|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Doesn't seem too unreasonable to save up over a period of ~6-7 years for a 40k down payment (you can also get a sub-20% downpayment but it's probably a bad idea). That gets you like ~$900 mortgage payments at 4% for a 30 year mortgage, which seems affordable. I can't really say what salary you need in order for that to be a good idea, but it's certainly a thing one can do. Considering the student debt load of Millennials, what they need to be saving for retirement, and their job prospects, I'm going to out on a limb and say $40k cash for a downpayment is indeed unaffordable for most of that cohort. I can afford that, barely, but that's among the absolute cheapest homes in my area.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
Radbot posted:$220k is affordable to millennials? Interesting, why do you say that? oh cool are you going to insist that i define 'affordable' to you now Radbot posted:70 homes in the hottest housing market in the country is virtually nothing. Can you link me to some of these homes, by the way? I didn't see that many in Denver, only if you include the entire metro area. go to zillow dot com and use the website do you think pretending you've never used the internet before is a neat rhetorical trick that doesn't make you look like a helpless whiner
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:And it's also insanely expensive, back to where this thread started about rent increases. If you want cheap housing it needs to be spread out. I seem to recall (from like two years ago in the Chicago LAN thread) that you strongly favor minimum parking requirements, which are a huge driver in urban construction costs
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:oh cool are you going to insist that i define 'affordable' to you now Yeah I went to zillow dawt cahm and I'm calling bullshit on what you found, liar. And no, a $40k is not affordable by any traditional definition for most Millennials in a statistical sense, I don't need you to define poo poo for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Considering the student debt load of Millennials, what they need to be saving for retirement, and their job prospects, I'm going to out on a limb and say $40k cash for a downpayment is indeed unaffordable for most of that cohort. I can afford that, barely, but that's among the absolute cheapest homes in my area. How long have you been saving? Not that you're necessarily representative anyway, but it's more a matter of how long it takes to afford a house, not if they can buy now. If you can barely afford the cheapest place now, with some more saving/raises you'll be able to afford something better in 3 years. Is there some reason why buying property ASAP is something that should be priority for people? Personally I think the 2-car garage and a yard american dream was foolish 50s short-sightedness and the pile of tax incentives for home ownership were a mistake. I want people to have places to live in walkable communities near their workplace. Owning one's own place outright as the One True Path to that certainly isn't something I believe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Yeah I went to zillow dawt cahm and I'm calling bullshit on what you found, liar. ok well congrats on your functional inability to seek out information for yourself this will make it difficult for you to find what you're looking for, condolences and god bless Radbot posted:
"a new car should only cost $8k i can't afford any more, it's not faaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiirrrrr" -a self-described millenial
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:ok well congrats on your functional inability to seek out information for yourself this will make it difficult for you to find what you're looking for, condolences and god bless I found it just fine, there aren't 70 homes for that price within the city of Denver, sorry. Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:How long have you been saving? Not that you're necessarily representative anyway, but it's more a matter of how long it takes to afford a house, not if they can buy now. If you can barely afford the cheapest place now, with some more saving/raises you'll be able to afford something better in 3 years. I've been saving for about three years. I currently make ~$95k/yr W-2, and I don't want a house that's more expensive. Popular Thug Drink posted:"a new car should only cost $8k i can't afford any more, it's not faaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiirrrrr" -a self-described millenial I can afford it just fine - I posted my salary, what's yours?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
if you make just under six figures solo and you can't save less than ten percent over five years of that to put a down payment on a house you freaking suck at personal finance bro either you're telling some stories to win a pointless internet argument or you're self-owning
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:if you make just under six figures solo and you can't save less than ten percent of that to put a down payment on a house you freaking suck at personal finance bro Like I said, I can afford it, most Millennials can't. By the way, what do you earn?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Like I said, I can afford it, most Millennials can't. By the way, what do you earn? lol let's not change the subject from how bad with money you are why are you positioning yourself as the advocate of all millenials when you seem to be incapable of managing your own li- actually, it does kind of make sense now. never mind, continue pointlessly whining
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
"i can barely afford to buy a starter home on an upper middle class salary, clearly all millennials must be as comically inept as i am"
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I found it just fine, there aren't 70 homes for that price within the city of Denver, sorry. Even when I narrow the search to like 180 - 210k I see something like 50 results. Maybe you are bad at internet or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Man, jealousy is ugly. By the way, I can barely afford $40k in cash considering I have zero debt and a very healthy (FIRE ready in 10 years) retirement account which I wouldn't touch - the data says that's actually doing quite well for my age, your uninformed opinion excluded. Have fun working for the rest of your life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
alas, i am slain by the brittleman and his frantic edits
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:alas, i am slain by the brittleman and his frantic edits Don't be sad, work hard and one day you'll have a job as good as mine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
uh i dont need a job as good as yours because i am capable of budgeting, research, saving at a steady rate, adjusting my expectations to reality, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Don't be sad, work hard and one day you'll have a job as good as mine. ooo the humblebrag
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:uh i dont need a job as good as yours because i am capable of budgeting, research, saving at a steady rate, adjusting my expectations to reality, etc. That's fair, but I'll say it really helps when you're trying to go FIRE. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:ooo the humblebrag That'd be a brag, not a humblebrag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Good poo poo, fellas
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
My point is you can easily afford to buy a house even if it's not right this second. Buying a house is something you plan for a long time on, so saying the down payment will be no problem in 3 years is pretty valid. I was going by the millenial average salary of more like 35k, where it is more difficult to plan and save, and a financial mistake is more likely to set you back a long time. I said to save for 6-7 years, you're at 3. Between way more savings and yearly salary increases, by the time 3-4 more years pass, you'll be asking how much extra you should put towards a down payment versus investing and this will be a non-issue. I am not surprised that it is hard to save enough to put a down payment on a house when you are only 3 years out of school. That isn't very much time at all, it's a serious commitment that one should think hard about. You aren't trying on a pair of shoes or even choosing what college to go to, this is a place you expect to live for 10+ years. It's cool that this thread has people I had cast as party line-towing leftists disagreeing, clearly a contentious issue!! For the record I had about that saved not including retirement when I had been working for 3 years, 2 more years have passed since then and although I am now at a point where I could put a down payment on a place, I don't particularly want to since 1. I don't know how long I will live here, and 2. the places I would be able to buy are too far away from the dense area that I live in now and prefer, so my quality of life would go down drastically. Overall it seems overrated to me and I may well end up renting my whole life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Overall it seems overrated to me and I may well end up renting my whole life. same, i'm saving ostensibly for home ownership but the marginal cost of renting and the additional mobility that provides vs. the long term cost of owning means that it's a serious gamble i could move out to the burbs where there are good schools and relatively cheap single family homes but i think i'd go crazy out there. we'll see how i feel about it as i approach my forties
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Jeffrey has brought up rent vs. buy a couple times now in this thread, as well as the strongly expressed cultural preference for buying over renting. I'm glad he has. I personally think we overvalue ownership, and my ideal city or even neighborhood includes a variety of both rental and owner occupied dwelling units at a variety of price points. This preference not only isn't widely shared, I think, but in fact the preference for ownership likely worms its way into a fair number of land use decisions. I've definitely heard people (even other planners in my department!) that they're not opposed to multifamily development in Location X, they just want to make sure it's "high quality". I suspect this is often code for condo vs. apartment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Why can't we just live out of the car? That seems vastly more affordable. Surely there is no stigma or issues with that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
The real value of buying is that it forces you to "save" in your home (building equity isn't really saving, of course), IMO. You can come out ahead by renting in the long run, but you'd better have saved and invested all the money you saved by not shelling out a down payment, not paying for repairs, not paying property tax bills, etc because paying rent for the ~20 years most people have in retirement is a bear otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The real value of buying is that it forces you to "save" in your home (building equity isn't really saving, of course), IMO. Yeah it's like an enforced sort of financial literacy - the lack of widespread financial literacy is a pretty deep topic that's probably beyond the scope of this thread. Needless to say you are right, that is the part that makes it "good" advice, if you feel compelled to spend your bank account down to 0, it's better if you get some equity for your trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:I seem to recall (from like two years ago in the Chicago LAN thread) that you strongly favor minimum parking requirements, which are a huge driver in urban construction costs Sounds about right. Yards are pointless, mandate garages instead. How much of the mid 00 bubble (and the one we're in now) coincided with the back to city movement? Probably not much but it'd be interesting to see a surge in demand for inner city dwelling coinciding with the spike in prices.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Sounds about right. Yards are pointless, mandate garages instead. .mandating anything is an artificial restriction on density. mandating playgrounds or no-kill shelters or abortion clinics is an artificial restriction on density, and thus raises rents
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Radbot posted:$220k is affordable to millennials? Interesting, why do you say that? quote:Less than high school: $23,900
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Well, obviously affordable depends not just on the price of the home, but also the incomes people make in the area. To give us a ballpark, according to this article, these are median full-time young adult incomes by educational level: Right, I'm not arguing that it's impossible to buy a cheap home if you have two college educated people's resources to use, just that a) that is a vastly higher bar to home ownership than it was in the past and b) most Millennials have a lot of college debt. Also, those median salary numbers likely don't take into account people who have $0 incomes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Right, I'm not arguing that it's impossible to buy a cheap home if you have two college educated people's resources to use, just that a) that is a vastly higher bar to home ownership than it was in the past and b) most Millennials have a lot of college debt. Also, those median salary numbers likely don't take into account people who have $0 incomes. -the time period between 1930-1980 is a huge historic abberation in terms of housing prices and should not be considered in any way normal -yes, having a lot of debt does lead to lessened ability to handle more debt, this is not a magical millenial problem -how do you not know what 'median' means
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Considering the student debt load of Millennials, what they need to be saving for retirement, and their job prospects, I'm going to out on a limb and say $40k cash for a downpayment is indeed unaffordable for most of that cohort. I can afford that, barely, but that's among the absolute cheapest homes in my area. Yeah I'm a millenial, have been making much more than the median for over a decade with no major emergencies, married my husband who was in a similar situation, combined our savings and *still* took us 4 years to save up 40k for a down payment. Most of our friends have lower salaries (but still above the median) and will never be able to buy. Wasn't there a statistic where if you have 3 months operating expenses saved, you have more saved than 70% of americans, and if 6 months worth, more than 90% of americans? 6 months worth of expenses for a millenial isn't going to be 20k let alone 40. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Excuse me he makes 95k/yr he doesn't need to know what a median is. Work hard and one day you won't know what a median is, either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Yeah I'm a millenial, have been making much more than the median for over a decade with no major emergencies, married my husband who was in a similar situation, combined our savings and *still* took us 4 years to save up 40k for a down payment. Most of our friends have lower salaries (but still above the median) and will never be able to buy. Post your budget in BFC and they can help you improve it if that's something you want. 4 years is a reasonable time from start to plan -> actually buy a house, but you certainly could have lived more frugally and done it sooner. "The procedure runs against human instinct to spend every dollar one earns" isn't the same thing as "is completely out of reach", especially if you have two above-median salaries. The statistics are as they not because saving is impossible for most americans (it's very hard for those at the bottom, not so much for those in the 90% range, good lord), but because of a widespread lack of financial literacy/discipline.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Post your budget in BFC and they can help you improve it if that's something you want. 4 years is a reasonable time from start to plan -> actually buy a house, but you certainly could have lived more frugally and done it sooner. "The procedure runs against human instinct to spend every dollar one earns" isn't the same thing as "is completely out of reach", especially if you have two above-median salaries. The statistics are as they not because saving is impossible for most americans (it's very hard for those at the bottom, not so much for those in the 90% range, good lord), but because of a widespread lack of financial literacy/discipline. poopinmymouth is already a BFC superstar IMO poopinmymouth posted:Hubby got a 23% raise, and I got a 50% raise (went from working 5 hours a day to 7, now that our son's sleep schedule is settled). poopinmymouth posted:Agreed 100% This way we are exposed to very little risk. Our mortgage payment minimum now is 600 USD a month, but we routinely pay multiple thousands. If we ever *did* have a money crisis, we could easily pay that 600 dollar minimum on just unemployment or even welfare, vs some people we know with 6+ houses all still with mortgages that if anything happened to their high salaries they would be up a creek without a paddle and would deffo lose a few properties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:poopinmymouth is already a BFC superstar IMO okay fair enough, good poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Do homes need to be affordable for people in their mid-twenties? As I said previously, homes are ill-suited to the needs of a generation that's mostly still at the very beginning of their careers. Sure, maybe your situation is different and a home with a mortgage is the right thing for you (or maybe you're a special entitled snowflake and anything less than your own home just isn't good enough for you), but this thread wasn't originally about house prices in the first place - it was about why rent is so drat high, and particular why its growing so much faster than minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
It isn't hope this answers your query OP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Doesn't seem too unreasonable to save up over a period of ~6-7 years for a 40k down payment (you can also get a sub-20% downpayment but it's probably a bad idea). That gets you like ~$900 mortgage payments at 4% for a 30 year mortgage, which seems affordable. I can't really say what salary you need in order for that to be a good idea, but it's certainly a thing one can do. Lol, my parents bought their house in the early 70's for $19K and they were both making about $10 or $12 bucks an hour at the time. They were making as much then as most people are today, and you call 40K down affordable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Yeah, sure. Why not? Tiny homes are awesome. TIny Homes are often bullshit. Are you so sure your particular home WAS affordable for the "working class" in 1951? And are you aware that inflation adjusted that house's current price is only ~$32,000 in 1951 dollars, which likely as not is probably pretty close to what it cost then? For instance many Levittown homes built in the 50s in the various Levittowns cost $17,000 to $20,000 in 1951 money, and it's hardly unreasonable that the real value of a plot of land and house on it that was formerly on the edge of settlement but after 6- years is now close to the core might grow a mere 88%. silence_kit posted:Was Europe really smarter about this politically, or did it just get the benefit of having most of its cities built before age of the automobile? It has a lot more to do with the fact that millions of people were killed and economies were ruined twice in a row in the 20th century, and t took a long time to rebuild to the kind of wealth that could afford the things that America and Canada could already afford to do in the 30s. And hell, half of it was in the communist sphere which operated by much different rules and urban planning (which is often a failure in quite different ways). Radbot posted:I don't want to live in a drat apartment and neither do most Americans. Tiny homes, which can be furnished nicely and be quite expensive, help solve the problem of Americans desire for their own space while increasing density at a lower cost than is currently possible. Hey there's whole communities of tiny homes for you: they're called trailer parks, go live in one of them. Lord only knows why you said "they can be quite expensive" as some sort of selling point for a tiny home. Berk Berkly posted:Where is the best place to live in America right now? Conservatives have been gutting NC and its going to go the way of Kansas in the next decade I'm afraid. Is there anyplace that isn't being eaten alive from the inside with some prospects for the future left? New Jersey. Main Paineframe posted:How many car manufacturers are building $2000 cars for poor people? Face it - a newly manufactured car is "luxury" by default. It would be nearly impossible to build a car profitable at $2000 that could still be safe enough and durable enough to be legally sold, buddyboy. You may say "oh India has them" or something but many of those would be non-street-legal in 50 different ways here, and for good reason. ChairMaster posted:Does it matter either way? Is anyone here seriously arguing with someone who is somehow incredibly stupid enough to claim that $300/mo is a reasonable expense for someone who makes minimum wage? You're not making minimum wage when you're making $30,000 a year dude. Radbot posted:Why aren't developers building more, cheaper houses in areas with less expensive land, like in Aurora, CO? There is clearly a market for it. They are. This is called "suburban sprawl" and it is bad. Sometimes even "exurban sprawl". pig slut lisa posted:I would love to hear more detail on how you think this might be implemented, let alone succeed, because it sounds really authoritarian and ripe for failure DC metro area functions like this, because the Washington DC building height restrictions mean that many companies can't afford or don't even want to try to have their headquarters or major offices inside DC. Instead there's tons of them loosely peppered around northern Vriginia and southern Maryland. Makes having viable transit options a lot more difficult than it would be if DC nutted up and let people build proper skyscrapers in the city. instead of some 14 floorsabove ground at absolute most bullshit. mastershakeman posted:State/federal Tax incentives for establishing businesses in the targeted metros and tolls on roads/trains leading into the megacities to discourage suburbs from leeching off the downtown. If you want to work somewhere, live there. If tolls discouraged suburbs, then New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, etc would all be much smaller metros and cities broheim. Also, "tolls on trains"? What the hell? Do you think transit is free??? I'll remind you that New York City residents use massively less energy, produce massively less carbon etc per capita due to the benefits of living in a truly very big city. And some of this even carries over to the suburbs around due to extensive transit networks and the fact that a lot of them are at least as dense as like Queens. Basically: gently caress whatever hick "city" you wanna pump up that can only attract like 200,000 people now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It would be nearly impossible to build a car profitable at $2000 that could still be safe enough and durable enough to be legally sold, buddyboy. You may say "oh India has them" or something but many of those would be non-street-legal in 50 different ways here, and for good reason. Just the airbags alone cost more than that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 06:58
|
|