10 ms·

Average American household budgets are dominated by housing, transportation and taxes. Maybe some of that problem is about spending too much money, but it cann

• 9rx 1y ago
  > Average American household budgets are dominated by [...] transportation Huh? Doesn't the average American live in a city? The whole reason for accepting being squeezed in tightly with other people is so that you don't have to worry about transportation; enabling everything you could ever want and need to be found in short walking distance. Transportation is for people in rural areas. Yes, it is expensive, but that's exactly why most people left rural areas for the city long ago.
  • smelendez 1y ago
    Most American urban areas are dominated by suburbs where it’s not practical to walk everywhere and public transit is very limited. So a car is necessary and often a car per working adult.
    • 9rx 1y ago
      Yes, but why would anyone want to live on what is effectively a farm, but without the benefit of separation from other people or land (read: income) that a farm offers? That completely defies the whole reason for the density. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I question why people are doing it.
      • acuozzo 1y ago
        FWIW, I grew up in Brooklyn, NY. I know about both urban and suburban living. I now live in Columbia, MD: a suburb from the late '60s planned with high ideals. My three children each have their own room. They can ride their bicycles on our sleepy street without having to constantly worry about reckless drivers. They can explore the walking trails and wooded areas our community maintains. They can play baseball in one of the nearby fields without having to worry about breaking a car window in doing so. My wife has a large crafting area. I have an office. We have a home theater. We have a workshop in our garage. We have a large sunroom which opens to a large deck suitable for entertaining many friends at once. Getting even a fraction of what I described above in a city would cost a fortune.
        • 9rx 1y ago
          The benefits of living in the country are obvious. And since the land provides income itself, the extra cost of transportation one has to assume to live in the country is well offset anyway. Its the weird middle ground that has all of the downsides of the country and all of the downsides of the city all packed into one that we're talking about.
          • acuozzo 1y ago
            > And since the land provides income itself Hardly. Agriculture is hard work and not at all profitable unless the operation is at scale.
            • 9rx 1y ago
              > Agriculture is hard work and not at all profitable unless the operation is at scale. You seem a bit confused. While that is more or less true for the farmer, it is that way because the landlord usually takes most of the profit. As is to be expected. They hold all the cards. You can't farm without land. But given that in this scenario you are the landlord, not the one doing the work... The key to farm profitability is to own your own land free and clear. But, of course, unless you have a high paying job doing something else instead of farming that's really hard to pull off, so most farmers end up renting (either to a landlord directly, or renting money from a lender). That's when you need scale to make up for the vast majority of the profit going to someone else.
          • Whoppertime 1y ago
            Some people really just want a back yard with a white picket fence their kids can play in
            • 9rx 1y ago
              Sure, but outside of where that backyard is wanted to be hundreds of acres, then there is the density necessary to introduce amenities like jobs, healthcare, shopping, etc. alongside the backyard. At which point you no longer need transportation as you have everything you need right there. But what happens in the places we're talking about is that the people accept a small backyard in order to keep everything close, but also work to ensure that amenities aren't welcome, only allowing other houses to be close. So you get all the downsides of the city, having to trip over your annoying neighbours, but also the downsides of living in the country, having to waste large amounts of time driving to do anything. What do people see in these strange middle places?
      • vel0city 1y ago
        > The whole reason for accepting being squeezed in tightly with other people That's the thing, a lot of Americans really don't like this idea of being squeezed in tightly. People really don't like having a shared wall. And it's not that people like these tightly squeezed lot lines, they'd prefer 1 acre lots. These tiny lots are all they can afford while still being somewhat acceptable to them about commutes. Which Americans seem to really just not care about commute times when comparing to tradeoffs on house size and not having shared walls. And in the end, you can only buy what the cities and towns allow to have built. Which is chosen by those who live there at the time. The cities then make single family structures a requirement, have minimum setbacks and lot sizes, have rigid separations between residential and commercial spaces, etc. So even those people who would want to own an apartment over a commercial suite in what you'd consider an urban area can't make that choice because that choice is illegal. But people act like these zoning laws just come about on their own. The thing is, these zoning laws are popular. They get put into place because that's what the people who actually vote in local elections push for. I've seen proposal after proposal in cities around me to change zoning to allow density even in limited areas get fought tooth and nail by residents. I remember a project nearby where there was a proposal to build a mixture of 2-3 unit townhouses, some single-family narrow lots, and a tiny spot of commercial for like a coffee shop on land that was currently zoned industrial. All of this connected to the bike network, a large city park and a nature preserve nearby, and good transit connection at the end of the neighborhood. The neighborhoods around fought it tooth and nail and eventually the builder walked away after trying to negotiate for a few years. Well, the land was already zoned industrial, construction broke ground months later to build warehouses. Now instead of a nice neighborhood on my bike path there's warehouses with semi-trucks rolling through all day long. Good job, NIMBYs!
        • 9rx 1y ago
          > That's the thing, a lot of Americans really don't like this idea of being squeezed in tightly. Sure, it isn't coincidence that the "American Dream" has always been portrayed the sizeable house on a large acreage out in the country surrounded by white picket fences. But we're talking about the people who are choosing to cram in beside one another, but aren't bringing the services and joy that such density normally offers to go along with it. > These tiny lots are all they can afford while still being somewhat acceptable to them about commutes. I've lived in cities and on farms and the commute times end up being about the same if you ever have to leave your immediate community that is within walking distance. You have to drive further from the farm, sure, but the highway is surprisingly efficient. Is there some reason people are more concerned about distance than time? The city offers a clear advantage when you are travelling short enough distances that you can walk. But, that brings us right back to wondering what you need costly transportation for? The two dangly things beneath you are right there! (Yes, I know, some people hazve disabilities, but the discussion isn't about them) > But people act like these zoning laws just come about on their own. Not at all. That's why we question why people are doing it. It is clearly their own choice. But why when we then hear them crying that the transportation costs are too high?
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      • danans 1y ago
        > Yes, but why would anyone want to live on what is effectively a farm, but without the benefit of separation from other people or land (read: income) that a farm offers? They don't want complete separation from other people. They want conveniences of the city/metropolis (access to jobs, entertainment, and education) while having a lot of space around their home for recreation & privacy. They don't want farm work (required for that income) either - it's physically and emotionally hard and margins are thin and fragile depending on the weather.
        • 9rx 1y ago
          > They want conveniences of the city/metropolis (access to jobs, entertainment, and education) But not without having to travel. And once travel is in the picture, you can be to the same places just as fast from a farm as you can from another point in the city. It might be hard to appreciate if you have never lived on a farm, but once you do you'll realize that the highway is unbelievably efficient. Your point only holds for when that stuff is available within walking distance of one's home. But now we're back to not needing costly transportation, so... > They don't want farm work (required for that income) either Where do you get the idea that farm work is a necessary condition to realize an income from farm land? Most farmers (in the legal sense) don't farm their own land, they have other farmers work it through sharecropping/rental agreements.
          • danans 1y ago
            > But not without having to travel. And once travel is in the picture, you can be to the same places just as fast from a farm as you can from another point in the city. Your phrase "having to travel" is painting with a very broad brush. There are naturally huge variations in transit time depending on where you live in a metropolis, where you are going, and how you are getting there. I can walk 15 minutes to a coffee shop and grocery store, drive 20 minutes to a Walmart, and take a train 35 minutes to the office. All are very convenient and the latter two require transportation. > Where do you get the idea that farm work is a necessary condition to realize an income from farm land? Most farmers (in the legal sense) don't farm their own land, they have other farmers work it through sharecropping/rental agreements. Even if you aren't doing the hard labor, you have to want to manage that kind of business. Most people evidently prefer not to, and instead like urban jobs. The last 150 years of urbanization isn't a fluke.
      • johnnyanmac 1y ago
        Because it's cheaper, if we're bring frank. The middle class is slowly being priced out of urban sprawls.
        • 9rx 1y ago
          It's not though, else transportation costs wouldn't be of concern. If you don't find transportation costs to be problematic in your budget, wonderful news, but that is not fitting in the topic at hand. Those with "fuck you" money live a very different life.
    • jjav 1y ago
      > Most American urban areas are dominated by suburbs where it’s not practical to walk everywhere and public transit is very limited. Not every suburb is like that. I live in a pretty remote suburb in Silicon Valley (could be almost called rural) and I can walk to pretty much anything necessary in weekly life. My office, shopping, supermarkets, restaurants, pharmacies, hardware store, movies, library, post office, parks, some doctors. While I own cars for various hobbies and convenience, they're not stricly necessary. If I had to scale back on spending I could easily live without any cars in this suburb.
  • potato3732842 1y ago
    You've been mislead by an overloaded term. Urban in an academic context is a much lower bar than urban in a "any reasonably layman's meaning of the word" context. Pretty much any time you hear "city" or "urban" it's either a direct or indirect reference to US census data (or follow on research by other academics that uses their definitions) which play fast and loose with the word urban in a way that results in the population of even the most far out municipalities within a city's economic area being countable as urban in some capacity depending on what data set you want to use (some of the data sets draw economic distinctions rather than lifestyle ones, so a rural farmer who exists in the eoncomic gravity well of a major urban area will be counted as urban). This is all magnified by substantially less than honest people omitting the potentially misleading nature of the term when it suits them and the people who they've informed going on to parrot it without actually understanding it. INB4 nitpickers, it's been a decade since I've done any work with this data, if my knowledge is out of date and it's no longer misleading to the layman then good.
    • 9rx 1y ago
      > Urban in an academic context is a much lower bar than urban I said city, not urban, trying to portray a high density, well populated area. I fully recognize that the US considers a community as small as 2,000 people to be urban. And, similarly, you need as few as 1,000 people in an area in my country to fall into what is considered urban. This is all well known and understood. That said, the 3,000 people strong town I live in has everything you need in walking distance, so the point still stands even for small urban too. But it remains that average American lives in larger, more dense communities than that, so the idea of needing transportation is quite strange and defeats the purpose of the density.
      • danans 1y ago
        > But it remains that average American lives in larger, more dense communities than that, so the idea of needing transportation is quite strange and defeats the purpose of the density. Generally, American suburbs (where most Americans live) are neither dense nor particularly walkable. Driving is the only option (since they also generally lack public transit). > That said, the 3,000 people strong town I live in has everything you need in walking distance, so the point still stands even for small urban too. But it remains that average American lives in larger, more dense communities than that, so the idea of needing transportation is quite strange and defeats the purpose of the density. If you live in a pre-car American town (like the kind that Strong Towns champions), it is likely far more dense than the typical American suburb, and built for walking access - since that was the default at the time they came into existence.
  • vel0city 1y ago
    This is an "urban" home in a "city" of nearly 40,000 residents. Good luck telling this family they don't need to worry about paying for at least one automobile. https://maps.app.goo.gl/niLDDJkrkYJ1Hh4J7 https://maps.app.goo.gl/niLDDJkrkYJ1Hh4J7
• bryanlarsen 1y ago
  That's a two-edged sword. Food, clothing, cars and all sorts of factory produced stuff are significantly cheaper today than they were 50 years ago. So they don't dominate budgets the way they used to 50 years ago.
  • xeromal 1y ago
    I remember reading years ago that food used to cost 30% of a family's income in the early 1900s
  • johnnyanmac 1y ago
    Yes, so why are we ignoring that housing is multiple times more expensive? Even with 5 times the luxury expenses, you're not going to end up cheaper than boomers who paid $1000 on a mortgage in a high COL area. Telling people to penny pinch on buying Netflix subscriptions while rent is 70% of their budget is just political theater at this point.
    • bryanlarsen 1y ago
      Rent per square foot per person as a fraction of income has been relatively constant. Rent has gone from 13% of income in 1970 to 30% of income today, but average house size has doubled and average family size has halved.
      • corford 1y ago
        Renting is not owning (no benefits accrue from asset appreciation). The same calc for ownership is very different. Also would love to know % of population in 1970 that rented versus today. My guess is it's much higher today.
        • SirMaster 1y ago
          But renting has no property taxes or maintenance costs and should cost a lot less, meaning you can take the money that would have gone to those other things and invest it to earn returns on it. I pay 600/mo in rent, so 7200 a year. A basic house around me would easily be about 7200 in property tax + average annual maintenance costs + increased utility costs + increased insurance. So how am I losing out on anything unless you think that a house value (minus loan rate) would appreciate more than I can earn with that money instead invested in the stock market or some other real-estate investment deal like multi-family units.
• BobaFloutist 1y ago
  Taxes? That can't possibly be right. Average American household pays a small fraction of their income in taxes. Unless they somehow got a huge, expensive house and have the mortgage paid off, I don't see how their income could possibly be dominated by taxes over, say, healthcare, or food.
  • drdec 1y ago
    Income tax is not the only tax. First off there is payroll tax. Then there are sales taxes. And don't forget property tax. I am probably forgetting something.
    • Whoppertime 1y ago
      Well if they're buying gasoline in California, or cigarettes in Australia taxes can be a huge part of the pricetag even if they're not thinking of it as taxes. You can see various taxes and fees if you look at the receipt of an airline ticket or a bill from a Telecoms company. I admit the fee they add to fund 911 calls isn't typically large but every little bit adds up
  • JamesBarney 1y ago
    A family that makes 80k spends about - 9400 on federal income taxes - 12,000 on payroll taxes (including corp chunk b/c of economics) - 3000-9000 on sales/property/stage income taxes That's a pretty big chunk.
    • BobaFloutist 1y ago
      I guess I don't really count payroll taxes since it's not a line item in my budget. Anyway, that's certainly a bigger chunk than I was envisioning.
• jimbokun 1y ago
  You left out health care and education.