Of course........BUT.........you are talking about a median priced home of today's standards. That's a whole different animal. You are comparing that to a home with no AC, no gadgets, no labor saving devices, etc. THOSE are still pretty cheap. That they are hard to find says more about how the standard that people find acceptable has exponentially risen than it does about affordability in years past. You are trying to equate a modern Ford with a Model T. If you want to live like they did in those days you can still do it, and at a much cheaper price than your 2023 median home price. Heck, you can live cheaper by TODAY'S standards if you want to. You don't HAVE to live or work in high salary areas. My house is WELL below that price, and we have all the modern thingies. We even have iphones and wifi. It was a choice we made.and you don't know what houses cost in the usa
Median home price nationwide is $350,000
Annual wages of more than $75,000 are needed to pay for major costs on the median-priced home in 2023
Home Affordability Worsens Across U.S. During Second Quarter Of 2023 As Home Prices Tick Upwards
ATTOM's Q2 2023 U.S. Home Affordability Report shows that median-priced homes are less affordable vs historical averages in 98% of counties.www.attomdata.com
OK Boomer..
- Thread starter mcdawg22
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, let's take the profit motive out of business, THAT will work.
You DID notice I said "if you play your cards right" RIGHT? As you pointed out that goes for ANY industry. Don't get me started on HVAC. I had to deal with THAT this week. It's better than sitting in Mississippi in August with no AC though, like my parents did until shortly before I was born. As I have repeatedly pointed out in this thread, our standards have risen, and that is always going to cost money.
Last edited:
It's getting good now. They're fighting...
VS
BTW, I do sympathize with some arguments of our younger brethren. We do have some old farts in D.C. who really need to go home. Biden has cognitive deficits, Trump is 77, McConnell had something the other day, Grassley from Iowa just got rid of his rotary phone, I think...it's been time for some to move on. AOC and Gaetz don't give me much hope in the younger generation, though. I'd rather we not elect anyone over age 70 even though there are perfectly healthy, smart and experienced people at and above that age. Our brains just start to work against us at some point. We do need some younger guys and gals in top leadership positions. Gerontocracy doesn't suit us.
I didn't see the if you play your cards right comment. It must have been in an earlier post... But yes, if you play your cards right you technically can make a damn fine living just playing cards.***
Housing is a real problem. It's escalated beyond just standards of living from a cost standpoint. The current affordability crisis is driven by 40 years of declining interest rates, demographics (people living longer), lack of innovation in how we build (still stick framing 95% of residential homes), increased regulation/standards of how to build a home, and the biggest one is the concentration of resources away from the starter homes of the 50's and 60's into the move up homes that are out of the price range of young families in most markets since the 2007 collapse.
Beats me. I'm not sure what's the deal with Jackson. Those home prices are really low. But, I've heard you're not supposed to criticize it's leadership for some reason so give it a shot. Well, I shouldn't have said "shot" about Jackson. Maybe just give it a go.
If we would let developers build houses in areas where there is a shortage, without the mounds of red tape, it would go a long way to solving that. And yes, most new builds are higher end housing. That is where the profit is, especially in areas where the cost of LAND is astronomical. Developers are not going to do a damn thing if there is no profit in it. Government backing is a band aide at best. In normal times the homes the people that buy those homes move out of would be the starter homes. IF we would maintain law and order in those areas, it might not be a cure all, but it would certainly help. Honestly, all of that would eventually shake out naturally if allowed to. Markets where there is no place for the teachers and the fireman are not sustainable long term, except in real resort areas...... and even then there has to be something close. If I understand where you live correctly, that might not apply to your area.
Work-able people should get nothing, not even $260 without out a job. If they have employment and don't meet the livable standards then by all means subsidize that income.
BOOM! Prodgy speaks the truth. It'll come quicker'n y'all think.....better save that money, live under your means and start goin to the gym in your early 40's.
Last edited:
The Boomers want it all. They made their money after the rest of the developed world was destroyed by war. Once they made their money they wanted more. They sold off half of the country to China while blowing out government spending and cutting taxes on the money they had already made. They also imported as much illegal cheap labor as possible to cut costs on the companies they now own. They pulled the ladder up behind them and blamed their kids for everything going to shite.
If you retire and have a guaranteed income north of 1.5x the median family income, you are rich.
And for all you young guys, keep in mind that mentally, short of disease playing a role, you never feel much different than 25 most of the time. So just relate to them and talk to them like they are normal humans. You’d be surprised what you can learn.
You are partly right, but not for the reasons you think. We do have expensive health care in part because we have a crazy amount of 3rd party payments, so consumers don't really feel the need to worry about prices, but we've also severely restricted supply, so there's limited ability for 3rd party payers to control cost. If we had more direct payment, consumers would still have little ability to control costs because of the restriction on supply except by foregoing some of the more costly treatments.
Good luck getting politicians to tell people that we're only going to have welfare for the disabled. You'd have all the social security and medicare recipients grabbing their can in one hand and their AR-15 in the other.
Yea, it's interesting that so much of our class warfare rhetoric isn't from people making $30k a year angry about people making $220k. It's about $220k people being angry about not making $1M. It's amazing that they can manage to get a pretty good salary but never have the curiosity to see what kind of taxes they'd pay if we had a more typical european tax scheme. They'd probably be the biggest losers out of everybody. Of course some of them are just envious and would gladly take a reduction in their quality of life if it meant richer people got a bigger hit, but some of them really seem to think they'd actually end up better off rather than significantly worse off. I'm assuming the latter are much more prevalent because most of them aren't donating 30% of their salary to the less fortunate.
You just described us boomers. My wife and I put both of our kids through college and they graduated w/in the last 8 years and got degrees. We paid for books and living expenses, they are now paying their school loans back w/ their earnings. One is married, the other not. They both own a home and cars. One bought a boat this summer. I haven't given either a penny since they graduated. You act like it doesn't happen anymore and I guess it doesn't if the chosen major is Philosophy, English, Gender Studies, Journalism, etc.
And I doubt that your kids have time to sit around on a message board whining about how bad they have it because your generation didn't leave their streets paved with gold.
Boomers did some good things and some bad things. Like any generation. Although my gripe with Boomers is mostly centered around themselves placing some grand importance to themselves bc the Greatest Generation rid the world of rising fascism and 17ed a whole bunch after they did it. Congrats. Want a cookie? Sort of like native Texans being proud of being native Texans like they won a championship or something. Good job, you slid out of the right ******.
Lighter hearted point. As a man sitting on that edge of Gen X and Millennials (the Oregon Trail generation) and 20+ years into my career, this tweet speaks to me. I feel like I'm sandwiched between idiots that can't solve problems many days.
Lighter hearted point. As a man sitting on that edge of Gen X and Millennials (the Oregon Trail generation) and 20+ years into my career, this tweet speaks to me. I feel like I'm sandwiched between idiots that can't solve problems many days.
Same. I, too, am Oregon Trail. It's like 100% hit or miss between both of those groups. You can find superstars or duds in either group, but just finding something in the middle is near impossible. Hiring has been Hell for the last 5 - 10 years.
No. You cannot. They don't build affordable houses anymore.
For this to be true, a home like that has to be available . I.e., built or existing. Existing were bought by investment firms, New homes are at a higher price point.
I don't know how you keep missing this point. You seem to think that the reason those don't exist is because people want nice things. Which is partly true. But you also won't find a builder that will build that house. Mostly due to he will make more money building a mc mansion and selling it for 10x the price and profit.
Even if we "let developers build where they want" Which is happening in the Houston area, the developer just packs $400,000+ houses in. Because he makes more money. Ther is no incentive for him to build more affordable houses. Its the same labor and the same land. The materials are cheaper but not enough to offset the MUCH higher profit.
This doesn't exist anymore...
That's my 17ing point! And that's where the country is....
Last edited:
Yes, they do. They don't do it unaffordable places, but what you describe is NOT the whole country. You need to get out more.
Investment Firms Aren’t Buying All the Houses. But They Are Buying the Most Important Ones.
Invitation Homes bought 90 percent of the homes for sale in some ZIP codes in Atlanta in the early 2010s.
Across metro Atlanta, large companies are buying up single-family houses
Large investment firms are pushing homeownership out of reach for many first-time buyers, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution investigation has found. Single-family houses have been snatched up in the thousands by private equity firms and publicly traded companies, converted into rental properties...
Buying a Home in Texas Often Requires Outbidding Big-Money Investors
A pair of bills at the Lege seek to help Texans compete for real estate against these deep-pocketed companies.
www.texasmonthly.com
Why the Road Is Getting Even Rockier for First-Time Home Buyers (Published 2022)
Investors and corporations are buying up houses and turning them into rental properties. In Charlotte, N.C., that is adding to the hurdles facing would-be buyers navigating a brutal market.
You are right they don't do in the entire country They only do it where the JOBS are....
If they are not doing where you have been, they don't see the job creation there.
You should try leaving Mississippi more.
In the cities where workers can easily find good-paying jobs, Investors buy inexpensive single-family homes several years before a bunch of people need to move to an area. Whether they’re tracking where major employers are building new offices or looking at public school enrollment data, being ahead of the market gives big firms a big leg up.
You should try looking at areas other than where you live. You should also pay attention to the things the media never talks about, like where things actually are good. There are a lot of those places. Not every place is a dystopian expensive hell. Most of those places have places to work too.
While you are at it, read some history. Boomtowns are ALWAYS expensive.
Last edited:
Ok, Boomer. Let's ignore the very thing that gave the Baby Boomers their name. Such a typical Boomer.
The investors are just a symptom of the problem. We make building houses expensive with red tape, exclusionary zoning, and by outlawing lower quality homes in some ways (while also ensuring that tons of homes built are low quality tract homes, just more expensive ones that can check the right boxes). Where I live we could have lots of infill development. But the local government makes it prohibitively expensive to deal with them, partly because they don't know what they're doing and partly because the big developers that support the right people want infill to be difficult, because that makes there cookie cutter POS's on clear cut land more attractive.
If investors knew supply wouldn'dt be constrained, they wouldn't be interested in all those houses. They need the appreciation to make the numbers work. If you eliminate the restraints that make above market appreciation more likely, you'd see less investors stepping in in bulk.
Are you not reading the links I sent?
In addition to Texas, Massachusetts, and California that have passed Bills to try and correct this,
Here is a list for you.
Milwaukee, WI
Indianapolis.
Phoenix. -.
Lakeland, Florida. ...
Charlotte, North Carolina. ...
Clarksville, Tennessee. ...
Atlanta. ...
Macon, Georgia.
Tucson, Arizona.
Denver
Las Vegas
Miami
Jacksonville
Columbus OH
Cleveland
Cincinnati
Houses for Rent | Invitation Homes
Find the perfect house for rent from Invitation Homes. Rental homes are updated, professionally managed, & pet friendly. View homes for rent and lease today.
lease.invitationhomes.com
Find your next home with Tricon Residential
At Tricon Residential, we offer professionally managed, quality single-family rental homes and apartments across North America.
triconresidential.com
And now they are doing build-to-rent. How do you think that affects home ownership?
We don't make "building houses expensive". We have a housing shortage.
Because of the decline in new builds post the 2008 crash.
And the investors are doing continuing on purpose to continue to constrain supply.
We have a finite supply of new housing builds (labor, and materials). The profits are higher on luxury homes vs affordable homes. Therefore, a developer will build to sell a higher profit home over a lower profit home. It's simple economics.
In the past, this was not an issue because those selling the older smaller house to upgrade would sell to another first time homebuyer. Now, in places that have jobs, those houses are/were bought by investment houses and are being rented... Which constrains the supply.
To correct this, investment groups are now building neighborhoods of houses to rent for those that cannot afford a house... Which further constrains supply...
Because they can make more money renting than selling the affordable housing
But think of this..
Who will be able to buy the higher priced houses without the equity of the starter house to use as a down payment? Probably on those that can pay cash or use Hard Money...
This all 17ing day. The trend over the last 10 years to **** on a college education and push for trades is fascinating to watch because it largely feels like people are just parroting something that aligns with their biases.
Trades are short handed and yeah I will pay(and have paid) a good amount for a solid electrician.
The benefit of those jobs is that they wont be eliminated by ChatGPT and they pay right away out of high school. Its a genuinely good path to take for someone that has no interest/ability to graduate from a 4 year college. Go learn on the job and get paid. Hell, go to a company that will pay for an associates degree while you work- 2 birds 1 stone, and thats a common thing around me.
But to claim its better than a college education is 17ing goofy. The numbers straight up disagree with that claim.
Also, what % of plumbers does everyone see that are 60 years old? Or electricians? Or welders? Carpenters? The % is low because the jobs are hell on the body. Its physically demanding and there is a high amount of injury and general degradation. Many that are in the businesses at that point are managing vs actively working. And at least around here, the ones that are managing have degrees.
Ok Educate me on these "magical, secret places" with GOOD places to work. Because you make it sound like Wakanda.
And i see you moved the goalposts to "Boomtowns are always expensive "
From your earlier point of " housing is affordable everywhere in the country"
I've never intimated that is a dystopian hell. I'm saying that the life Boomers had no longer exisits. Because you ruined it. and you think its still there if " you just worked hard like I did", or you waited to have kids" Or you skipped getting a coffee".
If I want to live where I can get a good paying job, with good schools, in my STEM degreed field, I would not be able to afford a house until i saved a large % of my salary.
That was not true 25 years ago.
And I'll be glad to kick you *** in History any time you want.
The poor, poor pitiful poor in this country have a better standard of living than the middle class in many European countries.
How much do I need to make to be in the top 1%, 5%, and 10% in the US? It's probably less than you think
Are you on the upper rungs of the class ladder?
- To be in the top 10%, you need to bring in $133k per year.
- To be in the top 5% though, you need to bring in $223k per year.
- The wage gap at the top, between even the top 5% and top 1%, continues to grow exponentially.
I am not sure what is/isnt 'rich' since it heavily depends on location, but I would probably say its the top 3% in income earners in a given area.
Are you in the American middle class? Find out with our income calculator
About half of U.S. adults (52%) lived in middle-income households in 2022, according to our new analysis of government data.
www.pewresearch.org
It goes further and compares within your education level, race, and marital status.
I was straight up shocked to see how low we are in our metro, given our education, age, race, and marital status.
Our lifestyle is pretty 17ing cushy and extremely stable, yet we are dirty beggars amongst our peers.
This is true regardless of age group. The amount of insane crap that so many over 50 believe, due to media consumption, could fill up oceans.
Right, $220k is easily “rich”.- $90k is the average individual income amongst middle class,How much do I need to make to be in the top 1%, 5%, and 10% in the US? It's probably less than you think
Are you on the upper rungs of the class ladder?www.yahoo.com
- To be in the top 10%, you need to bring in $133k per year.
- To be in the top 5% though, you need to bring in $223k per year.
- The wage gap at the top, between even the top 5% and top 1%, continues to grow exponentially.
I am not sure what is/isnt 'rich' since it heavily depends on location, but I would probably say its the top 3% in income earners in a given area.
This has a calculator that allows you to enter your state, metro, household income, and people in household to see how you compare.Are you in the American middle class? Find out with our income calculator
About half of U.S. adults (52%) lived in middle-income households in 2022, according to our new analysis of government data.
It goes further and compares within your education level, race, and marital status.
I was straight up shocked to see how low we are in our metro, given our education, age, race, and marital status.
Our lifestyle is pretty 17ing cushy and extremely stable, yet we are dirty beggars amongst our peers.
- Status