Friday, May 9, 2008 4:46:49 PM
Yeah its all about location. Once again people are taking commute time into the equation. I would rather have a box in times square than a castle in Mexico. Its all about location, not the actual house. As people have said lower price = lower wage
Friday, May 9, 2008 4:45:55 PM
they are comparing in city houses to houses out in open country, where i live ~washington state usa~ 500k will get you houses about the size of those in the picture with land farther then you can see. There is a hockey player that lives on the MOUNTAIN beside our city, basically owns the entire mountain, has an olympic pool, hockey rink, full size basketball court, more rooms then most people can count, as well as owning half the entire mountain for only 2 million dollars. So ya, compare areas to areas, how much does a house in Rome, or Paris cities cost, like inside the city ?
Sure you could live in a castle in South Africa but you'll still have to work in California/New York/etc. Either that or you`ll have to be rich. Maybe if you bought such property outright you could afford taxes and whatnot, but there`s a reason why you don`t see people moving from apartments into castles very often.