10 years...no gain in home prices

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Taking into account inflation, home prices are actually lower than they were 10 years ago, according to a report from the National Association of Realtors released Wednesday.

The median home price in November 1999 was $137,600, NAR said, and by November 2009 it had risen 25% to $172,600. But with cumulative effect of inflation, prices are actually 3% lower in real terms.

The good news is that wages have risen in the past 10 years, so homes are now affordable than they had been, especially at the height of the boom in the middle of this decade, said Walter Molony, a spokesman for the Realtors.

The median home price peaked in June of 2006 at $231,000. (See how much you gained on your home.)

There have been other changes in the workings of the housing market over the past 10 years: More house hunting is now done online, a greater percentage of the homes purchased are in the suburbs and more multi-family home units -- condos, townhouses and coops -- are being bought.

There has also been an increase in the number of single folks buying homes on their own. Back in 1999, single men accounted for 9% of all home sales and single women 18%. It was families who formed the big majority of buyers, 66%, with unmarried couple at 6%.

Today, the number of single men buyers is up a point to 10% while single women are quite a bit more active in the market, making 21% of all purchases in 2009. The market share of families dropped to 60% and unmarried couple purchased 8% of all homes sold. 

**** **** ****

From this JUNK commercial propaganda, here arise at least 2 questions deserve our furhter examination:

1. It is one of the conventional wisdom: real estate is the BEST hedge vehicle against INFLATION.  Is it no longer a truth?  If in fact its real "price" is decreased 3%, do you think anyone should buy real estate?  As a realtor or agent with conscience, you won't recommend others to buy them and should advise everyone to avoid buying a property like plague, right or wrong?

Okay, let's assume NAR is correct in stating "housing price is cheaper."  If it is the case, then why we have to buy?  It is a bad investment compared to other investment.  Does here NAR impliedly suggest us not to do it? Ouch! "good help from NAR," Benanke should say. 

Furthermore, there are so many angles for us to "touch" an elephane.  Value or Price is a relative noun, not an absolute term.  From which base NAR claimed housing price is less? Enclosed herewith for reference is an article doing the opposite in terms of real household income to claim it is too expensive:

Buying a Home in America today is Expensive Thanks to the Banking Sector: Examining Income and Home Prices from 1950 to the Present. Can Home Prices Fall Another 38 Percent?

2. What's "our American value of family" as claimed by GWB to protect? Marriage is a promise broken.  From the figures provided above, you can get the reality that it is norm for average JOE to stay away from getting married, at least to avoid so-called "marriage penalty," right or wrong?