3 ms·

I agree with this and I should have clarified - The cost of living is rising fast enough that the majority of people making between 100K and 250K are feeling l

I agree with this and I should have clarified - The cost of living is rising fast enough that the majority of people making between 100K and 250K are feeling like they can't get ahead, with record low numbers of home ownership (not just single family homes either, but condos etc) among this group of traditionally "automatic" home buyers, as well as record lows of asset accumulation. The dollar just isn't going as far as it used to, and there is no signs of that letting up any time soon, even with rising interest rates, you see no knock off effects on things like grocery prices or home prices, even though corporations are making record profits currently.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> record low numbers of home ownership…among this group of traditionally "automatic" home buyers Source? I see evidence of this in supply-restricted cities. But not in the country broadly. > dollar just isn't going as far as it used to Real wages are near historical highs and at par with the pre-Covid economy.
- deepsun 3y ago
  The parent poster probably talks about 1970x, not pre-covid.
  - jonas21 3y ago
    Real wages are also higher today than they were in 1970.
    - deepsun 3y ago
      > In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-... That's 1980x, not 1970x, but should be close.
      - jonas21 3y ago
        Let's use the actual numbers [1] instead of a statement from 5 years ago that things are "about the same" as 40 years before. The average hourly wage for Production and Nonsupervisory Employees in the highest month of 1970 was $3.50, or $26.88 in current dollars. The current average hourly wage is $28.96. Thus, real wages are higher today than they were in 1970. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AHETPI https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AHETPI
- no_wizard 3y ago
  Business Insider[0] and WSJ[1][2] have reported on this over the years. I also do not think its fair to discount away people who live in "highly desirable" urban environments. Beyond a simple dislike of that idea, most of the jobs that do pay over 100K existed near them for decades, and with RTO in full swing, it seems most of them are going back to those cities one way or another. WFH does not appear to be a permanent boon for employees at large. Given this reality, the metrics around those cities are important to consider as well. [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-to-buy-house-six-figure-salary-not-enough-2021-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-to-buy-house-six-fi... [1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-million-u-s-households-making-over-150-000-are-still-renting-48bd48e4 https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-million-u-s-households-ma... [2]: Tried getting an archive link for WSJ but it kept failing. I know its paywalled, will comment if I get a working link
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    The Journal article profiles people choosing not to buy. I did the same in New York—I couldn’t make the rent v. buy math work. > do not think its fair to discount away people who live in "highly desirable" urban environments I’m not if they’re reasonable. I am if they want three bedrooms and a yard and amenities in the hottest neighbourhood that means they make zero compromises for urban living. You can buy a solid one-bedroom co-op in Manhattan for less than $750k, in some places less than $500k.
    - no_wizard 3y ago
      I know we can all think of people being unreasonable, but I don't trust that its the norm, given my own experiences in trying to get out of the rent cycle and others I've talked to. We aren't all trying to get 3 bed w/ a yard and amenities in the ultra desirable neighborhoods. I'd take a 2 bedroom in a safe neighborhood that maybe even doesn't have a yard (or has a really small one) and I can't even come at that reasonably EDIT: I work and live in a Tier 2 city where home prices are a median of 500K. This isn't SF, Manhattan or Seattle etc.
      - 3y ago
- anonym29 3y ago
  > Real wages are near historical highs Doesn't matter when real expenses have grown almost 4x faster than real incomes over the last 90 years. •1933 median individual income: $3,800/y •1933 median house price: $3,800 •2023 median income: $85,000/y •2023 median house price: $410,000
  - tzs 3y ago
    The overall point is probably valid, but you should probably pick a different past year for your comparison. 1933 was in the midst of the Great Depression which would have greatly affected both income and expenses.
kasey_junk 3y ago
In 1960 61%[0] of Americans owned their own home, it’s around 66%[1] now. Go back to before WW2 and you’ll see a homeowner rate in the 40% (which makes sense as our current public policy was largely enacted post war). When people say home ownership rates are down they are comparing it to the pre-2008 bubble deflate when it was a whopping 3% more homeowners. We have more homeowners now than during the childhood of any of the home owning cohort. That is to say we don’t have record low home ownership rates, we have rates within the normal band for our current public policy. [0] https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/time-series/coh-owner/owner-tab.txt https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/ti... [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
- no_wizard 3y ago
  It’s not the percentage one should be concerned with but rather who’s owning the homes. It is skewing older and older as people in their 30s get locked out of the market, and it’s harder for people even younger beyond that. The median age of home owners has steadily been rising. For many, and increasingly i think will be the majority unless something changes, the first home they buy is simply going to be the only one, as well. The rates of people moving homes has dropped steadily as well, as people can’t afford to own a home and then upgrade to a newer / different one down the line
  - kasey_junk 3y ago
    The median age of the whole population is rising, which may be concerning on its own, but makes age defined stats pretty meaningless.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> record low numbers of home ownership…among this group of traditionally "automatic" home buyers Source? I see evidence of this in supply-restricted cities. But not in the country broadly. > dollar just isn't going as far as it used to Real wages are near historical highs and at par with the pre-Covid economy.

deepsun 3y ago
The parent poster probably talks about 1970x, not pre-covid.
- jonas21 3y ago
  Real wages are also higher today than they were in 1970.
  - deepsun 3y ago
    > In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-... That's 1980x, not 1970x, but should be close.
    - jonas21 3y ago
      Let's use the actual numbers [1] instead of a statement from 5 years ago that things are "about the same" as 40 years before. The average hourly wage for Production and Nonsupervisory Employees in the highest month of 1970 was $3.50, or $26.88 in current dollars. The current average hourly wage is $28.96. Thus, real wages are higher today than they were in 1970. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AHETPI https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AHETPI
no_wizard 3y ago
Business Insider[0] and WSJ[1][2] have reported on this over the years. I also do not think its fair to discount away people who live in "highly desirable" urban environments. Beyond a simple dislike of that idea, most of the jobs that do pay over 100K existed near them for decades, and with RTO in full swing, it seems most of them are going back to those cities one way or another. WFH does not appear to be a permanent boon for employees at large. Given this reality, the metrics around those cities are important to consider as well. [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-to-buy-house-six-figure-salary-not-enough-2021-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-to-buy-house-six-fi... [1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-million-u-s-households-making-over-150-000-are-still-renting-48bd48e4 https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-million-u-s-households-ma... [2]: Tried getting an archive link for WSJ but it kept failing. I know its paywalled, will comment if I get a working link
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  The Journal article profiles people choosing not to buy. I did the same in New York—I couldn’t make the rent v. buy math work. > do not think its fair to discount away people who live in "highly desirable" urban environments I’m not if they’re reasonable. I am if they want three bedrooms and a yard and amenities in the hottest neighbourhood that means they make zero compromises for urban living. You can buy a solid one-bedroom co-op in Manhattan for less than $750k, in some places less than $500k.
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    I know we can all think of people being unreasonable, but I don't trust that its the norm, given my own experiences in trying to get out of the rent cycle and others I've talked to. We aren't all trying to get 3 bed w/ a yard and amenities in the ultra desirable neighborhoods. I'd take a 2 bedroom in a safe neighborhood that maybe even doesn't have a yard (or has a really small one) and I can't even come at that reasonably EDIT: I work and live in a Tier 2 city where home prices are a median of 500K. This isn't SF, Manhattan or Seattle etc.
    - 3y ago
anonym29 3y ago
> Real wages are near historical highs Doesn't matter when real expenses have grown almost 4x faster than real incomes over the last 90 years. •1933 median individual income: $3,800/y •1933 median house price: $3,800 •2023 median income: $85,000/y •2023 median house price: $410,000
- tzs 3y ago
  The overall point is probably valid, but you should probably pick a different past year for your comparison. 1933 was in the midst of the Great Depression which would have greatly affected both income and expenses.

kasey_junk 3y ago

In 1960 61%[0] of Americans owned their own home, it’s around 66%[1] now. Go back to before WW2 and you’ll see a homeowner rate in the 40% (which makes sense as our current public policy was largely enacted post war). When people say home ownership rates are down they are comparing it to the pre-2008 bubble deflate when it was a whopping 3% more homeowners. We have more homeowners now than during the childhood of any of the home owning cohort. That is to say we don’t have record low home ownership rates, we have rates within the normal band for our current public policy. [0] https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/time-series/coh-owner/owner-tab.txt https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/ti... [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

no_wizard 3y ago
It’s not the percentage one should be concerned with but rather who’s owning the homes. It is skewing older and older as people in their 30s get locked out of the market, and it’s harder for people even younger beyond that. The median age of home owners has steadily been rising. For many, and increasingly i think will be the majority unless something changes, the first home they buy is simply going to be the only one, as well. The rates of people moving homes has dropped steadily as well, as people can’t afford to own a home and then upgrade to a newer / different one down the line
- kasey_junk 3y ago
  The median age of the whole population is rising, which may be concerning on its own, but makes age defined stats pretty meaningless.