4 ms·

In my city, 10 years ago, a nice starter home was around 150k. Now you can’t buy a dump for less than 200k. And those same nice starter homes are 250k+. It’s no

In my city, 10 years ago, a nice starter home was around 150k. Now you can’t buy a dump for less than 200k. And those same nice starter homes are 250k+. It’s not hard to imagine why. People flipping burgers can easily make 40k per year now just in base pay. A single person working an incredibly low end job now makes enough money to get approved for nearly 200k loan.

noahtallen 4y ago
Right, and for good reason. It used to be the case that houses were affordable on a basic salary. That hasn’t been the case for a long time for a lot of people. (And to be fair, still isn’t in urban areas.) The combo of slightly higher wages, more young people moving out, and low interest rates does mean more people have the opportunity. And that’s not a bad thing. If you cancel any of those factors, you’re blocking access to people who would love to own a home. I think the factors that should change are supply and investors. It’s not like we live in an era where housing is cheap and bountiful. Clearly it’s severely constrained. The other part is investment. With low interest rates, it’s easy to justify a house as an investment vehicle. Legislatively, it needs to be easy to build and hard to buy more than one property.
ahoy 4y ago
If you think 40k/yr is buy-a-house money you've never lived off 40k/yr.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Highly dependent on the area. If that city is say Indianapolis or Toledo it would easily pay all your bills and buy you a house. If that city is San Francisco it's enough to buy some lube for the moonlighting profession you'll have to do to make rent.
rdtwo 4y ago
I can’t tear down my house and build a decent 2500sq foot house for under 800k in Seattle. Cost of building and permits is a huge factor not just land
- seoaeu 4y ago
  It is also a vicious cycle. If you want to hire construction workers in a place like Seattle, you have to pay them enough so they can live in the area.

noahtallen 4y ago

Right, and for good reason. It used to be the case that houses were affordable on a basic salary. That hasn’t been the case for a long time for a lot of people. (And to be fair, still isn’t in urban areas.) The combo of slightly higher wages, more young people moving out, and low interest rates does mean more people have the opportunity. And that’s not a bad thing. If you cancel any of those factors, you’re blocking access to people who would love to own a home. I think the factors that should change are supply and investors. It’s not like we live in an era where housing is cheap and bountiful. Clearly it’s severely constrained. The other part is investment. With low interest rates, it’s easy to justify a house as an investment vehicle. Legislatively, it needs to be easy to build and hard to buy more than one property.

ahoy 4y ago

If you think 40k/yr is buy-a-house money you've never lived off 40k/yr.

notch656a 4y ago
Highly dependent on the area. If that city is say Indianapolis or Toledo it would easily pay all your bills and buy you a house. If that city is San Francisco it's enough to buy some lube for the moonlighting profession you'll have to do to make rent.

rdtwo 4y ago

I can’t tear down my house and build a decent 2500sq foot house for under 800k in Seattle. Cost of building and permits is a huge factor not just land

seoaeu 4y ago
It is also a vicious cycle. If you want to hire construction workers in a place like Seattle, you have to pay them enough so they can live in the area.