“Unemployment figures are just about irrelevant when you’re dealing with demand for real estate.”
Who would actually agree to that statement?

“If the unemployment number goes up it doesn’t mean less demand and might mean more demand. If the number goes down it doesn’t mean things will be good.”
It’s like saying if it’s warm, it doesn’t mean it is sunny. If it is sunny, doesn’t mean it is warm.

“You really need to look at the number of jobs and how that’s changing. ”
What? What? What?

I don’t think it’s a good idea that you’re posting here…especially if your clients might read your comments.

Actually your information was never correct. I don’t have time to verify this following post’s information, but it should be correct: http://seattlebubble.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=960. You’re using perception as statistics, similar to most people who read the newspaper and suck in the information. The latter part of your entry is simply speculation, and I am sure there is correlation between unemployement with demand for real estate. Some of the biggest real estate bust in American history were followed by huge layoffs. I am not trying to break your comments down, but it doesn’t really float especially for a blog like this.

But in any case, my main point remains. Unemployment figures are just about irrelevant when you’re dealing with demand for real estate. If the unemployment number goes up it doesn’t mean less demand and might mean more demand. If the number goes down it doesn’t mean things will be good. You really need to look at the number of jobs and how that’s changing.

Coincidentally, today, United Van Lines realeased their annual study in households moving statistics. Not the whole picture, but interesting, and probably a statistically valid sample (note, I’m not a statistician).

http://www.unitedvanlines.com/mover/united-newsroom/press-releases/2008/2007-united-van-lines-migration-study.htm

It shows that WA state is holding about even, some states are bleeding population (Michigan, Ohio), and others are increasing rapidly, mostly in the South (N & S Carolina, Tenn.). The most curious migration is from N. Dakota to S. Dakota! What’s that all about?

The Seattle Bubble stats are interesting, (October 07)but they do seem to verify that employment is better here than in most other metro markets. Nice data, good graphs.

Let’s hope it stays good.

So the employment here is better than average, but people are clearly not coming here in droves, driving up (or even maintaining) home prices, and only slightly increasing rental rates and occupancy.

Could it be that retirees do not find it so attactive to live here? Maybe it’s traffic? Maybe it’s the winters?

That may account for the trend southward. Maybe those North Dakotans are just on the leading edge of a national trend, heading south for warmer weather!

PS, it would be nice to see an overlay of housing price change with the United moving data (beyond my capabilities). Certainly there would be a correlation in Michigan and Ohio, but how do you explain Nevada, with high in migration, and above average falling house prices?

These local employers are merely maintaining, neither local population or local employment is increasing above other metropolitan cities. It’s great to toss these “assumptions” by calling out big local players to friends and local clients who are not in tune with the specifics, but it’s getting old for blogs like this.

Stated differently, it doesn’t matter so much that our unemployment level was between 3 and 4 percent at any given point. What’s more important is how many local jobs companies like Microsoft and Amazon add (or subtract). People moving into the area is what raises the demand for rentals, condos and houses.

As a matter of fact, you could have situations where rising unemployment was actually good for demand–at least demand for rentals. Where news of a strong job market brings unemployed people here hoping to get a new job, that can raise demand. Even while unemployed, they need a place to live.