5 ms·

This seems... very achievable if you're a dual parent household. Which most Americans families are. $57k per person? That's median income for full time workers

This seems... very achievable if you're a dual parent household. Which most Americans families are. $57k per person? That's median income for full time workers.

coldbrewed 3y ago
If you're a dual income/parent household, you have to afford both the house payments and childcare; typical child care costs can be so great that it makes sense for one parent to drop out of the workforce to care for children so you're back at square one with a single income household. At a median income of $57k your options are house XOR children which does a decent job of explaining why we're seeing birth rates plummet.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- missedthecue 3y ago
  You only have to pay childcare if you have kids, and if you have them, it's a temporary expense for the first few years until they are in school. People online act like you gotta pay childcare for the rest of time once you have a baby.
- salamanderss 3y ago
  It's so awesome society cares so much about kids they'll toss you in jail for leaving them in the car while you run in the gas station to pay, but they won't lift a finger to contribute to the future tax slaves until they're five. Society in its sick tragedy of the commons war against parents want to get all the tax generation rewards with none of the risk and the minority of the investment.
  - missedthecue 3y ago
    You might be from another country, but in the US there are very generous tax credits (better than deductions) for people with children. It doesn't make children free or profitable, but it's unfair to say "society doesn't care".
    - salamanderss 3y ago
      The credit barely covers the increased property taxes incurred to inhabit a larger structure, to fulfil laws such as child safety equipment, taxes on diapers, extra costs of registering and state mandated insurance of larger vehicle with additional seats for children. And other mandates imposed by law. They are at best covering cost of their own mandates and other child related taxes.
      - missedthecue 3y ago
        It is the single largest tax credit in the entire US tax code. My point is that it's unfair to say "society doesn't care". I'm not necessarily arguing that it's currently at the perfect amount.
        salamanderss 3y ago
        It's interesting you put that in quote form when it isn't a quote from what I've said.
        missedthecue 3y ago
        "It's so awesome society cares so much about kids they'll toss you in jail for leaving them in the car while you run in the gas station to pay, but they won't lift a finger to contribute to the future tax slaves until they're five" This is your quote, there's a lot of sarcasm which makes it awkward to directly quote but we can all see the point your trying to get across. Society "won't lift a finger" for parents with young children. But they do the child tax credit, and not only that, it's even more generous for children age 5 and under! So they do "lift a finger to contribute to the future tax slaves until they're five" in your direct words.
        salamanderss 3y ago
        They lift the finger in the sense they yank it down and then lift it almost to the same place. As I've just explained, additional other child related taxes and state mandates counterbalance that credit to the point they're lifting the finger they smacked down to about where it started. It is like bragging about applying a bandaid after a punch to the face.
tsunamifury 3y ago
Vast majority of house holds are not dual income equal pay... also... tons of other stats that contradict that. 73k is median, make this a great deal above median.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  Vast majority are NOT dual income? According to BLS, 53% of households are dual income, 66% of households with children are dual income. The difference, according to the BLS, is that old retired people are often single income and don't have kids. But retired people are generally not in the market as first time homebuyers anyway. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/comparing-characteristics-and-selected-expenditures-of-dual-and-single-income-households-with-children.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/comparing-characte... So frankly, it would be fair to say that the vast majority of american families ARE dual income.
  - tsunamifury 3y ago
    Dual income equal pay... please read.
    - missedthecue 3y ago
      Sorry, I don't see how that's relevant. Being at $79k and $35k pay is not equal but achieves the same end result of meeting the $114k mark.
      - tsunamifury 3y ago
        my dude median HOUSEHOLD income is 73k, that means 40 something and 30. I'm feeling like this is an elaborate joke based on your handle because you certainly do...
        missedthecue 3y ago
        I never made a claim that every american could go out and buy a house right now? I said that for dual income families it is very achievable. You are quoting median household numbers to me which is immaterial to the arguments here considered. I'm interested in dual earning household income. I can't find figures for this with BLS, but Rocket Mortgage who has a lot of data on american family and homebuyer incomes says that the average dual income family WITH kids brings in $129k per year. Even higher for DINKs. Now this is average not median, but I think it's still paints the broad picture I'm trying to communicate. I doubt median is half the average. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dinks-average-salary-138-000-110000866.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dinks-average-salary-138-000-...
accrual 3y ago
It is likely much more doable as a family unit. I can't speak for everyone, but I wish I didn't have to depend on anyone else to be to afford my own home. Dual income is nice, but the ability for one or the other to not have to work (sickness, travel, sabbatical) would be really nice. Or just having the ability to live alone and not throw away money into rent.
washadjeffmad 3y ago
Median household income in my city of 40K is $70K. Household. The median home price is over $400K. It's that high because a toll lane was built to the nearest metropolitan city so the urbanites priced out of living close to their jobs could flood surrounding areas without the city needing to expand housing. Meanwhile, our young graduates and public servants can't afford a mortgage in the town they work for, and the wealthy families either vote their enclaves to be exclusive receivers of local taxes, or else they carve themselves out to merge with the county of the metro area so they can siphon off their services, instead. You think $57K is trivial, but wealth inequality is draining local workers dry.

This seems... very achievable if you're a dual parent household. Which most Americans families are. $57k per person? That's median income for full time workers.

coldbrewed 3y ago

If you're a dual income/parent household, you have to afford both the house payments and childcare; typical child care costs can be so great that it makes sense for one parent to drop out of the workforce to care for children so you're back at square one with a single income household. At a median income of $57k your options are house XOR children which does a decent job of explaining why we're seeing birth rates plummet.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
missedthecue 3y ago
You only have to pay childcare if you have kids, and if you have them, it's a temporary expense for the first few years until they are in school. People online act like you gotta pay childcare for the rest of time once you have a baby.
salamanderss 3y ago
It's so awesome society cares so much about kids they'll toss you in jail for leaving them in the car while you run in the gas station to pay, but they won't lift a finger to contribute to the future tax slaves until they're five. Society in its sick tragedy of the commons war against parents want to get all the tax generation rewards with none of the risk and the minority of the investment.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  You might be from another country, but in the US there are very generous tax credits (better than deductions) for people with children. It doesn't make children free or profitable, but it's unfair to say "society doesn't care".
  - salamanderss 3y ago
    The credit barely covers the increased property taxes incurred to inhabit a larger structure, to fulfil laws such as child safety equipment, taxes on diapers, extra costs of registering and state mandated insurance of larger vehicle with additional seats for children. And other mandates imposed by law. They are at best covering cost of their own mandates and other child related taxes.
    - missedthecue 3y ago
      It is the single largest tax credit in the entire US tax code. My point is that it's unfair to say "society doesn't care". I'm not necessarily arguing that it's currently at the perfect amount.
      - salamanderss 3y ago
        It's interesting you put that in quote form when it isn't a quote from what I've said.
        missedthecue 3y ago
        "It's so awesome society cares so much about kids they'll toss you in jail for leaving them in the car while you run in the gas station to pay, but they won't lift a finger to contribute to the future tax slaves until they're five" This is your quote, there's a lot of sarcasm which makes it awkward to directly quote but we can all see the point your trying to get across. Society "won't lift a finger" for parents with young children. But they do the child tax credit, and not only that, it's even more generous for children age 5 and under! So they do "lift a finger to contribute to the future tax slaves until they're five" in your direct words.
        salamanderss 3y ago
        They lift the finger in the sense they yank it down and then lift it almost to the same place. As I've just explained, additional other child related taxes and state mandates counterbalance that credit to the point they're lifting the finger they smacked down to about where it started. It is like bragging about applying a bandaid after a punch to the face.

tsunamifury 3y ago

Vast majority of house holds are not dual income equal pay... also... tons of other stats that contradict that. 73k is median, make this a great deal above median.

missedthecue 3y ago
Vast majority are NOT dual income? According to BLS, 53% of households are dual income, 66% of households with children are dual income. The difference, according to the BLS, is that old retired people are often single income and don't have kids. But retired people are generally not in the market as first time homebuyers anyway. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/comparing-characteristics-and-selected-expenditures-of-dual-and-single-income-households-with-children.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/comparing-characte... So frankly, it would be fair to say that the vast majority of american families ARE dual income.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  Dual income equal pay... please read.
  - missedthecue 3y ago
    Sorry, I don't see how that's relevant. Being at $79k and $35k pay is not equal but achieves the same end result of meeting the $114k mark.
    - tsunamifury 3y ago
      my dude median HOUSEHOLD income is 73k, that means 40 something and 30. I'm feeling like this is an elaborate joke based on your handle because you certainly do...
      - missedthecue 3y ago
        I never made a claim that every american could go out and buy a house right now? I said that for dual income families it is very achievable. You are quoting median household numbers to me which is immaterial to the arguments here considered. I'm interested in dual earning household income. I can't find figures for this with BLS, but Rocket Mortgage who has a lot of data on american family and homebuyer incomes says that the average dual income family WITH kids brings in $129k per year. Even higher for DINKs. Now this is average not median, but I think it's still paints the broad picture I'm trying to communicate. I doubt median is half the average. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dinks-average-salary-138-000-110000866.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dinks-average-salary-138-000-...

accrual 3y ago

It is likely much more doable as a family unit. I can't speak for everyone, but I wish I didn't have to depend on anyone else to be to afford my own home. Dual income is nice, but the ability for one or the other to not have to work (sickness, travel, sabbatical) would be really nice. Or just having the ability to live alone and not throw away money into rent.

washadjeffmad 3y ago

Median household income in my city of 40K is $70K. Household. The median home price is over $400K. It's that high because a toll lane was built to the nearest metropolitan city so the urbanites priced out of living close to their jobs could flood surrounding areas without the city needing to expand housing. Meanwhile, our young graduates and public servants can't afford a mortgage in the town they work for, and the wealthy families either vote their enclaves to be exclusive receivers of local taxes, or else they carve themselves out to merge with the county of the metro area so they can siphon off their services, instead. You think $57K is trivial, but wealth inequality is draining local workers dry.