TL;DR: Americans now need to make $120K a year to afford a typical middle-class life and qualify to purchase a home. Minimum.
Where we failed is that $120k was supposed to be a middle-class income when living costs this much. The fact the median is 63k is a sign that all the excess value has been sucked out of the masses and funneled into the coffers of the billionaire class.
100% this. It’s not that costs rose as much as it’s that salaries didn’t increase.
It’s both. If the price of homes aren’t reflecting an affordable price, you have to ask, who’s buying them? It’s not the average family - it’s corps sucking up homes as investment assets, driving up prices to sell to each other and the “lucky” family or two that get to empty out their retirement fund just to have a place to live. That’s not reflective of a natural, reasonable increase. That’s the result of hedge funds destroying the housing market for the rest of us, just to pad their bank accounts.
That may be true in some of the lower priced Midwestern markets, but I sell real estate in Boston and I don’t see big corporate interests in the single family or owner occupied 2-3 family market. as much as big corporations have ruined a lot of things in this country, I don’t think we Dan just wave our hands and say “corporate buyers” and explain away our housing market problems.
We have a confluence of decades of exclusionary zoning and restrictions on building that make meaningfully adding to the supply of housing almost impossible. We have a huge deficit of qualified workers in the building trades, in part because all the work dried up after the great recession and people left the field and in part because we’ve pushed more and more kids to go to college. We have a mortgage system that’s nearly unique worldwide that allows homeowners tremendous advantages in keeping their housing costs low, but inversely provides tremendous disadvantages to having them move around more often and free up housing stock (so lots of aging singles and couples in big houses better suited for young people with kids). We have a society that’s bizarrely fixated on single family living even though we desperately need more density in most markets. And we have the problem of wage stagnation. None of those things are directly attributable to corporate ownership of large numbers of houses.
I’d love for there to be some silver bullet where we could just say “disincentivize corporations from owning small housing stock” and solve the problem, but it’s nowhere near that simple.
You’re right, it’s more complicated than just blaming corps, and I don’t want to imply an issue this complicated could be completely solved with one change. They’re definitely exacerbating the issues we already have, though, and dealing with them could only help.
In the late 70s around 23% of US corporate revenues went to pay salaries. By 2012 that had fallen to 7% - in other words, just before neoliberalism really took off almost 1/4 of the money workers spent buying goods from US companies was almost directly back in workers’ pockets, whilst by 2012 less that 1/14 of what workers spent buying goods from US companies ended back in workers’ pockets.
All that excess money that doesn’t get recycled back to workers anymore has got to be pooling somewhere.
The link gives great context to the article. Thank you.
The problem is you need to be a couple to have a house.
In the 80s and even 90s the mother of the house probably didn’t work. I know mine didn’t. Now they have to. The prices have gone up to match this “new normal” because there simply aren’t enough houses. Or at least not enough houses in the places people want to live.
The free markets have settled on the idea that a house should cost two incomes. The government needs to step in to build affordable homes and get them into the right hands. No landlords scoffing them all up.
I honestly don’t even know why this upsets me so much. I am 50 and all set. I don’t have children and barely any debt. I never considered myself particularly patriotic but somehow this whole thing gets under my skin. I guess it sours my achievements and fruits of decades of struggle (it took three generations of planning and hustle to get us out of poverty). It’s like being a kid having a birthday party at Chuck E Cheese by yourself while all your friends are locked outside and you can see them through the glass windows.
Because you have empathy for others, it’s a good thing.
I agree. Something I wish we saw more of.
It gets under my skin because the west was on the right trajectory; improving wealth equality, quality of life, work life balance, etc — Then Capitalists killed all those gains using Conservatism, Neoliberalism, and a bastardised version of Libertarianism — just to enrich a tiny percentage the human population and return the rest of humanity to feudalism.
Why should they own all the gains from humanities collective efforts, when all of us have a rightful claim to a share of those gains?
In the early 1900s we had huge fights for labor. Strikes yes, but also some literal armed fights.
We won a lot. They conceded a lot.
But they’ve eroded those wins, little by little, for a century or so.
This is what will ALWAYS happen when you live in a system explicitly designed to extract profit from workers and reward greed. It cannot be reformed. It cannot be controlled. It will always slide backwards into this. We need a different system altogether.
Yup, we could be creating an amazing life for more people - and damaging the environment less while we are at it; but instead “we” keep doubling down in the other direction
the west was on the right trajectory
A lot of the west is still on the right trajectory. It’s the US that is not.
There are a lot of developed countries, especially in Europe, where the “American Dream” is much easier to attain than in America. But, more often than not, they don’t even want that dream. For good reason.
Wanting other people to have what you have, without your struggle, is an opinion we need more of.
Especially when we have a society with a huge number of people who think that if you’re poor, you deserve it.
What gets me is, a lot of the POOR people say that about POOR people.
We live in the most effectively propagandized society ever created. It hasn’t been until more recently that it’s started to slip. A lot of folks still believe in the old lies and believe that everything would work if we just got rid of the immigrants, Jews, and corrupt politicians. Still I think more people are waking up to the reality that this system is broken not the people in it.
And that’s because they are stupid. They are not educated becasause the education they received was garbage. All by design from your “trickle down” bringing republikkkans. Working as planned.
By “your,” you mean United States’s of course? Because they aren’t mine.
What in the fuck are you talking about?
You talking to me?
Because you’re not an awful person trying to pull the ladder up while saying “fuck you I got mine”
This happened because people were lulled into voting for the very people who gave their fair share of corporate profits to the rich. Looking at you, Republicans, especially Ronald Reagan.
Removed by mod
Hell, Clinton essentially adapted Reaganism for the Democratic Party.
I didn’t expect upvotes. It’s an election year for christ sakes.
At least on lemmy, more people understand dems v repubs isn’t left v right, it’s mid right v far right.
Lemmy is a leftist haven
Don’t blame me I voted for Kodos
And they’ll do it again.
dude ronald regan gave my family papers my cousins are named ronald and ronny
i am a communist too. sometimes bad people do good things
TL;DR: Americans now need to make $120K a year to afford a typical middle-class life and qualify to purchase a home. Minimum.
Maybe in the middle of nowhere America. Meanwhile my wife and I make well above that in Los Angeles and we can’t afford the monthly on a two bedroom house in a sketchy neighborhood.
SF Bay Area, $125k a year, I gave up on buying a house. I’ll just inherit my parents’ when they die, thanks.
Most people’s parents will end up selling their home to pay for cruise ships, and or palliative care.
Shhh, don’t take this away from me
Which will be bought in cash above asking by capital funds exclusively for rental purposes.
So why do people live there?
All I ever heard is how absurd the cost of living is in Cali, is the weather really that good?
Being born there, living your entire life there, your whole family and all your friends are there, you went to high school and college there so it’s easier to transfer to a CSU for grad school, and cheaper because you won’t have to pay non-resident fees, etc etc. The same reason people don’t move from other places. Besides, it takes a lot of savings to move, especially out of state, especially when you have to keep going back and forth to look at places. There’s also just not wanting to move. I am really not ok with being forced out of my home and away from my family because of bullshit like this.
And yes the weather really is that good - in Southern California.
Makes sense. I certainly wouldn’t want to move because of greedy BS either.
I guess the trade off is higher costs for everything.
I’m sorry, you think people that can’t afford a basic living situation in California are able to up and move their entire lives that easily? Do you have any idea how much that costs?
People making 120k a year can… I also live in socal area and make less than that
Well, it sounds like basic living there is way higher than anywhere else, so maybe?
If you already live in a place that is difficult for you to afford, how are you supposed to be able to afford moving to a different state? You’re having trouble paying rent/mortgage, but you’re still able to save a few grand to move your whole life across state lines? What about changes in your income due to the change of state?
There are so many more factors than “you make x, this place costs y, so move dipshit.”
Yeah, I get it…I know it doesn’t come through a simple text question, but I wasn’t born yesterday 😉
I wasn’t really asking from the standpoint of every single person’s circumstances from the well off to the impoverished. It was more of what would you do if there was choice.
I know people who were behind on rent, scraped enough gas money to just drive ina direction and found themselves somewhere they could make under the table money to get started in another place.
That’s a hard and scary thing to do. If you have a family, almost impossible unless you’re on the edge.
Good thing investment “firms” are buying up all the rental properties, right, guys? Neofeudalism for the win!
But you can buy a microshare of the fund through Robinhood, so it all works out. Right?
deleted by creator
Here’s what happened in a nutshell.
Lyndon Johnson had great plans for the US, but wanted to win the Vietnam War with one huge push. That quickly turned into a giant quagmire. LBJ and later Nixon, ordered bombing of the North. That meant the US factories were working 24/7. Nice for factory owners and union workers, but LBJ was paying for it with paper money because he didn’t want to raise taxes. Ironically, Nixon ran for President as an anti inflation and pro peace candidate.
Nixon and Kissinger doubled down on the bombing and inflation started to spiral. Also, those factories were getting a bit worn down. Unable to met the deamnd for the bombing and supply foreign markets the US ceded local steel making to Germany and Japan. This is going to bite the US in the ass when the Arab Oil boycott hits. US steel is much more oil dependant than the newer factories, so suddenly Toyotas and VWs are the hot cars, and US manufacturing takes a huge hit.
Carter tried to control inflation and cut oil use, but got kicked out over the Iran hostage mess. Reagan came in and cut taxes for the rich. This increased the debt, but gave the economy an unrealistic jolt.
tl dr. In 1960, minimum wage was $1.00/hour. The average house was $11,000.00 and $1 million was considered a vast fortune.* Middle class meant a High School graduate with a Union job supporting a family of four.
By the time Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr were done, ‘middle class’ was two college degrees supporting the house and $1 million was what a rich guy paid for a party.
- In case anyone tells you that $1 million is 1960 would be $10 million today, tell them that in 1960, $100,000 would buy a mansion in Beverly Hills.
Lyndon Johnson had great plans for the US
I recently learned that Johnson’s “Great Society” plan was partially a continuation of Kennedy’s “New Frontiers” plan (which he wasn’t very successful in pushing through Congress before he was assassinated).
LBJ is probably the most WTF President of the 20th Century. He pushed the Civil Rights Act, and created the Vietnam fiasco.
I like this story. Someone who worked for Kennedy and Johnson put it this way; if JFK came into your office and saw you reading he’d assume you were working. If LBJ saw you reading a book he’d think you were goofing off.
If we hadn’t had Wilson we wouldn’t have had Hitler, or Stalin. We may not have had Nixon and Reagan…
$1 million today is still a vast fortune to most people tbh
I think most people would see the gulf between owning one moderately nice house and a small business [$1 million in 2024] and owning an estate with several acres and some horses, a half dozen cars, and enough in the savings account to keep a few families going. [$1 million in 1960]
This is what happens when most people think the disparity in wealth should grow.
It does.
Yet disability pays $11k a YEAR that’sthe same as $5.42/hour.
The US government would rather disabled people just not exist. From their perspective, nobody on disability creates shareholder value, therefore you are subhuman. And non-disabled humans to them are cattle.
If we have more than $2k in assets, a number that hasn’t changed since 1974, we lose our food and Medical on SSI, too… it’s ridiculous
Mr Realtor can blame his own industry for a good portion of the problem.
Poor tax laws on the richest 1% killed the American Dream.
Sufficient application of guillotines will restore it.
Capitalism did that too. Capitalism is in a constant state of decline with short upward bursts of innovation that too will decline. Enshittification infects all.
My wife and I manage it because we both work.
I didn’t intend on marriage as a way to own a home but I couldn’t do it without my partner.
Smith explained how, just a few years ago, $60-$70K a year would have been sufficient to qualify for a home.
Yeah, no. It was more than a few years ago.
I think that this has been trouble since 2007. Financial institutions went from giving lots of home loans to only giving corporations and the elite loans.
2007 was 4 years ago.
checks math
Everything checks out here
I don’t have a full Orlando market research report but pre-pandemic (2018) you could get a house in my neighborhood (Davenport) for $265k-325k. In 2024 the starting price is ~$650k. In 2018 I bought a house (Orlando) for my aunt to live in for $150k. After buying the little bungalow, I saw the rest of that neighbohood get gobbled up by investment funds and now it is almost completely rentals. The current comps have it at $325k.
Homes were dirt cheap from 2009 until about 2013, but everyone was broke. Prices were reasonable from 2014 to maybe 2018 (maybe). The post lockdown boom and investment fund buying spree has been insane.
But then you would have to live in Davenport. I’ve never seen a more literal suburban hell. 30 minutes of side streets to go anywhere without traffic.
You are not wrong.
Note that the source of this opinion piece is TikTok. The salary needed for a middle class existence varies wildly from city to city.
The source is an Orlando area Realtor who happens to have a TikTok.
A local realtor doesn’t have the qualifications to make broad claims about income or affordability for the entire nation.
I’m in Salt Lake City, for example, and a recent article has the necessary salary to afford a home around $140,000/year. I moved here in part because it was a much cheaper alternative to D.C. and the minimum salary to own a home is still $140,000.
There are some pockets of affordability out there.
The map in this article is nice (though you have to scroll through some annoying stuff to get there):
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/06/homes/housing-market-prices-affordability-dg/
I would guess those would be the areas of next major population influx as people continue to flee high cost of living in other areas. Climate change making much of the west and southeast more unattractive in the long run too. While the more affordable areas are still relatively cheap compared to the rest of the country, most of them have already been seeing large spikes in housing prices too. We need some major policy changes to encourage cheap and higher density housing, better use of land in general, can’t just keep building only single family homes in low density areas sprawling out forever.
That 120k a year is still assuming you buy a house on a long term mortgage.
It even says 120k to qualify, not actually comfortably buy.
also out in the Boonies
Doesn’t help that corporations own 27% of single family homes.
Corporations have their families to think of
This is ludicrously false.
The statistic you’re trying to say is that about 25% of homes sold in recent months have been bought by investors, which is a very different thing from saying that nearly one-fourth of all single family homes are owned by investors, which falls apart the moment you actually go outside and talk to people, since, for starters, about 65% of Americans own their home.
The homeownership rate of 66.0 percent was virtually the same as the rate in the third quarter 2022 (66.0 percent) and not statistically different from the rate in the second quarter 2023 (65.9 percent).
65% + 25% = 90%. Doesn’t seem “ludicrously false” by that assertion; I wouldn’t be surprised if the remaining 10% accounted for all individual landlords.
Not all homes are for sale every year. The vast majority are not.
If Wall Street buys 30% of all homes for sale this year, that does not mean that they now own 30% of all homes that exist, only 30% of those that happened to go on sale this year.
To answer the proximate question, about 70% of rental properties are owned by individuals.
Okay, so we’d expect about 10% of single family homes to be owned by corporations.
I will repeat this here:
While there are a lot of factors, you really cannot understate the size of the homes being built in the US. We are building homes nearly 3x the size (despite cost per square foot only going up slightly), and pretending it has no effect on housing costs. It’s actually pretty insane.
You guys really do build giant soulless houses in empty suburbs and think that living in an apartment is a crime against humanity
I would love to live in apartment if every one I ever lived in didn’t have neighbors blasting their music at 3am.
Because living surrounded by lifeless cement is crime against humanity. People need home, not voluntary prisons.
Average suburbanite before he goes on a 6 hour trip to the grocery store
You can have houses without sprawl.
Both apartments and houses have their merit, both can exist as a viable shelter that fulfills people’s needs. We don’t need to argue over which things corporations and greed took from us is better.
