|
Pohl posted: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. Your parents were dual high-income earners, the median salary in 1970 was like $8,000/year, sounds like both your parents were pushing $20,000.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
Yeah, let's assume 50 workweeks a year at 40 hours a week: For $10 for each that's an income of $40,000 a year in let's say 1973 dollars, or $48,000 if they were both making $12 an hour. $40,000 a year in 1973 = $213,152.25 in 2015 $48,000 a year in 1973 = $255,782.70 in 2015 And just for funsies, assuming it was really only one parent working full time at all: $20,000 a year in 1973 = $106,576.13 Your folks were loving 1%ers, maybe like 5%ers at the least, Pohl, if you've given us the correct income.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yeah, let's assume 50 workweeks a year at 40 hours a week: For $10 for each that's an income of $40,000 a year in let's say 1973 dollars, or $48,000 if they were both making $12 an hour. I probably didn't then because all I knew when I was growing up was that we were poor. This is breaking my brain, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
The $19,000 house, if it was during 1973, would be $101,000 or so in today's money, if the real value had managed to not change from then to now, by the way. That's a hefty chunk of change back then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The $19,000 house, if it was during 1973, would be $101,000 or so in today's money, if the real value had managed to not change from then to now, by the way. That's a hefty chunk of change back then. The best part is the house isn't even payed off because they refinanced so often.  We didn't live a good life, either, it was like constant struggle and sacrifice. I have no idea what they did with that money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:okay fair enough, good poo poo My point was that we are in extremely enviable positions and still only barely managed to have 40k for a downpayment before we were 30 (dual earners, both in tech fields, no kids, no real debt, had both been saving our entire lives). Main Paineframe posted: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. I think so. I mean, I don't think everyone should buy, but I think you are divorcing "young people need to move around to build a career" and "rent is super expensive" when I think they are pretty connected. Job security has been gutted in the past few decades, and the mid to late 20s are the perfect time to have kids if that's what one wants, and kids benefit from stability and space (be that an apartment, duplex, home, whatever) When people with capital (those largely already wealthy) can buy up multiple units and rent them on airbnb or just pay down their mortgage and enjoy the falling monthly living expense, that has an affect on the people looking to buy who don't already have large chunks of capital. I see the need to move around, and the lack of down payment money as both symptoms of our widening wealth inequality, but that's just me. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
If your solution to high house prices is to keep doing what we are doing now then perhaps you should have a rethink? We've done 40 years of suburbs and local planning restrictions and ended up with hosed up cities like DC and LA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I found it just fine, there aren't 70 homes for that price within the city of Denver, sorry. Uh...go on https://www.zillow.com search in Denver, CO, sort by cheapest, limit your search to just homes. There are a ton of used homes for under 200k, plus a ton of forclosures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The $19,000 house, if it was during 1973, would be $101,000 or so in today's money, if the real value had managed to not change from then to now, by the way. That's a hefty chunk of change back then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah just did a cursory Google search and during the early seventies the average home price was in the 40-50k range. This was Idaho farmland that was being cut up and sold off as cheap suburbs. We were still close to Boise, but yeah, a house in town would have been way more expensive. Edit: To break things up a bit, I have a friend that bought a similar house about ten years ago... old farmland converted to suburbs. It was a lovely house, cheaply built, and it flooded. It looked great, but when she moved in she realized that the cabinets in the bathroom weren't real, they just had an exterior that looked like it opened. They didn't actually open. The entire neighborhood flooded. They built the house below the water table because no one cares. Her cheap house suddenly became a loving nightmare. Pohl fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:I think so. I mean, I don't think everyone should buy, but I think you are divorcing "young people need to move around to build a career" and "rent is super expensive" when I think they are pretty connected. Job security has been gutted in the past few decades, and the mid to late 20s are the perfect time to have kids if that's what one wants, and kids benefit from stability and space (be that an apartment, duplex, home, whatever) My point is that "rent is super expensive" and "the price of single-family standalone housing with a yard is super high" are not the same thing. They're similar, and even connected in some ways, but not every factor involved in shattering Radbot's dream of a personal tiny house is relevant to why minimum wage workers can't afford a studio apartment in the city without a few roommates, and I feel like the discussion has been leaning too much toward the former situation even though the thread was originally asking about the latter. The cost of buying a house isn't the only kind of "rent".
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
the price of buying a single family home isn't all that high, though. the price of all kinds of homes is high in cities because of decades of underdevelopment combined with a sustained ~20 year spike in demand for urban housing. you can still get all kinds of cheap single family homes within thirty or so miles of most american cities the problem is entirely much higher demand because of a shift in white middle class cultural preferences back towards living in proximity to a city, combined with a number of public and private failures to meet increased demand
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:the price of buying a single family home isn't all that high, though. the price of all kinds of homes is high in cities because of decades of underdevelopment combined with a sustained ~20 year spike in demand for urban housing. you can still get all kinds of cheap single family homes within thirty or so miles of most american cities
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Sorta. You have to consider that while it also used to be true that the cheaper houses would be farther out on cheaper land, low density development + increased population means that now those affordable areas are further away and require longer commutes, which is exacerbated by the lack of investment in transit which has resulted in traffic getting worse. jobs moved out to the burbs at the same time as people, so most people in the burbs don't ever actually need to go into the city. the problem is entirely because of cultural preferences among moneyed white people to rediscover that living in cities is actually good this model that everyone works in the city is outdated, in most american metropoles you'll see 'edge cities' or clusters of white collar office employment on the periphery of cities. usually where a couple of major highway arterials intersect
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:jobs moved out to the burbs at the same time as people, so most people in the burbs don't ever actually need to go into the city. the problem is entirely because of cultural preferences among moneyed white people to rediscover that living in cities is actually good And some times this goes really far out of whack and you have stuff like the Bay Area where a lot of people live in the cities and then commute 30-40 or more miles outward to far flung suburbs of other regional cities to work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:jobs moved out to the burbs at the same time as people, so most people in the burbs don't ever actually need to go into the city. the problem is entirely because of cultural preferences among moneyed white people to rediscover that living in cities is actually good Those are cities in their own right now though, they are hardly comparable by what is traditionally thought of by 'suburbs'. They are filled with mid/high-rises, have high population density, and have their own surroundings suburbs people commute from. The vast majority of work is still done in cities, we just have more of them now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Back at the beginning of the 20th century they didn't need fake progressives to shill for property owners https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/610448013585203200?s=09
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Not much of a need to zone for affordable housing when you consider super cramped tenements a legal form of housing as they did back then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yeah this is an important dynamic. overly residential jurisdictions are nice and quiet and safe, there's not much traffic and generally low crime, but as the population ages out the tax base will stay very low as residential uses are the least tax-producing and most expensive kinds of development. homeowners and landlords like to keep property taxes low, they vote much more aggressively, and residential uses demand expensive things like education, parks, and proximate healthcare that commercial or industrial uses don't care about It's pretty much this, cities are expanding causing a lot of infill that naturally leans towards luxury apartments due to land costs because demand has skyrocketed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
I dream of a housing market crash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:I dream of a housing market crash. It already happened though?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It already happened though? sounds like he lives in a city LA is already over 2005/6 bubble highs in a lot of areas
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It already happened though?  Just gotta wait it out, or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
That graph really should be in real rather than nominal dollars
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
X-posting from PNW thread: For the data-hungry HUD has a handy median rental prices report you can (in Excel/Sheets) filter by city/metro area. It's even broken down by number of bedrooms. SFR tops the charts except for Stamford CT, which has the most expensive Studios in all the land. NYC overnight commuters?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 00:48
|
|
