TL;DR: Americans now need to make $120K a year to afford a typical middle-class life and qualify to purchase a home. Minimum.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • yacht_boy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • Ech@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

    • Blackmist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

  • rayyy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

  • EveningPancakes@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • RedFox@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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?

      • ZombieTheZombieCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

      • licherally@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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?

          • licherally@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.”

            • RedFox@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              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.

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

    • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      Wanting other people to have what you have, without your struggle, is an opinion we need more of.

    • Alto@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Because you’re not an awful person trying to pull the ladder up while saying “fuck you I got mine”

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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?

  • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    9 months ago

    Good thing investment “firms” are buying up all the rental properties, right, guys? Neofeudalism for the win!

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.
      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        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]

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Shelbyeileen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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

  • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 months ago

    Mr Realtor can blame his own industry for a good portion of the problem.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • wowwoweowza@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

  • MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

  • htrayl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      You guys really do build giant soulless houses in empty suburbs and think that living in an apartment is a crime against humanity

      • pelerinli@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Because living surrounded by lifeless cement is crime against humanity. People need home, not voluntary prisons.

          • riodoro1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

  • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    Smith explained how, just a few years ago, $60-$70K a year would have been sufficient to qualify for a home.

    “Most people are carrying student loan debt, which is at an all-time high, and the average payment in the country is $500 a month for your college degree. [There are] some people I’m seeing in my comment section saying ‘$500, I wish, it was $1,200 a month for me’,” said Smith.

    “If you are someone who bought a house before 2020 and you have it paid off or you have a 3% interest rate, you are not burdened by the housing costs like the 2024 adults are now,” the relator said, explaining how debt, especially college debt, housing costs and childcare are burdening millennials and Gen Zers starting their lives.

    It’s scary how everything seemed to change so fast, yet the ingredients for this very situation have been simmering for some time. It’s no coincidence that since student loans ballooned it didn’t take much for the dominoes to really begin to fall and have drastic effects on everything else downstream.

  • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    Note that the source of this opinion piece is TikTok. The salary needed for a middle class existence varies wildly from city to city.

    • ivanafterall@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The source is an Orlando area Realtor who happens to have a TikTok.

      • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        A local realtor doesn’t have the qualifications to make broad claims about income or affordability for the entire nation.