Housing is Unaffordable for Young People

[Joe Flacco]

All of those other places are wealthy but they the only place with comparable levels of widespread wealth to the DC metro is possibly the SF area. Even in DC, a houshold income of $300,000 is almost 3x the median area household income, which is pretty damn wealthy by any reasonable measure. (Not Billionaire level wealthy, but wealthy nevertheless).

Additionally, compared to most of the rest of the country and the rest of the world, that is fabulously wealthy and as it is in the 97th percentile of median household income in the U.S.

Income is just not a good way to measure wealth.

$150k indiviaul or $300k dual income in your 40's is pretty good. Certainly not wealthy. You get to afford the luxury of an old house with a yard in a good school district.

Wealthy is like you can buy new construction in a good school district. That is wealthy.

 

[timd354]

Income is just not a good way to measure wealth.

$150k indiviaul or $300k dual income in your 40's is pretty good. Certainly not wealthy. You get to afford the luxury of an old house with a yard in a good school district.

Wealthy is like you can buy new construction in a good school district. That is wealthy.

Your point of view is seriously warped from being in the DC wealth bubble and you apparently have no idea how most of the rest of the country actually lives. Anyone who argues that a $300k per year income is not the income of peope who are quite wealthy, just really does not get it. In your Bubble, $300k seems not all that wealthy becuase of the unbeleivable levels of wealth in that area, but it is really quite weathy in the overall scheme of things.

 

[gregb]

An individual earning $150,000 per year or a couple earning $300,000 per year is not considered "wealthy" in Santa Barbara due to cost of living where the median SFR cost is $2,200,000. Its not how much your gross income that matters, but how much goes to net and savings for retirement.

 

[Fernando]

An individual earning $150,000 per year or a couple earning $300,000 per year is not considered "wealthy" in Santa Barbara due to cost of living where the median SFR cost is $2,200,000. Its not how much your gross income that matters, but how much goes to net and savings for retirement.

Speaking from experience, $300,000 per year doesn't feel that wealthy.

 

[DTB]

An individual earning $150,000 per year or a couple earning $300,000 per year is not considered "wealthy" in Santa Barbara due to cost of living where the median SFR cost is $2,200,000. Its not how much your gross income that matters, but how much goes to net and savings for retirement.

Doesn't move the needle much in Chicago either.
Downstate is a different matter

 

[timd354]

An individual earning $150,000 per year or a couple earning $300,000 per year is not considered "wealthy" in Santa Barbara due to cost of living where the median SFR cost is $2,200,000. Its not how much your gross income that matters, but how much goes to net and savings for retirement.

I don't recall anyone mentioning Santa Barbara, but okay.

 

[timd354]

Speaking from experience, $300,000 per year doesn't feel that wealthy.

A lot of wealthy people don't feel wealthy as they always see others who have more. Additionally, Americans in general have no idea how wealthy most of us really are in the overall scheme of things...an income of ~$124,000 puts someone in the 99th percentile of the world's population for income.

 

[Mejappz]

I reject your premise that our economy is based on usury. I also reject your apparent thinking that it is possible to even have modenr economy with banking and credit is funded by capital that requires a return (but admittedly the bankers need to be regulated in an intelligent manner). Anyhow, you are gonna think what you are gonna think....good luck to you!

Ah, another classic !"I reject your premise" response—basically a way of saying, I don’t have a real counterargument, so I’ll just dismiss what you said outright.


Reject it all you want, but that doesn’t change reality. The modern U.S. economy is absolutely built on usury and debt dependence. Just look around—credit card interest rates at 30%, student loans people can’t escape even in bankruptcy, subprime auto loans trapping people in cycles of debt, and businesses more focused on stock buybacks (funded by cheap debt) than actual production. If that’s not an economy propped up by usury, then what is?


And your argument that banking and credit must work this way is just ideology talking. There’s a difference between productive lending—where capital funds real industry and innovation—and parasitic finance, where banks make money off endless fees, predatory lending, and speculation while wages stagnate. The fact that banks now make more off fees and interest than actual loans to businesses should tell you something.


But hey, at least you admit that bankers need regulation. Too bad Volcker’s policies laid the groundwork for the exact opposite—a deregulated financial system where banks became too big to fail and working people became too small to save.


Anyway, I appreciate the discussion. Good luck to you too—you’re gonna need it when the next debt bubble pops.

 

[Mejappz]

When the choice was between 10% and no loans period, vs. 15% loans, why not? Like I said, I couldn't increase the credit limit on my CC until the law changed. The cost of money relates to the value of it. And inflation in the 70s - was partially caused by high energy costs and the ripple it sent thru the economy, bad governmental policy like Nixon's price controls, and adding to the problem was all the baby boomers were coming into the labor market and nothing left to do - all the jobs were taken by their parents for the most part.

You know better than T. The whole "10% and no loans vs. 15% loans" thing is a false choice.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

The whole "10% and no loans vs. 15% loans" thing is a false choice.

Really? I lived in in Arkansas in 1980. I had to borrow from relatives to finance a house because no one would do a 10 year loan for less than 10% and they couldn't legally charge more. So, I paid my uncle 10% interest. And I was unable to borrow money for oil field equipment until the law changed. Many local people were opening accounts across the state line just to get a loan. And, again, I was stuck with a $400 credit card limit from Simmons Bank. Meanwhile I could buy more from American Express but you paid off the entire amount each month. They didn't have revolving credit.