- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia
- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia
You must log in or register to comment.
i’m over half, and expecting yet another rent increase soon.
Who are the half that make the 7 figures required to not spend half your income on housing?
Did they just fully make up have the surveyed population?
$1400/mo, the rough figure from the article, is 30% of $56k/yr. If you made $1m, 30% of that would give you $25,000/mo. How do you figure?
Median household is apparently 80k now. 30 percent of that monthly is 2,000.
In my city 2,000 will rent you an infested place with water damage from the flood a year ago. But if the city comes around you have to pretend not to live there or else they’ll kick you out.
Don’t forget that household income is everyone in the house. So if you are all poor college kids with part time jobs making 15-20k a year your household income will still be close to or at the median, even though each of you are individually really poor
That’s not nearly the normal though. Dual income households are the norm by far.
Sure but any part time jobs the kids have also count towards median household income I assume
That’s like a 2 year period in an 18 year living situation.
Kids live at home a lot longer now 😂 way more than two years haha
I wonder if it’s net or gross.
Besides, it’s not seven figures, just mid-six figures necessary for that.
The typical “30% on income” advice is based on gross, not net. Which is about 93,000 a year for the median mortgage payment right now.
Maybe roommates?
Just to point out, with the median mortgage at $2349 a month, it’s more like you need a household income of $93,000 a year (probably closer to $100k with utilities and other expenses) for your housing costs to equal 30% of your income. That is steep for a lot of people, but still much more attainable than 7 figures. A quick Google says that makes up around 37% of US households as of 2022. Still doesn’t quite add up to their figures, admittedly, unless “nearly half” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
I lived in a place that cost 800$ a month for a room in the bay area and I was taking home more than 60% of my income working full time.
It’s doable, and it doesn’t mean only rich people aren’t rent burdened…
You don’t need remotely close to that income level. 200k household income will get you a nice home at a reasonable price.
Oh yeah just 2.5 times the median household income, no problem. Hey while we’re here can I have a million dollar loan?
Never said it was inexpensive. It’s just not nearly as expensive as you all make it seem. 15% of the country does hit this number and 25% are close.
Y’all out pretending nobody is buying houses.
No no we know people are buying houses. It’s just hard to compete when that person is Black Rock and they bought an entire development before it even hit the market.
Corporate owners own less than 4% of single family homes.
It’s not okay and that does put pressure on the market. We should strive to minimize that.
It’s not the hellscape you want it to be. $2500/mo still buys you a 2400sq ft home in a nice neighborhood in moderate CoL areas. Again that price is out of reach for many, but home ownership rates for Gen Z is higher than millennials when adjusted for age. Most of America own their homes.
It really doesn’t mean anything to say what a home might cost in a certain area, without specifying that area. People can’t just move across the country, because they don’t have jobs. And if you’re putting them in a situation where they would have to commute an hour and a half each way, that has its own set of issues.
The numbers that you include look nice, but I’ve seen a lot of other numbers that don’t look nice. Obviously this all depends where you live, how much money you have, and what kind of place you want to buy.
And yet the home ownership rates increase.
Again, it’s far from perfect. Not the hellscape described. Again, MOST (Almost 70%), will own their homes when they retire.
Well that’s a flat out lie. CoreLogic straight up tells anyone willing to read that investors own 20-30 percent of housing in every state. And they’re 30 percent of the purchasing for houses on the market every month.
If you move outside the city, shit gets much, much cheaper. Mortgages are easily $1,750/mo ($300k, 30yr, tax + insurance included). If your goal is to live in NYC or Seattle, you will be spending quite a bit on your chosen lifestyle. If your goal instead is to buy/rent an affordable 2-3br home, there are lots of options.
Ugh. I get really annoyed when people defend egregious housing prices with the “just live in a shitty place, in a shitty location, in the middle of a food desert, far from economic opportunities, social interactions, public transportation, and you can afford it” argument
Lol yeah exactly… Its such a brain dead take.
F
I live 10 miles outside of Seattle and have never once spent more than 30% on rent.
There are a lot of unanswered questions here: what size is the place where you live? What is your income? How many people live with you and what is the collective income? How long is your commute? How long is the commute of the others who live with you, if there are any? What local amenities are available?
Not only that I’d be curious if 1) you’re required to own a car and all the costs associated with it, 2) the only thing really out there is chain restaurants and chain stores? 3) the only “entertainment” is a massive movie theater, and maybe a bowling alley.
Move far, far outside of populated areas and you don’t even need a mortgage.
Also known as The Unabomber Rental Mitigation Technique.
Kaczynski was unironically right about a number of things, criminal activity aside.
Like avoiding high rent by living in a shack in the woods!
Actually yes. Really. True peace is not having debt or ongoing payments being demanded of you. Living in an apartment in a city sounds like hell.
I’d rather live where it doesn’t take an ambulance or a fire truck two hours to get to me, but you do you.
“If you live where the jobs aren’t, you can afford a house.”
Cool.
The trades (electricians, etc) pay well and are in demand basically everywhere. The jobs are out there.
Ah, so this has become, “if you don’t want to pay high rent, get trained to be an electrician, then move out to some shithole, then buy a house.”
Let’s see… this says that trade school to become an electrician costs between $3000 and $19,000, so enjoy that debt- https://www.bobvila.com/articles/electrician-school-cost/
This says it then takes nine months to two years to get your trade school training, then 4,000 to 12,000 hours as an apprentice to become an electrician- https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/how-long-does-it-take-to-become-an-electrician
You’re right, this is totally a doable plan for most people to pay less rent money. Eventually.
Lets put these all together then:
- You have a 2-3 br home you pay $1,750/mo mortgage for
- You are an Electrician Apprentice, making a median salary of $57k
- You have very reasonable student loans between $3k and $19k (your number)
- You will be a full blown electrician in 2-7 years (your number, 4,000 to 12,000 hours, full time)
I don’t know about you, but that all sounds quite reasonable. That is a nice home, student loans that are very affordable and will be paid off soon, a good job, and a promising career path. You own your home, meaning you are building equity. And, hell, you can even rent out one of the bedrooms to vastly lower that already reasonable monthly mortgage.
This may not be what you specifically want in life, but it is a very achievable goal and a comfortable life for the average man.
Yes. Very reasonable. You just need to find a way to afford rent and food for you and your kids for those seven years, at least a couple of which you won’t be earning the sort of money you could earn to move out to Shitsville, Nowhere and buy a modest home.
I’m guessing your next piece of advice would be: just don’t have kids. Because women can just vacuum those back up once they come out.
Huh, it’s like planning ahead isn’t even a thing.
Once the kid situation hits then yeah, it’s harder to make planning decisions, people’s options are limited at that point. I agree we should help people in those circumstances, but I also think we should help people make plans which avoid painting themselves into a corner.
Where are you finding a livable home for 300k? I live in a rural area, and I love it here, but you’re never going to find a house for 300k unless you’re willing to put another 150k into stripping it down to the studs and renovating it.
Detroit Metro area. That’s what I did. Went from a $3400 rent to a $1800 mortgage. House is in great condition but I do have plans to remodel it, no rush.
They are rare but they are out there.
I was able to find a home for about $320k about 15 miles from the city. I searched for two years. My interest rate is shit. But hey, I have a house!
It was fully renovated.
I’m not saying the market isn’t shit. Because it is due to fucking investors.
I know I am lucky to have a job that pays well, even though it hasn’t kept up with inflation. I know that this isn’t the case for everyone and I’d be willing to take a hit on my home value if it meant others could buy a home too.
But my neighbors don’t feel the same way.
Now add in the cost of a car
And the cost of time spent commuting 2-3h each way to and from work every day
The last time we moved we actually did this. Kept us from paying more bills to commute longer. I highly recommend figuring out your monthly gas/mass transit bill and adding that to the price of places you’re comparing.
Also, commuting time. If you have young kids but you don’t get home until 7:30, you’re going to spend very little time on them. And possibly a lot on child care.
But even if you’re not a parent, long commutes, by car, by public transit, or both can be pretty stressful after a long day at work.
deleted by creator
same. I remember being told 1/3 was the ideal, and thinking “you aren’t spending twice that?”
Yup, and every time you get a raise it’s offset by rent. Fun times
I’m wondering if the people in this thread who are saying they pay less than 30% of their income on rent as if it’s some sort of trick or achievement actually understand percentages since they don’t seem to understand that the “nearly half” part of the headline puts them in the majority…
Same people that refuse a pay raise because they don’t understand the core concept of tax tables.
I don’t know anyone spending less than half of their income on housing.
i spent roughly 40% on average last year. this year my insurance has spiked more than 60% so thats history
You live in Florida?
no. texas
they make your walls so thin so you can hear your landlord masturbating to this
I actually thought 30% housing was the norm for the past 10 years?
The goal but never the reality.
Ideally rent should be 1/4th or less of your budget
LOL
deleted by creator
My rent doubled in five years.
The place I used to rent is also doubled.
Everything doubled.
Except for wages.
We should build and fund more public housing.
Unfortunately, a large chunk of the country doesn’t believe the government can or should do anything, so I guess that’s a difficult pitch to make.
This is the solution. Unfortunately in the United States when most people think of government housing you think of run down slums.
We need to follow the examples of Austria’s social housing. https://youtu.be/41VJudBdYXY
I really liked this, especially since quality, quality of life including ample green space is incorporated. Thank you for sharing.
I really wish we’d get that here but… it’s the US. Profit over people.
Yes; I’m wondering if political/natural disaster might accidentally converge to increase the odds?
I wish. I’m at a little below half lately.
Us too.
And that is only going to go up. In my area at least, the price of rent has gone up ~15% per year for the last 5 years. In 5 more years the apartment I was renting will cost more per year than my house payment.
nothing but greed drives it.
Your daily reminder that basic housing should be absolutely zero fucking dollars because housing should be a human right, and anything above 0% should be criminal.
Being a right =/= costing $0 for everyone.
Anything we humans need for fundamental existence in today’s society should be free to the individual, and be a cost we all pay as a society to respect the existence of other human beings. Anything above that is up to the individual to either provide for themselves, or receive as a result of the value they contribute to society through labor.
That’s my broader belief system, and thus, housing falls under that for me. The better we meet individual’s needs, the easier it becomes for them to contribute back to society, and experience upward class mobility.
I believe that if we are to make housing a right, we can’t even just say it’s a right “unless you have no job,” or “unless you’re unable to fork over $500 a month,” because employment is ultimately up to the discretion of employers, who, even today, don’t even consider most unhoused people for jobs, because they don’t have stable housing, but to get stable housing, those people need jobs. (this even applies to many shelters, which will require unhoused people to either be employed, or be constantly seeking employment)
We know that adding hoops to jump through to get welfare assistance only harms those who need to depend on it the most, without providing any significant socioeconomic benefit, so why should we apply that same logic to housing, if we determine that it should be a right of all human beings?
I’m not saying the housing has to be great. It doesn’t need to be spacious, have all the amenities, or even have things like good quality lighting or good soundproofing from adjacent housing units, but at a bare minimum, everyone deserves somewhere to live.
I believe that if we are to make housing a right, we can’t even just say it’s a right “unless you have no job,” or “unless you’re unable to fork over $500 a month,”
States run by Democrats do it the opposite way. If you can’t afford housing, we try to provide it for you, on the State’s dime. If you can afford it, pay for it. I can’t really agree that it’s fair to offer free housing to those of us who can actually afford it.
The problem is that welfare systems, such as those that provide housing, that distinguish who is eligible by how much they can afford it, to a certain degree, inevitably depress higher levels of economic activity, and good saving behavior, through the very nature by which they’re operated.
If we say that someone is no longer eligible for free housing if they earn, say, $2,000+ a month, and housing would otherwise cost $500 a month, then if they’re currently earning $1,500 a month (the same they’d effectively have if they had to pay $500 a month for housing on a $2,000 a month salary) they have a direct incentive to not make over $2,000, unless they can guarantee they’ll make at least that much plus $500 more to compensate for the difference. If they earned $1,800 a month, they’d be making $300 more than someone making $2,000, but paying $500 a month for housing after hitting the cutoff.
This isn’t just a hypothetical either. While this 2021 study does mention some benefits of means testing, such as more targeted expenditure, it ultimately shows that…
“An asset means-test incentivizes low-income households to hold few financial assets making them vulnerable to predictable and unpredictable income changes.”
…and sees that, in the end, while it can marginally increase the cost of these social programs to the taxpayer, it ultimately does more to benefit the individuals receiving the assistance.
Or how about this research done by the Cleveland branch of the Federal Reserve that states:
“the elimination of testing limits, such as in policies similar to a UBI, could present a welfare-improving alternative to the current system, though not without large economic trade-offs.” (They effectively mean worse targeting of funds, but better overall results)
Means-testing directly reduces the incentives that lead to higher overall household wealth, and quality of life.
Not having means-testing increases total income, which also means increased tax revenue. That same tax revenue can then go to funding the housing system as a whole, but it won’t directly, substantively punish people for an increase in income past an arbitrary threshold.
Not to mention the increased administrative cost of performing means testing, as opposed to doing unconditional support, which could reduce the amount of money actually going to funding housing, in favor of funding jobs for people that audit income levels of housing applicants.
I know that rent has gone up, but you definitely can hack it. I never spent more than 30% of my take home pay on rent. I managed that by looking at places that fit my budget or living with roommates. Pretty much you won’t have very good luck if you’re a single person trying to rent your own place though. In terms of finding places within budget, I always avoided any type of new buildings built in the last five to ten years or so. The cost of those is usually highest. They’ll promise flashy amenities, but it’s usually not worth it. Also, avoid corporate landlords. If you can, find a mom and pop landlord that’s been in business for awhile. They usually have better deals and don’t go up on rent every year provided you’re a good tenant that pays on time and doesn’t cause any stresses for them. You’ll have the best luck with this if you stick to places where people list their own properties like Craigslist, Facebook marketplace, etc. Avoid spots that corporate landlords use like apartments.com.
Edit: Or, don’t. Ignore this advice and pay through the nose. You’ll be renting forever.
