But this perpetuates the problem, and makes it much worse for the next generation! You do realize that this can't continue indefinitely, right? I mean, maybe this doesn't bother you, which I suppose is fine. Does it bother you?
Look, you're technically right. I also own a house in California, and am far better off because of it. But it still bothers the hell out of me.
I'd much rather fix the problem in the general case than adopt this "I've got mine, therefore everything is fine" sense of entitlement.
Do you really want to be 90 years old in your $50 million NorCal farmhouse paying your grandfathered in $15,000/year property taxes when everyone else paying $500,000/year decide that enough is enough and torch the place?
A retirement strategy that depends on screwing over a younger generation and hoping that they don't manage to get revenge before you die is a risky bet.
The root of the problem is California is a very desirable place to live, and adding sufficient supply would decrease what makes California so desirable (per the local voting populaces).
The solution is non existent, as you’re not going to be able to come up with more Californias, but people are accepting some pieces of it by moving to various other cities in the West.
Technically right is the same as right.
It is extremely difficult to change all of society. It is honorable to try.
But meanwhile while waiting for that change, the OP could shoot themselves in the foot by renting, or improve life by buying.
But SF housing dropped 30% in 2008. No reason it can’t happen again.
Is there risk? Sure, but its hard to find a 5-10 year period where you lose even if you hit the bottom of one of the drops, which are usually only a year or two from the peak.
Again, not saying you can make good money but there is no reason why the opposite can’t happen.
And yes, you need a ten year time horizon for the risk to be small. By 2014 the SF home prices were above the peak in 2007.