19 ms·

It always strikes me as odd that I'm in the top 1% of income earners and even still the only hope I really have of ever owning a house is: 1. moving somewhere

by warent 5y ago

It always strikes me as odd that I'm in the top 1% of income earners and even still the only hope I really have of ever owning a house is: 1. moving somewhere super rural 2. selling my business 3. sell my soul to Google or Facebook etc for 5-10 yrs The situation is dire for me and basically hopeless for everyone else. Put a huge tax on vacancies and cap the number of residential properties a business is allowed to purchase in a year. EDIT: Apologies for the confusion everyone. I meant top 1% for my age bracket. Nowhere near rich old folk making 500k Probably more like top 10% overall, thanks @geebee

silisili 5y ago
Same boat. Basically, the only way to play is to already own, and use that inflated leverage to buy something else inflated. This is the opposite of what we should be doing, and nonplayers are completely priced out of the market.
williamtwild 5y ago
This comment is confusing. I know many people in my neighborhood who are not even close to your 1% and own their house. How is this possible? We are not super rural.
- allturtles 5y ago
  Agreed. Are we talking about the U.S? The data I'm seeing shows top 1% income as over 500K USD. That's enough to easily afford a home anywhere outside a few extremely expensive pockets of the U.S. Also, you are not likely to do much better than that at Facebook/Google unless you are in the top 1% there as well (i.e. above Staff Software Engineer).
- HenryKissinger 5y ago
  Since the parent is in the top 1%, he or she probably works in New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington DC, Los Angeles, or San Diego.
  - loeg 5y ago
    You could afford a house in any of those places on 1%ile income.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    Suburban DC here. I'm not in the 1% and can afford a house just fine. Plenty of homes here sub-$600k. A 1% income should be good for a home well in excess of $1 million.
- rootsudo 5y ago
  It means that someone that is considered high revenue earning via a job is priced out of the market, but if you have pre-existing assets you can hedge/borrow against them to get more. It's also another way of wealth, many people assume having high revenue via salary/compensation is a good sign of wealth, but it's not. Makes you a better consumer, e.g. you're priced out of buying a house, so you rent.
- Verdex 5y ago
  I'm also curious about this. I'm not even in the top 10% for the US and I own a home. I know multiple people who make noticeably less than me who also own homes. And there are multiple nearby cities where people who make even less still also own homes. My guess is that either the definition of "super rural" being used here is overly broad (like for example anywhere outside of new york city ... ) or they're living in some ultra high cost of living area.
- dwater 5y ago
  The sharpest segment on that graph is since July 2020. If you bought any time other than November 2004 - November 2007, it was cheaper than it's been in the past 14 months. If you already own a home and have equity you are probably fine. The GP was describing what it feels like trying to enter the market right now.
haswell 5y ago
> 1. moving somewhere super rural I don't think you're necessarily just limited to rural locations, but this does depend on what you require in a house. If you're willing to buy a 1000 square foot apartment/condo, those can be had for ~$300K in some nice neighborhoods here in Chicago, with full access to the city's amenities. If you're willing to live in the Chicago burbs (I personally am not), that same money will buy you a larger house with a yard. Still not close to rural, but definitely brings the problems that come with suburbia.
jjeaff 5y ago
Top 1% of income earners in the US? Because that is $450k+. With that income, you should be able to easily buy a home anywhere in America in any city but the most expensive enclaves of those cities.
- kashura 5y ago
  It's actually more like 330ish according to some sources, but the point still stands.
- loeg 5y ago
  And in general, top 1% in any local context will be able to afford a house where you live, too. I don’t think GP is actually in the 1% they think they are.
phren0logy 5y ago
If you are in the top 1%, you shouldn't have to look somewhere "super rural" in most states. Or maybe I have a different definition of "super rural" than you?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
HenryKissinger 5y ago
Are you willing to compromise on square footage and number of bedrooms, bathrooms, and garage? I don't know what kind of properties you're looking at. But have you considered settling for a smaller home within reasonable commuting distance?
spywaregorilla 5y ago
If you have a top 1% income you can easily afford a place that isn't super rural, unless your definition of super rural is wayyy out of touch
whateveracct 5y ago
~100k for 20% down gets you a good place in the non-Seattle Western WA. Not rural, close to Seattle and Tacoma and the airport, nice weather. Monthly payment is already lower than Seattle rent and will surely continue to look better through the years. Doesn't take FAANG money to achieve - just west coast software dev money. Before the market really caught fire in late 2020, you could've gone in under asking in this area + gotten that sweet sub-3% interest rate. That said, I like living in the suburbs and own a (decade-old+) car.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
worker767424 5y ago
> top 1% of income earners Probably not where you live, though. You also left out commuting from Tracy.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
geebee 5y ago
Hmmm. The top 1% nationally is somewhere between $500k and $700k annually. Even here in SF, you can live in a nice house for that kind of dough. Did you mean top 10%? Now you're down to about $150k. I do think a two income household at that level can manage it, but it's surprisingly difficult and maybe not worth it when you have kids and both parents have demanding jobs. I hope that's not a nitpick. I agree with your list and what you've said, I just think that the top 1% isn't the threshold.
- kerbs 5y ago
  I think folks often confuse "I can't afford a home" with "I can't afford the house I want".
  - VRay 5y ago
    You've gotta admit, it's pretty messed up if you're making 3x the national median household income and your only options are run-down dumps on the wrong side of a 45+ minute commute
    - Cookingboy 5y ago
      >it's pretty messed up if you're making 3x the national median household income 3x national median income would actually mean something if real estate costs the same nationally, but obviously it doesn't. Many areas in the country costs far more than 3x in terms of real estate prices. If you make the 3x the median income of the area you live in, then it would be a stronger argument.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - foxpurple 5y ago
      Maybe Americans should consider an apartment. I make only a small amount over the average and with my bf we can easily afford a nice 2 bedroom apt anywhere. Every time I propose this people think I’m on another planet but the lifestyle is really great tbh.
kleiba 5y ago
I live fairly rural. My wife and I both have degrees in MINT disciplines. With both of us working full-time, the best house we could currently afford would be older (and in a worse condition) than the one my parents bought for themselves when they were young, my dad had a medium-income job, and my mom was working only half days.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
xur17 5y ago
Per [1], the minimum income to be part of the top 1% of income earners is $538k / year. I find it incredibly hard to believe you cannot afford to own your own home with that level of income, even in the biggest cities in the US. What level of income are you considering here, and what house price do you feel is approachable with that income level? [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/07/01/how-much-you-need-to-make-to-be-in-the-1-in-every-state/112002276/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/07/01/how-much-you...
- onionisafruit 5y ago
  That’s household income. It takes a mere $367k to be in the top 1% for an individual. I think your overall point still stands.
  - astrea 5y ago
    "Mere 367k" as if that isn't enough to afford the down payment on a nice home. Sure, you're not going to pay cash for a $3M penthouse in NYC, but I make well below 1/4 of that in a city and I'm well on my way to a down payment on a nice home for myself. I would recommend one SERIOUSLY reconsiders their budget/priorities if they are unable to build a house fund (even over a couple year period if starting from scratch) at $367k/yr.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
alistairSH 5y ago
lolwut? A top-1% income is north of $400k nationally. That buys plenty of house in most places. You could take a 50% pay cut and still be fine in suburban DC. EDIT - OP edited their post to say "1% within age group, more like 10% overall". That's still likely a $100k+ annual income. I'd suggest buying a house is still possible on that income, just perhaps not across the street from Apple or Amazon offices.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
spoonjim 5y ago
My friend just bought a nice house near Indianapolis for less than $100,000. You have not listed all the options.
digitcatphd 5y ago
This is probably referring to major cities like New York and San Francisco where the top 1% earners (Nationally) are. This is probably because the top 1% of earners in these states are in a bidding war. Nonetheless, I agree there are some compelling arguments that, practically all homes will be driven to prices which are only sustainable by institutions and therefore there will be little American home ownership by citizens.
lpolovets 5y ago
Top 1% income is about $540k/year according to https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/07/01/how-much-you-need-to-make-to-be-in-the-1-in-every-state/112002276 https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/07/01/how-much-you... In my experience, an income of $X lets you get a mortgage for a house worth ~$6X. Where do you live where $3m+ won't get you a house?
- yellow_postit 5y ago
  while a bank may write you a mortgage for 6x I think it’s very worthwhile considering how that fits into an overall financial plan.
  - lpolovets 5y ago
    I'm not a financial advisor, but I think housing is a very reasonable investment given: 1) you need a place to live no matter what 2) historically the real estate market does well over long time horizons 3) if you make $540k and your mortgage is $200k/year, you'll still have like $100k-$150k in spending money after taxes. 4) housing values are a good hedge against inflation 5) IMHO inflation is going to be bad over the next few years, which means your fixed mortgage payments will shrink rapidly in an inflation-adjusted sense. YMMV
epistasis 5y ago
> Put a huge tax on vacancies and cap the number of residential properties a business is allowed to purchase in a year. While I'm not opposed at all to these policies, they won't do anything to help you. Vacant homes are less than 10% of existing homes, we need far more than that to solve the problem. The only thing, literally the only thing that will help you, is more homes. I'm not sure why people are so resistant to this idea. We have been under building for decades in the places where people want to live, the places that are economically productive. There's a lot of ways to get there, and though changing zoning to allow density and ban sprawl is necessary, it won't solve the problem alone. We should also do things like slap a huge tax on the value of land to force people to stop hoarding their land, and use that tax money to fund a government builder that will act counter cyclically to current market cycles. The huge business cycle for the building trades means that it's an unstable job and it makes it hard to have a solid workforce. Having more steady building will allow for lifetime careers, for more experience to be gained, and hopefully for productivity increases. As it is now, there's not even enough productive capacity in places like California to build the amount of housing that's needed. We need to attack the problem from many angles simultaneously.
- jonny_eh 5y ago
  > Vacant homes are less than 10% of existing homes To be clear, that number of vacant homes isn't even a problem. You need a certain number of vacant homes for liquidity.
- thatfrenchguy 5y ago
  > I'm not sure why people are so resistant to this idea. We have been under building for decades in the places where people want to live, the places that are economically productive. There is a lot of marketing that was driven at Americans to think that a detached single family home is the only way to live, and it's going to be hard to undo.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
nathanvanfleet 5y ago
You forgot : 1. Something terrible happening to everyone else in the world except me. I have been really banking on this one.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mabub24 5y ago
I mean I see comments like this from a lot of people, but if you're in the top 1% of income in America you could probably buy a house in pretty much any urban space outside of major tech hubs/NYC. A lot of people don't want to live in the suburbs, or in a "2nd tier"/up and coming city, but they are still very affordable, especially for someone in the top 1% of incomes. It's a bit odd to describe it as "dire". You earn more than 99% of Americans, and people who earn less are still buying a ton of houses. You could probably rent for the rest of your life and still have a higher NW than 90% of Americans. If you do really want a house you'll probably need to make some concessions on your demands, but tons of people do that anyway, and they are buying a house and they probably are not making 1% level income.
CivBase 5y ago
Is Des Moines, Iowa "super rural" now? I'm not even in the top 20% of income earners and I could comfortably start a reasonable mortgage on a single family home here. I mean... I know it's still Iowa which probably conjures images of corn fields and pigs for most people, but I'd hardly call a metropolitan area of over 600k "super rural". Don't get me wrong, housing prices are still nuts here compared to where they were a few short years ago - even in actual "super rural" parts of the state thanks to materials and labor shortages. The whole 1% having to live somewhere "super rural" thing just threw me for a loop.
74d-fe6-2c6 5y ago
yes, exactly my "problem". it feels weird earning a relatively high salary and at the same time buying a house somewhere at least suburban or even a flat in my town would require me to pay off a huge loan for a long time. in theory I could do that - but in practice this is not really achievable as I do not trust in my mental health stability. I don't know if I can keep that up for long enough.
echelon 5y ago
I'm in Atlanta, GA. I have a huge penthouse condo with 25ft ceilings and wraparound 12ft windows. >3000sqft. It's in a historic building with lots of charm that has been featured in several movies. I'm also in a hip area of the city with skyline views and extremely walkable neighborhoods (on the Beltline). My mortgage is < $2000/mo. I make >$500k a year. I know my neighbors by name. Lots of them are in local bands and play in the courtyard. The food is awesome, and we're surrounded by art. I can do everything I want on foot. Maybe you're in an overpriced city or a city without capacity for residents. There are lots of alternatives. With remote work, there's little reason not to explore your options.
- _fs 5y ago
  Atlanta has oppressive humidity 5 months of the year. No thank you
Newbie2021 5y ago
Great suggestions. I would add forbidding foreign people and companies from owning real estate in any given country. And exponential tax on second, third and more houses to remove hoarding, air BnB issues, and reduce flipping incentives.
gruez 5y ago
>Put a huge tax on vacancies and cap the number of residential properties a business is allowed to purchase in a year. What makes you think that's an effective intervention? What do you think the vacancy rate is, and how much % of housing is being bought by businesses?
bradlys 5y ago
Since you're getting flak. I'll add on - I'm in the same boat. Just turned 31. Make about ~$400k/yr. I have about ~$1.5m in stock (will be sold in the next year - so - maybe $1m cash). I've sold my soul to FAANG and an ultra toxic startup to get here. Can't or will not buy a home here in SF. If I wanted to stretch - I could afford a $1.6-2m home but it'd be unpleasant. Depending on the neighborhood - that's just a starter home. I'm not even talking like a nice starter home either. My neighbors just bought the house nextdoor for $2m and spent a year renovating/fixing. Would they have bought this place if they knew all the issues? Probably not but couldn't do anything about it since you have to buy without inspection. Even when you buy at these crazy prices: Usually still requires a few hundred K in cash to renovate to put up to modern standards. We're talking all the electrical, plumbing, insulation, roof, some structural issues that went unaddressed, kitchen and bath updates, etc. Add on that you can't even live in the damn thing while that's happening. People underestimate how much places here cost and how much work they take. Only way you're getting a nice modern turnkey house in a decent neighborhood is if you go $3m+. And unfortunately that's still wildly out of reach for many of us at the threshold of 1% individual incomes. (~$350-450k - depending on the study)
- midnightclubbed 5y ago
  SF housing prices are out of control, because faang can pay 400k per year (plus stock). If you are open to moving away from the bay that 1mil will buy an amazing property outright in most parts of the country, or a really nice home and a big amount towards retirement... Alternatively you can stick in the Bay Area and adjust to your high wage being in line with a high cost of living (and consider the million dollars as a sizable down payment).
  - floxy 5y ago
    Here's the getting started guide to buying a house and living like a commoner in someplace that isn't SF: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1944-Kitty-Hawk-Dr-Waterloo-IA-50701/76641483_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1944-Kitty-Hawk-Dr-Waterl... https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/41290-Rock-Creek-Dr-Mitchell-SD-57301/239631532_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/41290-Rock-Creek-Dr-Mitch... https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/745-Woodmont-Cir-Batesville-AR-72501/90840952_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/745-Woodmont-Cir-Batesvil... https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/E6516-867th-Ave-Colfax-WI-54730/104969629_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/E6516-867th-Ave-Colfax-WI... https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1521-White-Rd-Somerset-KY-42503/2070514377_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1521-White-Rd-Somerset-KY... https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/928-County-Road-329-Double-Springs-AL-35553/96820342_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/928-County-Road-329-Doubl...
quantified 5y ago
You in a top price area like SF or NYC? Then you’re in local competition with other top 1-10%ers.
MrMember 5y ago
>moving somewhere super rural Why do you think you have to move somewhere super rural? I'm in the suburbs of a major city and decent sized 3 bedroom houses start at ~$200k.
wdr1 5y ago
At $545,978/year (the min to be in the 1%), you can afford a house anywhere in the United States, except for 3 very specific geographical regions.
caeril 5y ago
> 1. moving somewhere super rural Why is this such a deal-killer for so many people? That's literally where most of the land is. And a good chunk of it has decent internet, even if you have to mount a 5 GHz airMAX dish on your house.
- partizanos 5y ago
  No jobs in rural areas. If remitr work becomes the new norm there is an incentive but I doubt it.

by warent 5y ago

silisili 5y ago

Same boat. Basically, the only way to play is to already own, and use that inflated leverage to buy something else inflated. This is the opposite of what we should be doing, and nonplayers are completely priced out of the market.

williamtwild 5y ago

This comment is confusing. I know many people in my neighborhood who are not even close to your 1% and own their house. How is this possible? We are not super rural.

allturtles 5y ago
Agreed. Are we talking about the U.S? The data I'm seeing shows top 1% income as over 500K USD. That's enough to easily afford a home anywhere outside a few extremely expensive pockets of the U.S. Also, you are not likely to do much better than that at Facebook/Google unless you are in the top 1% there as well (i.e. above Staff Software Engineer).
HenryKissinger 5y ago
Since the parent is in the top 1%, he or she probably works in New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington DC, Los Angeles, or San Diego.
- loeg 5y ago
  You could afford a house in any of those places on 1%ile income.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  Suburban DC here. I'm not in the 1% and can afford a house just fine. Plenty of homes here sub-$600k. A 1% income should be good for a home well in excess of $1 million.
rootsudo 5y ago
It means that someone that is considered high revenue earning via a job is priced out of the market, but if you have pre-existing assets you can hedge/borrow against them to get more. It's also another way of wealth, many people assume having high revenue via salary/compensation is a good sign of wealth, but it's not. Makes you a better consumer, e.g. you're priced out of buying a house, so you rent.
Verdex 5y ago
I'm also curious about this. I'm not even in the top 10% for the US and I own a home. I know multiple people who make noticeably less than me who also own homes. And there are multiple nearby cities where people who make even less still also own homes. My guess is that either the definition of "super rural" being used here is overly broad (like for example anywhere outside of new york city ... ) or they're living in some ultra high cost of living area.
dwater 5y ago
The sharpest segment on that graph is since July 2020. If you bought any time other than November 2004 - November 2007, it was cheaper than it's been in the past 14 months. If you already own a home and have equity you are probably fine. The GP was describing what it feels like trying to enter the market right now.

haswell 5y ago

> 1. moving somewhere super rural I don't think you're necessarily just limited to rural locations, but this does depend on what you require in a house. If you're willing to buy a 1000 square foot apartment/condo, those can be had for ~$300K in some nice neighborhoods here in Chicago, with full access to the city's amenities. If you're willing to live in the Chicago burbs (I personally am not), that same money will buy you a larger house with a yard. Still not close to rural, but definitely brings the problems that come with suburbia.

jjeaff 5y ago

Top 1% of income earners in the US? Because that is $450k+. With that income, you should be able to easily buy a home anywhere in America in any city but the most expensive enclaves of those cities.

kashura 5y ago
It's actually more like 330ish according to some sources, but the point still stands.
loeg 5y ago
And in general, top 1% in any local context will be able to afford a house where you live, too. I don’t think GP is actually in the 1% they think they are.

phren0logy 5y ago

If you are in the top 1%, you shouldn't have to look somewhere "super rural" in most states. Or maybe I have a different definition of "super rural" than you?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

HenryKissinger 5y ago

Are you willing to compromise on square footage and number of bedrooms, bathrooms, and garage? I don't know what kind of properties you're looking at. But have you considered settling for a smaller home within reasonable commuting distance?

spywaregorilla 5y ago

If you have a top 1% income you can easily afford a place that isn't super rural, unless your definition of super rural is wayyy out of touch

whateveracct 5y ago

~100k for 20% down gets you a good place in the non-Seattle Western WA. Not rural, close to Seattle and Tacoma and the airport, nice weather. Monthly payment is already lower than Seattle rent and will surely continue to look better through the years. Doesn't take FAANG money to achieve - just west coast software dev money. Before the market really caught fire in late 2020, you could've gone in under asking in this area + gotten that sweet sub-3% interest rate. That said, I like living in the suburbs and own a (decade-old+) car.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

worker767424 5y ago

> top 1% of income earners Probably not where you live, though. You also left out commuting from Tracy.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

geebee 5y ago

Hmmm. The top 1% nationally is somewhere between $500k and $700k annually. Even here in SF, you can live in a nice house for that kind of dough. Did you mean top 10%? Now you're down to about $150k. I do think a two income household at that level can manage it, but it's surprisingly difficult and maybe not worth it when you have kids and both parents have demanding jobs. I hope that's not a nitpick. I agree with your list and what you've said, I just think that the top 1% isn't the threshold.

kerbs 5y ago
I think folks often confuse "I can't afford a home" with "I can't afford the house I want".
- VRay 5y ago
  You've gotta admit, it's pretty messed up if you're making 3x the national median household income and your only options are run-down dumps on the wrong side of a 45+ minute commute
  - Cookingboy 5y ago
    >it's pretty messed up if you're making 3x the national median household income 3x national median income would actually mean something if real estate costs the same nationally, but obviously it doesn't. Many areas in the country costs far more than 3x in terms of real estate prices. If you make the 3x the median income of the area you live in, then it would be a stronger argument.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - foxpurple 5y ago
    Maybe Americans should consider an apartment. I make only a small amount over the average and with my bf we can easily afford a nice 2 bedroom apt anywhere. Every time I propose this people think I’m on another planet but the lifestyle is really great tbh.

kleiba 5y ago

I live fairly rural. My wife and I both have degrees in MINT disciplines. With both of us working full-time, the best house we could currently afford would be older (and in a worse condition) than the one my parents bought for themselves when they were young, my dad had a medium-income job, and my mom was working only half days.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

xur17 5y ago

Per [1], the minimum income to be part of the top 1% of income earners is $538k / year. I find it incredibly hard to believe you cannot afford to own your own home with that level of income, even in the biggest cities in the US. What level of income are you considering here, and what house price do you feel is approachable with that income level? [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/07/01/how-much-you-need-to-make-to-be-in-the-1-in-every-state/112002276/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/07/01/how-much-you...

onionisafruit 5y ago
That’s household income. It takes a mere $367k to be in the top 1% for an individual. I think your overall point still stands.
- astrea 5y ago
  "Mere 367k" as if that isn't enough to afford the down payment on a nice home. Sure, you're not going to pay cash for a $3M penthouse in NYC, but I make well below 1/4 of that in a city and I'm well on my way to a down payment on a nice home for myself. I would recommend one SERIOUSLY reconsiders their budget/priorities if they are unable to build a house fund (even over a couple year period if starting from scratch) at $367k/yr.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

alistairSH 5y ago

lolwut? A top-1% income is north of $400k nationally. That buys plenty of house in most places. You could take a 50% pay cut and still be fine in suburban DC. EDIT - OP edited their post to say "1% within age group, more like 10% overall". That's still likely a $100k+ annual income. I'd suggest buying a house is still possible on that income, just perhaps not across the street from Apple or Amazon offices.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

spoonjim 5y ago

My friend just bought a nice house near Indianapolis for less than $100,000. You have not listed all the options.

digitcatphd 5y ago

This is probably referring to major cities like New York and San Francisco where the top 1% earners (Nationally) are. This is probably because the top 1% of earners in these states are in a bidding war. Nonetheless, I agree there are some compelling arguments that, practically all homes will be driven to prices which are only sustainable by institutions and therefore there will be little American home ownership by citizens.

lpolovets 5y ago

Top 1% income is about $540k/year according to https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/07/01/how-much-you-need-to-make-to-be-in-the-1-in-every-state/112002276 https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/07/01/how-much-you... In my experience, an income of $X lets you get a mortgage for a house worth ~$6X. Where do you live where $3m+ won't get you a house?

yellow_postit 5y ago
while a bank may write you a mortgage for 6x I think it’s very worthwhile considering how that fits into an overall financial plan.
- lpolovets 5y ago
  I'm not a financial advisor, but I think housing is a very reasonable investment given: 1) you need a place to live no matter what 2) historically the real estate market does well over long time horizons 3) if you make $540k and your mortgage is $200k/year, you'll still have like $100k-$150k in spending money after taxes. 4) housing values are a good hedge against inflation 5) IMHO inflation is going to be bad over the next few years, which means your fixed mortgage payments will shrink rapidly in an inflation-adjusted sense. YMMV

epistasis 5y ago

> Put a huge tax on vacancies and cap the number of residential properties a business is allowed to purchase in a year. While I'm not opposed at all to these policies, they won't do anything to help you. Vacant homes are less than 10% of existing homes, we need far more than that to solve the problem. The only thing, literally the only thing that will help you, is more homes. I'm not sure why people are so resistant to this idea. We have been under building for decades in the places where people want to live, the places that are economically productive. There's a lot of ways to get there, and though changing zoning to allow density and ban sprawl is necessary, it won't solve the problem alone. We should also do things like slap a huge tax on the value of land to force people to stop hoarding their land, and use that tax money to fund a government builder that will act counter cyclically to current market cycles. The huge business cycle for the building trades means that it's an unstable job and it makes it hard to have a solid workforce. Having more steady building will allow for lifetime careers, for more experience to be gained, and hopefully for productivity increases. As it is now, there's not even enough productive capacity in places like California to build the amount of housing that's needed. We need to attack the problem from many angles simultaneously.

jonny_eh 5y ago
> Vacant homes are less than 10% of existing homes To be clear, that number of vacant homes isn't even a problem. You need a certain number of vacant homes for liquidity.
thatfrenchguy 5y ago
> I'm not sure why people are so resistant to this idea. We have been under building for decades in the places where people want to live, the places that are economically productive. There is a lot of marketing that was driven at Americans to think that a detached single family home is the only way to live, and it's going to be hard to undo.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

nathanvanfleet 5y ago

You forgot : 1. Something terrible happening to everyone else in the world except me. I have been really banking on this one.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mabub24 5y ago

I mean I see comments like this from a lot of people, but if you're in the top 1% of income in America you could probably buy a house in pretty much any urban space outside of major tech hubs/NYC. A lot of people don't want to live in the suburbs, or in a "2nd tier"/up and coming city, but they are still very affordable, especially for someone in the top 1% of incomes. It's a bit odd to describe it as "dire". You earn more than 99% of Americans, and people who earn less are still buying a ton of houses. You could probably rent for the rest of your life and still have a higher NW than 90% of Americans. If you do really want a house you'll probably need to make some concessions on your demands, but tons of people do that anyway, and they are buying a house and they probably are not making 1% level income.

CivBase 5y ago

Is Des Moines, Iowa "super rural" now? I'm not even in the top 20% of income earners and I could comfortably start a reasonable mortgage on a single family home here. I mean... I know it's still Iowa which probably conjures images of corn fields and pigs for most people, but I'd hardly call a metropolitan area of over 600k "super rural". Don't get me wrong, housing prices are still nuts here compared to where they were a few short years ago - even in actual "super rural" parts of the state thanks to materials and labor shortages. The whole 1% having to live somewhere "super rural" thing just threw me for a loop.

74d-fe6-2c6 5y ago

yes, exactly my "problem". it feels weird earning a relatively high salary and at the same time buying a house somewhere at least suburban or even a flat in my town would require me to pay off a huge loan for a long time. in theory I could do that - but in practice this is not really achievable as I do not trust in my mental health stability. I don't know if I can keep that up for long enough.

echelon 5y ago

I'm in Atlanta, GA. I have a huge penthouse condo with 25ft ceilings and wraparound 12ft windows. >3000sqft. It's in a historic building with lots of charm that has been featured in several movies. I'm also in a hip area of the city with skyline views and extremely walkable neighborhoods (on the Beltline). My mortgage is < $2000/mo. I make >$500k a year. I know my neighbors by name. Lots of them are in local bands and play in the courtyard. The food is awesome, and we're surrounded by art. I can do everything I want on foot. Maybe you're in an overpriced city or a city without capacity for residents. There are lots of alternatives. With remote work, there's little reason not to explore your options.

_fs 5y ago
Atlanta has oppressive humidity 5 months of the year. No thank you

Newbie2021 5y ago

Great suggestions. I would add forbidding foreign people and companies from owning real estate in any given country. And exponential tax on second, third and more houses to remove hoarding, air BnB issues, and reduce flipping incentives.

gruez 5y ago

>Put a huge tax on vacancies and cap the number of residential properties a business is allowed to purchase in a year. What makes you think that's an effective intervention? What do you think the vacancy rate is, and how much % of housing is being bought by businesses?

bradlys 5y ago

Since you're getting flak. I'll add on - I'm in the same boat. Just turned 31. Make about ~$400k/yr. I have about ~$1.5m in stock (will be sold in the next year - so - maybe $1m cash). I've sold my soul to FAANG and an ultra toxic startup to get here. Can't or will not buy a home here in SF. If I wanted to stretch - I could afford a $1.6-2m home but it'd be unpleasant. Depending on the neighborhood - that's just a starter home. I'm not even talking like a nice starter home either. My neighbors just bought the house nextdoor for $2m and spent a year renovating/fixing. Would they have bought this place if they knew all the issues? Probably not but couldn't do anything about it since you have to buy without inspection. Even when you buy at these crazy prices: Usually still requires a few hundred K in cash to renovate to put up to modern standards. We're talking all the electrical, plumbing, insulation, roof, some structural issues that went unaddressed, kitchen and bath updates, etc. Add on that you can't even live in the damn thing while that's happening. People underestimate how much places here cost and how much work they take. Only way you're getting a nice modern turnkey house in a decent neighborhood is if you go $3m+. And unfortunately that's still wildly out of reach for many of us at the threshold of 1% individual incomes. (~$350-450k - depending on the study)

midnightclubbed 5y ago
SF housing prices are out of control, because faang can pay 400k per year (plus stock). If you are open to moving away from the bay that 1mil will buy an amazing property outright in most parts of the country, or a really nice home and a big amount towards retirement... Alternatively you can stick in the Bay Area and adjust to your high wage being in line with a high cost of living (and consider the million dollars as a sizable down payment).
- floxy 5y ago
  Here's the getting started guide to buying a house and living like a commoner in someplace that isn't SF: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1944-Kitty-Hawk-Dr-Waterloo-IA-50701/76641483_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1944-Kitty-Hawk-Dr-Waterl... https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/41290-Rock-Creek-Dr-Mitchell-SD-57301/239631532_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/41290-Rock-Creek-Dr-Mitch... https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/745-Woodmont-Cir-Batesville-AR-72501/90840952_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/745-Woodmont-Cir-Batesvil... https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/E6516-867th-Ave-Colfax-WI-54730/104969629_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/E6516-867th-Ave-Colfax-WI... https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1521-White-Rd-Somerset-KY-42503/2070514377_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1521-White-Rd-Somerset-KY... https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/928-County-Road-329-Double-Springs-AL-35553/96820342_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/928-County-Road-329-Doubl...

quantified 5y ago

You in a top price area like SF or NYC? Then you’re in local competition with other top 1-10%ers.

MrMember 5y ago

>moving somewhere super rural Why do you think you have to move somewhere super rural? I'm in the suburbs of a major city and decent sized 3 bedroom houses start at ~$200k.

wdr1 5y ago

At $545,978/year (the min to be in the 1%), you can afford a house anywhere in the United States, except for 3 very specific geographical regions.

caeril 5y ago

> 1. moving somewhere super rural Why is this such a deal-killer for so many people? That's literally where most of the land is. And a good chunk of it has decent internet, even if you have to mount a 5 GHz airMAX dish on your house.

partizanos 5y ago
No jobs in rural areas. If remitr work becomes the new norm there is an incentive but I doubt it.