5 ms·

You singular? Probably not. You the household (of at least two earners)? That's the more likely scenario. The point being, as we've moved to the two incomes pe

You singular? Probably not. You the household (of at least two earners)? That's the more likely scenario. The point being, as we've moved to the two incomes per household standard the price of things driven by demand (e.g., housing) has also naturally increased. In those 8 urban areas compensation is higher. It's not advance economics to understand that housing - especially when supply is limited* - is going to increase. And as a percentage of the entire population, these are outliers. We always have outliers. All that said, the better question is: As a percentage of salaries, which areas are most the most expensive? * There's a cost to NIMBY and these communities seem to be okay with that.

ianceicys 4y ago
* Two earners...until you have kids and look into the price of daycare for say 2 kids...then it literally makes $ sense to have 1 spouse stay home. The cost of daycare and childcare has significantly outstripped inflation since the pandemic.
- almost_usual 4y ago
  Yep, paying $1900 a month for daycare for one kid right now.
- drdo 4y ago
  Where do you live that daycare for 2 kids costs more than one full-time salary?
  - almost_usual 4y ago
    Really depends on what the spouse does for a living but in the Bay Area Peninsula two kids is easily $4000 a month for daycare. If you both are making FAANG comp sure, keep working. If your spouse is a teacher? Maybe not.
    - drdo 4y ago
      Given those numbers maybe the right move is to open a daycare!
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        The right move for everyone is to stop having kids. Wait until things change so that it's economically comfortable to have kids, though this may take a generation or two.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - nostrademons 4y ago
        Challenge is housing costs. A 3/2 SFH will run about $2M, which at current interest rates is about $12K. It takes childcare income from 6 kids just to pay the mortgage, and sole-proprietorship home daycares are limited to 8 kids total (less if some are infants). For people who already own their own home, though, it's a pretty attractive living if you like kids. Most of the home daycares we looked at are run by people who bought ~10-15 years ago, and they make a very good living, and oftentimes have the house fully paid off. Either that or they bought recently but are pooling resources from multiple family members to afford the house, and then have them helping out with the childcare.
  - francisofascii 4y ago
    The 2nd wage earner gets hit with the marginal tax rate. So you have to factor in roughly a 30% ish reduction of that 2nd salary, not to mention transportation and other expenses. And tech workers don’t always marry high salary tech workers.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  That's the irony. Both parents work and the market swallows a good chunk of the second income. But now, simultaneously, there are two income households with zero kids. That's the new benchmark. I'm not going to judge / critique / question why it is, but the shift from one income per household to two has create economic chaos. Chaos we have yet to come to terms with. But more irony, from an economic POV there are couples opting out of families because of the costs. And the new benchmark nudges up...
  - almost_usual 4y ago
    My friends without kids typically find ways to spend money doing other things, people need to occupy time. They travel more, have memberships to wineries, and eat out multiple times a week. People without kids also tend to compete in different areas for housing. A place with a great view in a bad school district could be appealing. Where people with kids typically want a SFH in the burbs in a good school district. Really the strongest competitor in the housing market is the older generation with more disposable income and a house(s) already.
    - chiefalchemist 4y ago
      The age doesn't matter, more "disposable" income will drive up prices. A home here, a home there, comps. Poof! Prices nudge up. And you don't see the younger ones because, yes they still have economic headroom to travel.
knubie 4y ago
Elizabeth Warren wrote a book about this called The Two Income Trap [0] [0] https://a.co/d/iA9xxIX https://a.co/d/iA9xxIX
- yuppie_scum 4y ago
  Fun fact, her Cambridge house is worth north of 3.1 million.
  - throwaway5959 4y ago
    She’s just like Bernie Sanders, a lot of talk about the poor and no action. Hypocrites.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      Having a house worth that much isn't evidence of inaction and it's definitely not hypocrisy. Their argument isn't "if you have 5 million dollars you're a bad person".
      - cvwright 4y ago
        But that is their hypocrisy. If you have a thousand times more than most people, nbd. If you have a thousand times more than them, then that’s an outrage.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        The outrage is not having that much money, it's that taxes are too low for those people. But also, those two are not that rich. The top 1% is the biggest net you could reasonably cast for "too much wealth", and they're below that $11M threshold. Another good reference point is "what would have gotten you called a millionaire around 1800-1930, before we had several decades of consistent inflation", and the answer is at least 25 million dollars today.
        4y ago
88913527 4y ago
The market has priced in a move from 1 to 2 earners, which is reasonable given societal expectations around household formation. Given a move from 2 to 3 would be highly unexpected, ceteris paribus home prices could plateau.

ianceicys 4y ago

* Two earners...until you have kids and look into the price of daycare for say 2 kids...then it literally makes $ sense to have 1 spouse stay home. The cost of daycare and childcare has significantly outstripped inflation since the pandemic.

almost_usual 4y ago
Yep, paying $1900 a month for daycare for one kid right now.
drdo 4y ago
Where do you live that daycare for 2 kids costs more than one full-time salary?
- almost_usual 4y ago
  Really depends on what the spouse does for a living but in the Bay Area Peninsula two kids is easily $4000 a month for daycare. If you both are making FAANG comp sure, keep working. If your spouse is a teacher? Maybe not.
  - drdo 4y ago
    Given those numbers maybe the right move is to open a daycare!
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      The right move for everyone is to stop having kids. Wait until things change so that it's economically comfortable to have kids, though this may take a generation or two.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - nostrademons 4y ago
      Challenge is housing costs. A 3/2 SFH will run about $2M, which at current interest rates is about $12K. It takes childcare income from 6 kids just to pay the mortgage, and sole-proprietorship home daycares are limited to 8 kids total (less if some are infants). For people who already own their own home, though, it's a pretty attractive living if you like kids. Most of the home daycares we looked at are run by people who bought ~10-15 years ago, and they make a very good living, and oftentimes have the house fully paid off. Either that or they bought recently but are pooling resources from multiple family members to afford the house, and then have them helping out with the childcare.
- francisofascii 4y ago
  The 2nd wage earner gets hit with the marginal tax rate. So you have to factor in roughly a 30% ish reduction of that 2nd salary, not to mention transportation and other expenses. And tech workers don’t always marry high salary tech workers.
chiefalchemist 4y ago
That's the irony. Both parents work and the market swallows a good chunk of the second income. But now, simultaneously, there are two income households with zero kids. That's the new benchmark. I'm not going to judge / critique / question why it is, but the shift from one income per household to two has create economic chaos. Chaos we have yet to come to terms with. But more irony, from an economic POV there are couples opting out of families because of the costs. And the new benchmark nudges up...
- almost_usual 4y ago
  My friends without kids typically find ways to spend money doing other things, people need to occupy time. They travel more, have memberships to wineries, and eat out multiple times a week. People without kids also tend to compete in different areas for housing. A place with a great view in a bad school district could be appealing. Where people with kids typically want a SFH in the burbs in a good school district. Really the strongest competitor in the housing market is the older generation with more disposable income and a house(s) already.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    The age doesn't matter, more "disposable" income will drive up prices. A home here, a home there, comps. Poof! Prices nudge up. And you don't see the younger ones because, yes they still have economic headroom to travel.

knubie 4y ago

Elizabeth Warren wrote a book about this called The Two Income Trap [0] [0] https://a.co/d/iA9xxIX https://a.co/d/iA9xxIX

yuppie_scum 4y ago
Fun fact, her Cambridge house is worth north of 3.1 million.
- throwaway5959 4y ago
  She’s just like Bernie Sanders, a lot of talk about the poor and no action. Hypocrites.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Having a house worth that much isn't evidence of inaction and it's definitely not hypocrisy. Their argument isn't "if you have 5 million dollars you're a bad person".
    - cvwright 4y ago
      But that is their hypocrisy. If you have a thousand times more than most people, nbd. If you have a thousand times more than them, then that’s an outrage.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        The outrage is not having that much money, it's that taxes are too low for those people. But also, those two are not that rich. The top 1% is the biggest net you could reasonably cast for "too much wealth", and they're below that $11M threshold. Another good reference point is "what would have gotten you called a millionaire around 1800-1930, before we had several decades of consistent inflation", and the answer is at least 25 million dollars today.
        4y ago

88913527 4y ago

The market has priced in a move from 1 to 2 earners, which is reasonable given societal expectations around household formation. Given a move from 2 to 3 would be highly unexpected, ceteris paribus home prices could plateau.