A millennial couple who make $250,000 say they can't find a home in their budget: 'We refuse to become house-poor' : aboringdystopia

[–] Naz@sh.itjust.works 204 points 3 months ago (11 children)

Yeah. I hate the negativity of the Internet, but this is what "life" (at least in the first world) has become: the negative stories are amplified and the positive ones are short.

In a time of great planetary wealth creation, there is still disparity. One of the richest nations on the Earth has packed all of its citizenry onto the "liveable coasts", into cities.

The couple mentioned in the article tried to move away to a more affordable area with more land (Portland is Urban, and Spokane is rural), and were met with boredom and dissatisfaction.

They both earn collectively $250,000/year, which seems like a lot, and to many people in the U.S who earn the median salary of $52-65,000/year, it is.

They mention not wanting to pay more than 30% of their budget to mortgage costs, which they stated with "$5,000 being 50%", which means their real adjusted income is closer to $120,000, not $250,000.

That's still a lot, but more reasonable to the point of Median Salary × 2.

What this average couple demonstrates however, is that the erosion of the "middle class" in the United States is complete: The middle class is dead. They are both educated professionals who are working honestly, and don't make enough money to own a home.

That makes them poor. That makes all of us poor -- and it is a gross failure of the economic system with misplaced incentives and lack of regulations that has led us to this point.

The important thing to remember that this socioeconomic and political atmosphere is wholly contrived.

A better world is possible -- it however requires sacrifices that many people are unable or unwilling to endure. Whatever you are imagining going through your head right now, that's exactly what is necessary to change the first world for the better.

It's not any one individual's fault this happened. The honest working man and woman haven't done anything wrong here, and aren't to blame -- it's precisely because the honest (the just) have enabled the dishonest (the unjust) to continue to run amok, completely unchecked and unchained.

Here is to a better future, and for all the hardship we must all endure, to get there. 🍺

Fuck Private Equity.

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 52 points 3 months ago (4 children)

For the middle class to be dead, it would have had to be real in the first place, but it has always been an illusion.

There is the owning class and the working class.

If you don't own the means of production (and or a load of property to leech rent off of), you are part of the working class, however uncomfortable that might make someone with the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" mentality feel. The lie exists in the first place to create and feed that mentality, to ensure at least some working class people consistently vote against their own interests.

[–] anachronist@midwest.social 27 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The middle class historically was the loyal servants of the upper class, whose expertise was needed to maintain the system. While they worked for wages they were allowed income sufficient to accumulate surpluses, property, and a facsimile of financial security.

In the 20th century it seemed possible for labor organizing to grant the privileges of the middle class to everyone in society. People who were definitely working-class were able to live like the middle class.

In the 21st century the rich seem to be starting to operate on the idea that, not only can labor be broken and the working class cast back down into hand-to-mouth poverty, but that vast numbers of people in the professions have been misclassified as essential loyal servants and they, too, can be cast down into poverty. I think the end state is that the middle class is squeezed down to the size it was during the gilded age and return to being an afterthought rather than the central focus of our politics.

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

You are literally just describing how the "middle class" is artificial and manufactured, not an actual thing. High earning working class people are still working class people. Making you think otherwise serves the owning class by dividing the working class and pitting us against each other, and providing a fictional carrot (becoming part of the owning class) and the motivation to step over others to try and get it (but you never will, unless you win a lottery, which is a similar carrot) (E: and no, owning one rental, while still problematic because the essence of landlordism is, doesn't quite make someone part of the owning class, but it will make them much more likely to vote for owning class interests because they've been made to believe they're one of them, or will be soon).

[–] anachronist@midwest.social 12 points 3 months ago (8 children)

The middle class is real and was originally identified by Engels.

The important distinction for Engels is that the middle class's interest are aligned with the upper class. Importantly: they don't think their interest s are aligned. Their interests really are aligned with the upper class. If you're a solicitor or, say, hat-maker to the king in 18th century England, you owe your social position to upper class largess.

In the 20th century the idea developed that with organizing, the middle class lifestyle is attainable for everyone. This began the era of the "broad middle class" or what Piketty called the "patrimonial middle class." Engel's original middle class in this society was the PMC.

In the late 20th and early 21st century the upper class started a class war, first targeting organized labor. But with that deed done they are now focusing on the ranks of the PMC, which they see as bloated, and they're going through and evicting as many people as they can from it.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] huginn@feddit.it 38 points 3 months ago (5 children)

One of the richest nations on the Earth has packed all of its citizenry onto the "liveable coasts", into cities.

Packed is a reaaaaal stretch here. Portland's population density is about 1/10th that of notably the lovely and liveable city Paris.

The USA has "cities" that have so much land dedicated to preventing anyone else from owning a home - all that matters is the landowners and their precious fucking "real estate value". And where it's not houses it's car parks.

Everyone in the US who wants to live in a city could live in a city if we just built the requisite housing. We have too many self preserving leeches who refuse to live next to an apartment complex.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yeah people in the US don't know what housing density actually looks like.

We got a country with a massive amount of land and just decided that the rich should be able to own all of it and if you don't feel like making money rentinf it out to people you rent it out to cars and demolish the house that was there.

We keep pushing further and further into the suburbs though for massive costs of infrastructure for 3 hour commutes to jobs that pay minimum wage though. It feels so unsustainable when I see our farm land being sold to real estate developers to put a massive parking lot and 12 houses on it.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Vinny_93@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (11 children)

I make just north of 50k a year and my wife just over half that and we bought a house. Yes it was built in 1962, it's not large, it's not in the middle of a large city. But 250k a year? I'd be able to clear my mortgage in under 10 years.

So either the housing market in the US is much more messed up than the one in Europe, or we aren't taking into account that buying a house with compromise is better than no house at all.

[–] zod000@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago (3 children)

It's both, the housing market is a disaster here, but they also could easily buy a house in a less popular, less desirable area. Now maybe that $250K combined salary is also only possible because of the very high cost of living area they live in. I have a friend that was making $150K in CA that had to live in small an apartment with a roommate, and that was nearly a decade ago. It still blows my mind, but that salary simply wasn't a lot in that area.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 61 points 3 months ago (8 children)

This is the biggest reason I haven’t moved. I managed to buy a house in a low cost of living area, with a low interest rate. Any move would force me to throw away my money renting, take a massive size/quality hit, or become house poor. And like them, I make about $250k.

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think your situation is a bit different. They are choosing not to relocate to a place where they can buy, because they tried that and thought it was boring. I am certainly not saying the housing market is fine, but these folks made a decision between buying a house and living in their preferred locale.

Personally, my family made the opposite choice two years ago, leaving the Best Coast and moving to the Midwest in large part so we could afford a house, which we did on less than $250k/yr gross. This locale is not our first choice, but our priorities were different from the priorities of the couple in the story. Money was not their only issue.

But fuck the housing crisis. We need policy changes that highly favor primary place of residence and disincentivize rental properties.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 55 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I was shocked to find out that over 50% of millennials own their own homes.

[–] MerchantsOfMisery@lemmy.ml 30 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (10 children)

I'd venture to say a big chunk of those folks inherited wealth. Most millennial homeowners I know inherited money from grandparents, aunts, uncles, and/or parents.

And like many who inherited wealth, these folks often make up their own little rags to riches story about how they got where they're at.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 20 points 3 months ago

Yeah.... Maybe this is one of the ways I should start associating myself with Gen Z but they also have higher home ownership than boomers did at this age cause apparently the covid fire sale left them still with their parents money and cheap houses.

I dunno I really don't know how anyone does it but I have also been homeless 3 times since I started college so not really a great example.

[–] corroded@lemmy.world 43 points 3 months ago (9 children)

I'm not sure I understand the math in this article. At current interest rates, a $550000 is closer to a 3.5k mortgage, not 5k.

At 250k a year, they're making roughly 20k per month. If they're willing to pay 30% of their income to a mortgage, that's 6k. Even post-tax, that's still more than 3.5k.

I agree that the cost of housing is ridiculous. This sounds more like they have exceptionally bad credit or they're looking at homes that are way above their budget.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago (4 children)

So it sounds like they had a house in a reasonable area...

Her old boss called her up in 2021 offering double what she got paid last time...

And they never thought to check why she was being offered twice her salary to do the same job?

It's likely because everyone moved away due to housing prices if they weren't insanely wealthy. Shouldn't have sold the home they owned before they even googled the price of homes where they were moving.

Also makes me think it's likely they have exceptionally bad credit like you said. They got two kids, and apparently do zero planning for huge life decisions and complain when shit doesn't work out. Other families raise kids on legit 1/10th of the money this family has...

And she's a financial specialist?

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

They could spend 70% of their income on their housing and still have more leftover than I make in a year.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

As someone who will have to dedicate 60-70% of their income to own a small, run down home, i really dont have a lot of sympathy for them. 30% of your income to housing is considered affordable, however that metric has likely been impossible for most people to reach over the past decade, most people can't even rent for 30% of their income these days.

Im not supporting high housing and rent costs, i just think compared to average American right now, this couple shouldn't really be considered "struggling" or "poor"

[–] volvoxvsmarla@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago (6 children)

As someone living in Germany, what pissed me off most was when they mentioned that they never imagined raising their kids in an apartment. Like an apartment is beneath them. It is 2024. Don't we all know that heating single family homes and the sheer extra space they require is absolutely disproportionate? Everyone wants a cheap huge single family house in the middle of the city and no cars and no climate change. Like, yeah, that won't happen. Can we please start normalizing living in apartments? We just moved to a much cheaper city and hope to buy a 3-4 room apartment here one day. This will still cost us about 600k and we make less than 50k combined. But even if we had the money to pay over 1.5 mil for a house here, I wouldn't want to live in a house, unless I'd have like 6 kids.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

As your kids age into teens and young adults, the apartment offers more freedoms than suburbia as they wont require a car to go anywhere. In many US suburbs, kids are chained to their parents as a taxi service until they need to buy their own car. Which is why so many american suburbs have 4+ car sized driveways, because every human in the house must buy a car and gas and insurance etc.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] BigBenis@lemmy.world 42 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

I've been house browsing in the Portland area for a couple years and am losing hope of ever being able to afford one. Last year I saw a frame of a house, basically a roof on studs with tarp and plywood as the "walls" being listed for sale. They were asking for $300k.

[–] yogi_pogi@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

As someone who lives here:

This is real.

[–] SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

It has the audacity to include that listing as "a new home".

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Seems cheap for land. You must be in a low cost area. I’m reading your post as $300k for a buildable lot in a major city.

Last time I renewed my homeowners insurance, they put full replacement value of my house under $200k, despite the tiny plot of land and overall purchase price being several times that. I wish my town outside Boston had a buildable lot for only $300k, but the reality is much worse and the house itself is only a fraction of the value

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] hate2bme@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you own a vehicle maybe venture out of the city a little ways. Bonus points if there is any type of public transportation to take you to the city.

[–] BigBenis@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

No, I've lived in suburbs for much of my adult life and I have no interest in that lifestyle. Much like the family in the article, I make enough to rent in the city. But it sucks knowing that living where I want to be comes at the cost of spending the money I could be using to invest in my community and improve the home I'm living in instead to line the pockets of somebody who was either lucky enough to own the land before property hyperinflation or wealthy enough to purchase it after the fact.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] StereoTrespasser@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's high time we get over this notion that in America, you rent for a couple years, save money, and then buy a house. It is simply not possible anymore. The only people buying houses are people that have a house to sell.

We are lifetime renters and we live in a community with lifetime renters. Some of us even have GASP kids in an apartment.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I totally get how they feel.

I got lucky with some investments I made in 2020 that appreciated post-covid and was able to pay off my student loans and put a down-payment on a condo.

If you're a wage earner, at least here in the US, the prevailing political thought seems to be that it's perfectly acceptable for you to live on gruel in your grossly expensive rented apartment. I wish I could hope that voting changed anything about that, but I don't think it matters who we elect anymore, at least beyond the local level.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Seriously.

I realize, daily, that I've very much lucked my way into my station in life. Two kids, a 4bed/1.5 bath house in the suburbs. Decent steady job. 200k household gross income.

My house is "worth" a half a million dollars. At least. But so is any other house that is maybe a sidestep. There is no moving to another town...we can't manage to accumulate any significant savings before something happens to take it all away. Even if we could swing the cash necessary to start buying a house, we were able to refi during the pandemic....so moving to a similar-priced house now will mean a significantly higher mortgage due to the higher interest.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] MoogleMaestro@lemmy.zip 24 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Over the past three years, the couple, who are both 36 and live in a suburb of Portland, Oregon, have been looking for a home.

Yeah, it be like that here. Most houses are costing around 1,000,000 in the Portland area due to wealthy techbros moving from San Fran.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

Renting for life, this is exactly what the landowning class, much of whom are now giant hedge funds that have been soaking up houses and properties for cash on the barrel head, in this country want.

We desperately need national legislation to put an end to people and corporations owning large swaths of homes in this country otherwise we will end up with fiefdoms and are in danger of returning to a world of medieval nobility in land ownership.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 19 points 3 months ago (5 children)

didn't they get the memo: houses are for the 1% now. 250K might sound like ~~a lot~~ enough, but you're still a peasant to the people who own you

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

Bringing in 17k+ per month after tax and cannot afford a home?? I call bullshit. A $750k home is 5k per month including HOA/tax/insurance. That’s less than 30% of their take home.

They could double their payment and pay it off in 5 years, with 7k per month to live on, then they live rent free for the rest of their lives.

This article feels like propaganda. Homes are over priced but 250k per year is a lot of money.

load more comments (5 replies)

A Boring Dystopia