13 ms·

> Then everyone - the sellers, the agents, even the bank - push you to borrow the max allowed and spend it. You are not forced to spend above your ability to p

by yucky 4y ago

> Then everyone - the sellers, the agents, even the bank - push you to borrow the max allowed and spend it. You are not forced to spend above your ability to pay. People used to be ok with buying smaller homes, or in less hip neighborhoods. If you can afford a $500k house you can also afford a $350k house. People need to stop making excuses for living above their means.

Izkata 4y ago
> If you can afford a $500k house you can also afford a $350k house. Those numbers seem insanely high to me. I would've thought people are looking for more like $100k.
- llampx 4y ago
  Inflation has been really insane for the last few years, driven by cheap money from the Central Banks. Asset prices have been going parabolic.
- imtringued 4y ago
  You won't find houses for $100k unless they are in poor condition or a bad location. That is roughly the price you would expect to pay for an average condominium in Germany.
  - Izkata 4y ago
    Yeah, that's what I mean - not what houses are selling for, but what people are looking for/able to buy. Median income in the US is somewhere around 40k-70k/year depending on the source, and the general recommendation is not to exceed 2.5x that for the price of a home - so around 100k-175k.
    - yucky 4y ago
      Yes, as shown elsewhere on this thread, thousands of those types of houses are available in countless metro areas around the US. They're just not in San Fran or LA or Seattle so people don't want to take advantage of it. They must think jobs only exists in like 5 cities. Or really they just don't think it sounds cool to say they live in Kansas City or Dallas or whatever.
      - johnchristopher 4y ago
        Or maybe living close to friends and family matters more ? Moving 2000km away from family and friends is an uprooting move.
        yucky 4y ago
        Think about what you're saying logically. The US is huge and the vast majority of humans do not live in those same handful of high COL cities so no, everybody's friends and family don't all live in SF/LA/NYC/Seattle. It's simple - if you want to live in San Francisco then you need to have income to support it. If you want to be able to afford a 3,000 sq. ft. house in your 20's then there are countless places you can do that, but they're not San Francisco. This reads like people complaining that a new iPhone is $1,200 and then saying "BUT I NEED A PHONE!". Yes, you need a phone. No, you do not need the $1,200 phone. Take the blinders off, there is a whole ass world out here.
        johnchristopher 4y ago
        Don't take it on me old man, I am just stating a fact you don't like. I am not even saying they are logical, right or advisable (see behavioral economy and all that). > This reads like people complaining that a new iPhone is $1,200 and then saying "BUT I NEED A PHONE!". Yes, you need a phone. No, you do not need the $1,200 phone. Take the blinders off, there is a whole ass world out here. And you read like an angry and sour person who wants to rub people's nose in it just to say "told you so" by deliberately missing the point I made. Maybe it makes you feel good but you are not helping anyone.
        yucky 4y ago
        Except I'm right, which matters more. The best way to help people is to be honest with them. Validating their feelings might make you feel good, but it does them a disservice. I'd rather be right and sound like an asshole than tell them it's ok to keep heading towards their own demise.
jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
You are ignoring the reality many are facing, where essentially all the available options are above their means. Back in the late 80s Elizabeth Warren and coauthors showed that the most common reason American families went bankrupt was because their high housing costs were an attempt to get their kids into better schools. The blunt truth is the 20 major metro areas are where nearly all the high income jobs are, so we've seen a decades long pattern of migration towards them. This is a huge underlying force in so much of US economics, politics, and culture. At the same time, these metro areas have not come close to matching demand with increased housing supply. The result is increasingly people facing the dilemma where the best economic option for their family is for them to spend 3+ hours of their day commuting to an urban core from an outlying area they can just barely afford to rent in. And god help you if your kid gets sick or your car gets totaled. This is the reality for most working class Americans. It's not a matter of them living above what they can afford, it's about our society becoming so broken many people will never reach a threshold of affording anything like middle class prosperity. And I am entirely out of patience for folks that earn tech industry money while moralizing about how poverty is just people overspending in some purely hedonistic stupid way.
- yucky 4y ago
  > You are ignoring the reality many are facing, where essentially all the available options are above their means. Again, this just simply isn't true. Go to Zillow, and set your filter to houses under say $150k and check the metro areas of Kansas City, St Louis, Dallas, Little Rock, Memphis, Cleveland, Charlotte, Detroit, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cincy, etc. etc. and you will get hundreds of hits in every one of those metro areas. These are not rural communities, millions of people live and work in these and other metropolitan areas. People who say this are convinced they need to move to SF/LA/NYC/Boston/Seattle. Yes, real estate is prohibitively expensive in San Francisco, we get it. So don't move there.
  - dchristian 4y ago
    The bottom end of the housing market is usually junk or otherwise tied up legally. Just because you get hits, doesn't mean that's a viable option. I just did a housing search recently and found this out the hard way. Look at the median for an area and then figure that you can go 10-20% below that for a "fixer upper". Even that isn't an option if you don't have DIY skills.

by yucky 4y ago

Izkata 4y ago

> If you can afford a $500k house you can also afford a $350k house. Those numbers seem insanely high to me. I would've thought people are looking for more like $100k.

llampx 4y ago
Inflation has been really insane for the last few years, driven by cheap money from the Central Banks. Asset prices have been going parabolic.
imtringued 4y ago
You won't find houses for $100k unless they are in poor condition or a bad location. That is roughly the price you would expect to pay for an average condominium in Germany.
- Izkata 4y ago
  Yeah, that's what I mean - not what houses are selling for, but what people are looking for/able to buy. Median income in the US is somewhere around 40k-70k/year depending on the source, and the general recommendation is not to exceed 2.5x that for the price of a home - so around 100k-175k.
  - yucky 4y ago
    Yes, as shown elsewhere on this thread, thousands of those types of houses are available in countless metro areas around the US. They're just not in San Fran or LA or Seattle so people don't want to take advantage of it. They must think jobs only exists in like 5 cities. Or really they just don't think it sounds cool to say they live in Kansas City or Dallas or whatever.
    - johnchristopher 4y ago
      Or maybe living close to friends and family matters more ? Moving 2000km away from family and friends is an uprooting move.
      - yucky 4y ago
        Think about what you're saying logically. The US is huge and the vast majority of humans do not live in those same handful of high COL cities so no, everybody's friends and family don't all live in SF/LA/NYC/Seattle. It's simple - if you want to live in San Francisco then you need to have income to support it. If you want to be able to afford a 3,000 sq. ft. house in your 20's then there are countless places you can do that, but they're not San Francisco. This reads like people complaining that a new iPhone is $1,200 and then saying "BUT I NEED A PHONE!". Yes, you need a phone. No, you do not need the $1,200 phone. Take the blinders off, there is a whole ass world out here.
        johnchristopher 4y ago
        Don't take it on me old man, I am just stating a fact you don't like. I am not even saying they are logical, right or advisable (see behavioral economy and all that). > This reads like people complaining that a new iPhone is $1,200 and then saying "BUT I NEED A PHONE!". Yes, you need a phone. No, you do not need the $1,200 phone. Take the blinders off, there is a whole ass world out here. And you read like an angry and sour person who wants to rub people's nose in it just to say "told you so" by deliberately missing the point I made. Maybe it makes you feel good but you are not helping anyone.
        yucky 4y ago
        Except I'm right, which matters more. The best way to help people is to be honest with them. Validating their feelings might make you feel good, but it does them a disservice. I'd rather be right and sound like an asshole than tell them it's ok to keep heading towards their own demise.

jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago

You are ignoring the reality many are facing, where essentially all the available options are above their means. Back in the late 80s Elizabeth Warren and coauthors showed that the most common reason American families went bankrupt was because their high housing costs were an attempt to get their kids into better schools. The blunt truth is the 20 major metro areas are where nearly all the high income jobs are, so we've seen a decades long pattern of migration towards them. This is a huge underlying force in so much of US economics, politics, and culture. At the same time, these metro areas have not come close to matching demand with increased housing supply. The result is increasingly people facing the dilemma where the best economic option for their family is for them to spend 3+ hours of their day commuting to an urban core from an outlying area they can just barely afford to rent in. And god help you if your kid gets sick or your car gets totaled. This is the reality for most working class Americans. It's not a matter of them living above what they can afford, it's about our society becoming so broken many people will never reach a threshold of affording anything like middle class prosperity. And I am entirely out of patience for folks that earn tech industry money while moralizing about how poverty is just people overspending in some purely hedonistic stupid way.

yucky 4y ago
> You are ignoring the reality many are facing, where essentially all the available options are above their means. Again, this just simply isn't true. Go to Zillow, and set your filter to houses under say $150k and check the metro areas of Kansas City, St Louis, Dallas, Little Rock, Memphis, Cleveland, Charlotte, Detroit, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cincy, etc. etc. and you will get hundreds of hits in every one of those metro areas. These are not rural communities, millions of people live and work in these and other metropolitan areas. People who say this are convinced they need to move to SF/LA/NYC/Boston/Seattle. Yes, real estate is prohibitively expensive in San Francisco, we get it. So don't move there.
- dchristian 4y ago
  The bottom end of the housing market is usually junk or otherwise tied up legally. Just because you get hits, doesn't mean that's a viable option. I just did a housing search recently and found this out the hard way. Look at the median for an area and then figure that you can go 10-20% below that for a "fixer upper". Even that isn't an option if you don't have DIY skills.