That was a really nice overview. One thing to consider though, when you gain more expertise through experience, you typically gain more income. Of course, most of the time, homes tend to appreciate as well.
But to the point, it's best not to burden yourself too much with a home. I bought mine in my late 20s. My criteria was that I didn't ever want to move again (and could fit a pool table), so I bought a house big enough for a family to live comfortably that I could reasonably afford in my late 20s. It's worked out so far.
> bought a house big enough for a family to live comfortably that I could reasonably afford in my late 20s.
Well, we'd all love to do that, but where? (That was a rhetorical question, I personally moved to Edinburgh and bought an affordable family house in my late 30s)
I remember a website tracking London affordability that pointed out that in some years price appreciation made it literally impossible to save for a house: the value (maybe even the minimum deposit) went up faster than average income.
Even if house values (or even 20% deposits) are going up faster than incomes, you can still save towards a house.
Imagine a $1MM house, with a $200K minimum deposit, $135K of household income. If that house goes up by 5% per year ($50K, $10K deposit), your income never goes up, and you save 8% or more of your income towards a down payment, you are still making headway towards the down payment. If you save 15-20% of your income, you are making substantial progress towards the down payment.
Scale the numbers up/down as you wish to fit your particular area/situation, but if the house is affordable by traditional mortgage underwriting requirements, it seems like it's possible to save for the downpayment in scenarios that I explored.
"The average length of time for a single first-time buyer to save a 15% deposit in the fourth quarter of 2016 was a whole year longer than in the fourth quarter of 2015"
I think what you've said is only true asssuming that you can always afford to increase the portion of your income that you spend on housing.
If housing prices increase faster than your income does, there will come a time when you must spend 100% of your income on housing. If prices increase further, you will be unable to pay. In practice, you will be unable to pay long before then.
Nowhere! If you're in SF, move out to the east bay
Besides that, hope residents use legislation to balance out the market... progressive taxes in aesthetically pleasing areas, education/public transportation in economically competitive areas, condos/up-zoning in popular urban areas.
I live in Oakland. Oakland is composed dozens of distinct areas, with wildly varying crime rates. Adjectives like OK and sketchy don't begin to describe its complexity.
If crime is your major fear there are several places with crime rates that are low. Conversely there are areas with very high crime rates.
If you don't know which is which, ask a local whom you trust for advice and maybe a tour. It's an incredible place to live but one that will challenge any simplistic description.
But to the point, it's best not to burden yourself too much with a home. I bought mine in my late 20s. My criteria was that I didn't ever want to move again (and could fit a pool table), so I bought a house big enough for a family to live comfortably that I could reasonably afford in my late 20s. It's worked out so far.