wanting a nice home with my good salary.

Fed and bank policies caused an unprecedented increase in home values in the last 25 or so years. (The primary beneficiaries were the boomers of course.) Once those home values go up in major metropolitan areas, they rarely go back down significantly. I don’t see it happening in DC anytime soon. Unfortunately, some generations got more screwed over than others.

The housing bubble started January 1, 2000, up till then homes were just a hedge against inflation. After 9/11 housing stalled shortly and was not till 2002 it took off. Then we had 2009-2011 correction.

I bought my first home Feb 2000, I paid $278k. Brand new in 1954 was $13,500. The first 45 years rose in value in average $5877 a year. Steady rise.

However, from 2000 to 2005 my home shot up to $540k. Around 52,000 a year. In 2000 the youngest boomer was born 1964 making him or her 36. First time buyers were mainly Gen x.

My old house rose in value from 2000 to 2005 the same $ amount it did from 1954 to 2000.

Yeah this is pretty consistent with what I’m saying. I’m Gen X and played it smart so was able to get a foothold. But boomers (as usual) made out like bandits, and generations younger than X got totally screwed.

I think most people don’t realize how much this country screwed the younger generations by allowing home values to get so insane. Many young people (who don’t have parents who will give them $$$ or homes) just won’t be able to become home owners anytime in the next few decades because we let the prices get way too high. (And the policy decisions to let prices get so crazy were made at the top by the ruling class. They knew what they were doing.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but I’m told I’m entitled for wanting a nice home with my good salary.

Fed and bank policies caused an unprecedented increase in home values in the last 25 or so years. (The primary beneficiaries were the boomers of course.) Once those home values go up in major metropolitan areas, they rarely go back down significantly. I don’t see it happening in DC anytime soon. Unfortunately, some generations got more screwed over than others.

The housing bubble started January 1, 2000, up till then homes were just a hedge against inflation. After 9/11 housing stalled shortly and was not till 2002 it took off. Then we had 2009-2011 correction.

I bought my first home Feb 2000, I paid $278k. Brand new in 1954 was $13,500. The first 45 years rose in value in average $5877 a year. Steady rise.

However, from 2000 to 2005 my home shot up to $540k. Around 52,000 a year. In 2000 the youngest boomer was born 1964 making him or her 36. First time buyers were mainly Gen x.

My old house rose in value from 2000 to 2005 the same $ amount it did from 1954 to 2000.

Yeah this is pretty consistent with what I’m saying. I’m Gen X and played it smart so was able to get a foothold. But boomers (as usual) made out like bandits, and generations younger than X got totally screwed.

I think most people don’t realize how much this country screwed the younger generations by allowing home values to get so insane. Many young people (who don’t have parents who will give them $$$ or homes) just won’t be able to become home owners anytime in the next few decades because we let the prices get way too high. (And the policy decisions to let prices get so crazy were made at the top by the ruling class. They knew what they were doing.)

Not even a home in flyover country?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but I’m told I’m entitled for wanting a nice home with my good salary.

Fed and bank policies caused an unprecedented increase in home values in the last 25 or so years. (The primary beneficiaries were the boomers of course.) Once those home values go up in major metropolitan areas, they rarely go back down significantly. I don’t see it happening in DC anytime soon. Unfortunately, some generations got more screwed over than others.

The housing bubble started January 1, 2000, up till then homes were just a hedge against inflation. After 9/11 housing stalled shortly and was not till 2002 it took off. Then we had 2009-2011 correction.

I bought my first home Feb 2000, I paid $278k. Brand new in 1954 was $13,500. The first 45 years rose in value in average $5877 a year. Steady rise.

However, from 2000 to 2005 my home shot up to $540k. Around 52,000 a year. In 2000 the youngest boomer was born 1964 making him or her 36. First time buyers were mainly Gen x.

My old house rose in value from 2000 to 2005 the same $ amount it did from 1954 to 2000.

Yeah this is pretty consistent with what I’m saying. I’m Gen X and played it smart so was able to get a foothold. But boomers (as usual) made out like bandits, and generations younger than X got totally screwed.

I think most people don’t realize how much this country screwed the younger generations by allowing home values to get so insane. Many young people (who don’t have parents who will give them $$$ or homes) just won’t be able to become home owners anytime in the next few decades because we let the prices get way too high. (And the policy decisions to let prices get so crazy were made at the top by the ruling class. They knew what they were doing.)

Not even a home in flyover country?

I mean for sure everything is shades of gray. Less popular locations will generally be less expensive. But, as a gen Xer, I genuinely can’t believe how bad we’ve screwed our younger generations. It was a choice that policy makers made. Sure, some millenials and younger will get money from their parents. But what about the ones who don’t? They’re just gonna get screwed out of important lifetime opportunities because their parents weren’t rich?

And I think the answer is yes. Yes they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t Full House take place in SF?

yes!

SF is SO different from Full House's days...

They owned a painted lady house- those were always out of the reach of all but the most well off UMC families

What did the Bob Saget character do? Wasn’t he a newscaster/sportscaster? I was too old to watch that show.

yes, he was the host of a local morning news show "Wake up San Francisco."

When the show started, he covered local sports, and already owned the painted lady house. Those jobs don't pay that well, either (I mean, they're solid jobs, but the 28yo at the sports desk isn't making bank).

The house was recently on the market for $6 million. In 1990, it sold for $725K. https://www.google.com/amp/s/money.com/full-house-for-sale/%3Famp%3Dtrue

Whether he owned or rented was actually talked about on the show? Maybe he used his deceased wife’s life insurance to purchase it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Cosby show house

He ran his own OBGYN practice and I’m pretty sure she was a partner in her law firm. I don’t think it would be unrealistic for such a couple to buy that home.

That show was the most realistic. Two professional elites owning their own home in a large metro. In today's world they'd clear 750K/year+ easily in a bad year (350 + 400).

They'd make way more than that. She'd probably make 1.5M to 2M. Not sure what OBs make, but I'd think one running and owning a practice could make seven figures also.

I think those numbers are for 3-4 years out of grad school - when they would have bought; they'd make substantial more by the time the kids grew older.

What's unrealistic is how they raised 5 kids while in med school/law school and while establishing two time intensive careers, apparently without the help of a nanny, housekeeper, or other consistent help. The invisible labor is invisible.

[Anonymous]

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/8970-Cooper-Ave-Flushing-NY-11374/32002078_zpid/

750K

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but I’m told I’m entitled for wanting a nice home with my good salary.

Fed and bank policies caused an unprecedented increase in home values in the last 25 or so years. (The primary beneficiaries were the boomers of course.) Once those home values go up in major metropolitan areas, they rarely go back down significantly. I don’t see it happening in DC anytime soon. Unfortunately, some generations got more screwed over than others.

The housing bubble started January 1, 2000, up till then homes were just a hedge against inflation. After 9/11 housing stalled shortly and was not till 2002 it took off. Then we had 2009-2011 correction.

I bought my first home Feb 2000, I paid $278k. Brand new in 1954 was $13,500. The first 45 years rose in value in average $5877 a year. Steady rise.

However, from 2000 to 2005 my home shot up to $540k. Around 52,000 a year. In 2000 the youngest boomer was born 1964 making him or her 36. First time buyers were mainly Gen x.

My old house rose in value from 2000 to 2005 the same $ amount it did from 1954 to 2000.

Yeah this is pretty consistent with what I’m saying. I’m Gen X and played it smart so was able to get a foothold. But boomers (as usual) made out like bandits, and generations younger than X got totally screwed.

I think most people don’t realize how much this country screwed the younger generations by allowing home values to get so insane. Many young people (who don’t have parents who will give them $$$ or homes) just won’t be able to become home owners anytime in the next few decades because we let the prices get way too high. (And the policy decisions to let prices get so crazy were made at the top by the ruling class. They knew what they were doing.)

Not even a home in flyover country?

I mean for sure everything is shades of gray. Less popular locations will generally be less expensive. But, as a gen Xer, I genuinely can’t believe how bad we’ve screwed our younger generations. It was a choice that policy makers made. Sure, some millenials and younger will get money from their parents. But what about the ones who don’t? They’re just gonna get screwed out of important lifetime opportunities because their parents weren’t rich?

And I think the answer is yes. Yes they are.

Amazing how instead of creating something new and original they have literally stolen everything from previous generations such as music, fashion etc...

But the 1 thing that they were unable to steal from previous generations was real estate.