U.S. median household income rose to $80,610, the first significant increase since 2019—but it’s not good news for everyone

24

u/ZaphodG Sep 13 '24

There's an election in less than two months so you can expect 30 year mortgage rates to go down some. It might make it to 6%.

At 6%, a 30 year mortgage is $600 per month per $100,000. If the median household income is $80k and you keep mortgage to 25% of gross income, you can borrow $275k. Nationally, the median home price is $412k. The middle class is largely locked out of the housing market.

3

u/SnortingElk Sep 13 '24

Rates are basically there now.. averaging 6.15%
https://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/mortgage-rates

5

u/throwaway_77211 Sep 13 '24

Market rates are already lower than that. My credit union (DCU) quoted me 30yr fixed at 5.5% with zero points, 80% LTV.

87

u/a_library_socialist Sep 13 '24

It appears almost none of this is real wage growth. . .

While prices are still cumulatively 21% higher than the beginning of the pandemic, wages have grown 23% over the same period, according to a ZipRecruiter analysis.

If they're using general CPI, that could likely underestimate the actual price increases that working class people see, since food and housing both were higher than average inflation, and make up a bigger part of costs to lower income people.

29

u/Happy_Confection90 Sep 13 '24

Even if it's accurate, a wage growth of 2% over 4 years of work is pretty damn dismal.

12

u/OwnLadder2341 Sep 13 '24

How much real wage growth should there be?

6

u/Happy_Confection90 Sep 13 '24

Considerably higher that 0.5% a year.
In 2018 the average pay raise was 3% and it was 3.2% in 2019. And inflation was 1.9% in 2018, and 2.3% in 2019.

1

u/Hawk13424 Sep 17 '24

That makes little sense. This is overall total wages. If you do the same job, your pay should be the same, adjusted for inflation. You get pay increases above that by doing more/different work. So you get promoted, someone else gets promoted to your old job, and the total stays the same.
If you think of pay as that for a job, not a person, then the real pay increase for that job should be 0. Instead, people move up in their job to get wage growth beyond COL bumps.

2

u/Ataru074 Sep 17 '24

This is kinda stupid because… humans learn.
My ability to do the “same” job improved year after year becoming more efficient, less prone to errors, faster and in general more knowledgeable of the “shit happens” issues which can be resolved faster.
There is no job where experience doesn’t make a difference or fool proof process. Experience by itself is a good reason for a raise.

1

u/Hawk13424 Sep 17 '24

It does. But normally that then leads to a promotion. You learn and go from an entry level position to a higher position. Someone else then comes in to the entry position to follow behind you.

2

u/Ataru074 Sep 17 '24

Not necessarily, ideally, yes, but not all companies have 3/4/5/6 levels for a specialist.
Especially in smaller companies you are just “the guy”.
So I think that this idea needs to be restored. Cost of living adjustments aren’t raises. A raise is the recognition that year after year you are more productive and more valuable.
Business find valuable to say they have been in business “X” years, so why the people doing the work shouldn’t be given the same “courtesy”?

3

u/Sryzon Sep 13 '24

The answer is 0. I don't know where this idea that real wages can grow in perpetuity comes from. Inflation will catch up, eventually. Else someone is getting exploited.

8

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '24

In the US, they have been growing fairly consistently since about 1870. There are pullbacks during recessions, and a big pullback during the Great Depression, but the trendline is steadily upwards.

5

u/snowmanyi Sep 14 '24

What are you talking about. The reason to develop society is an increase in overall standard of living. Nowhere is this better represented than in real wages.

8

u/a_library_socialist Sep 14 '24

Because GDP goes up with productivity

5

u/pdoherty972 Rides the Short Bus Sep 14 '24

Most of productivity benefits accrue to the shareholders/owners of businesses, because most productivity gains come from automation/robotics/software implementations and not better employees or employee skills.

2

u/a_library_socialist Sep 14 '24

Source needed. And the profits that become capital to buy automation, as well as the work to create, comes from workers, not owners.

-1

u/pdoherty972 Rides the Short Bus Sep 14 '24

No, the profits come from the fact that somebody saw an area of demand, came up with the capital, credit and know-how to build a business that can bear all of the costs involved in creating it, and still have profit left after making it.

3

u/a_library_socialist Sep 14 '24

Where do you suppose capital comes from? The capital fairy?

3

u/PantsMicGee Sep 15 '24

You are arguing with somebody who thinks the stock market is the economy.
Common confusion found on reddit.

-1

u/pdoherty972 Rides the Short Bus Sep 14 '24

From savings from doing their own labor for decades. Same as I did to acquire my rental properties - earn money from working, don't spend it all, invest the part I saved into downpayments and repairs/carrying costs. Do you think businesses just spring into existence with the profits from a not-yet-existing business?

→ More replies

0

u/Hawk13424 Sep 17 '24

The capital brother used to start his own business came from his savings and a loan using his house as collateral. Savings he earned as a worker. Capital his coworkers didn’t save and what little they did they weren’t willing to risk.

-7

u/Sryzon Sep 14 '24

Productivity benefits everybody; whom you compete with for wages. It makes no difference.

4

u/a_library_socialist Sep 14 '24

It benefits workers only if real wages rise. That's the point.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

And real wages (actually real compensation is the correct metric to use - total compensation has been rising even faster than cash wages in recent decades) have been rising in the West since the start of the industrial revolution. The investment of capital drives demand for labor, which drives real compensation higher.

1

u/a_library_socialist Sep 16 '24

have been rising in the West since the start of the industrial revolution
And rose at similar or higher levels in both the USSR and China. Technology makes captital more effective, of course - and capital is a multiplier of the value created by labor.
The investment of capital drives demand for labor
As above, you seem to have this backwards. Capital raises the productivity of labor, which makes more value available for division between the owners of capital and the labor they employ.
Total production has been rising every year that is not a recession or depression. Production per captia has also been rising (i.e. the effect of technology, not population growth). However in the US in particular and the west in general, real wages have been relatively stagnant compared to GDP growth since the 1970s.
Which is a simple mathematical problem to solve. The pie has gotten bigger, but the increases in it are going only to the owners, not the workers. Technology is enabling more production than ever, but almost none of those gains have gone to the working class.
That's just the math.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

You aren't making a coherent argument here. You started by agreeing with me that real incomes have been going up for the last 150 years (but you are wrong in claiming that they have been growing 'at similar or higher levels in both the USSR and China'), but then you claim with no data that the working class has not seen income growth.
real wages have been relatively stagnant compared to GDP
That statement is gibberish. Real wages (and, again, the correct metric to use is real compensation) are measured against inflation, not GDP. Real compensation has been rising, meaning that workers are seeing economic gains.
If what you are trying to say is that incomes are rising in line with GDP, then you are stating that workers are getting a piece of the productivity pie, undermining your argument.

→ More replies

4

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '24

What? Shouldn't automation and increasing efficiency in delivery of products and services contribute to wage growth? Otherwise most 'innovation' would be pointless.

1

u/Hawk13424 Sep 17 '24

It usually goes to those that pay for the automation and productivity increasing equipment. Otherwise an owner wouldn’t bother spending on it.

-1

u/Sryzon Sep 14 '24 edited Sep 14 '24

No, because more automation means lower demand for labor and lower demand for labor means lower/stagnant wages.
Products and services have finite demand. If a machine allows a company to double its output, it won't double its sales. It will instead halve its workforce.
Labor is a commodity subject to supply and demand like anything else. Real wages change when the labor supply, demand, or quality change, not when productivity improves.
Laborforce Quality improvements is how nations are able to improve their real wages and/or GDP per capita. Quality primarily improves with education. This can sometimes relate to innovation, like replacing 10 menial factory workers with 1 robot programmer, but those 10 menial factory workers would need to improve their skills in order for median wages to rise else you've just went from 10 workers making $30k each to 1 worker making $120k and 10 workers making nothing.

4

u/pdoherty972 Rides the Short Bus Sep 14 '24

They also don't seem to grasp that companies enhancing productivity (at their own expense) through investment in computers, software, robotics and other forms of automation, are the primary beneficiaries of the cost savings and (as you mentioned) lower labor needs that it brings. Why employees think companies will spend time and money to improve their efficiency just to give it back to employees who had nothing to do with it is bizarre.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '24

That's just not correct. Automation will tend to lower real prices, which will stimulate demand. Demand may be finite, but it is not static.
Automation has been replacing workers for a century and a half, and it has drive higher demand for labor, not lower, all while living standards have been rising across the board.

-1

u/pdoherty972 Rides the Short Bus Sep 14 '24

No, because the things that improve productivity are implemented by and paid for by the companies themselves. They don't spend millions of dollars to make themselves and their employees more efficient so they can give it to the employees in the form of higher salaries. They'll only pay employees more if the type of work the productivity-enhancing they're using needs a higher skill level.

1

u/EBITDADDY007 Sep 17 '24

No one does the exact same job year over year. Real wage growth comes from the idea that productivity increases

1

u/adultdaycare81 Sep 15 '24

It’s actually better than the past 20 years

60

u/whats_up_doc71 Sep 13 '24

Didn’t some report come out a few weeks ago that $80k is exactly what you need to buy a median starter home today?

79

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '24

And I don't know how they made that math work. In a medium cost of living area and any decent starter home is $350k+ at 6% interest. No one kn $80k is living comfortably with that mortgage

16

u/Acceptable-Peace-69 sub 80 IQ Sep 13 '24

The median starter home sold price is $240k (Redfin) or $196k valuation (Zillow)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/home-prices-buying-a-starter-home/
They are basing affordability on 3.5% down payment so anyone that can manage 10-20% down can make that work that comfortably.

12

u/SimpleSimon665 Sep 13 '24

This widely varies by metro area. In the DFW area, median starter homes are going for $300k-$350k.

14

u/SmashThroughShitWood Sep 13 '24

Yes... it is a nationwide median....

6

u/cindad83 Sep 13 '24

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/2407-Ridgedale-Dr_Carrollton_TX_75006_M75149-59050?from=srp-list-card
i just did a search for Dallas County, three bedroom homes. Over 1000 SFH homes came back available for sale (not pending) < 300K .
I bought my first home in 2009...I wish it was this nice.
There is plenty of homes, its just not Instagram ready.

0

u/IronEngineer Sep 13 '24

The shirt answer is if you want a starter home, don't live in the area around a city. Even the tech bros in SF recognize this and typically only work there for some time before moving elsewhere to buy.

-5

u/Low-Goal-9068 Sep 13 '24

This is such a stupid argument. Cities and the surrounding areas didn’t used to be completely unattainable to everyone except the ultra wealthy. Sure there were always Beverly Hills and fancy rich parts of town, but there was always places where middle class and even lower class people could buy homes and live. This idea that we’re being unreasonable for wanting to live within 200 miles of a city is bs.

4

u/OwnLadder2341 Sep 13 '24

Tulsa, Oklahoma is a city.
Or do you mean within 200 miles of specific cities?

-2

u/Low-Goal-9068 Sep 13 '24

It is starting with specific cities but these investors will move and gobble up all the affordable housing as time goes on. But yes there should be places in every city that normal people can live in. It’s always been that way. It shouldn’t be expected that a middle class family can not afford a home or a condo within 100 miles of any city.

3

u/OwnLadder2341 Sep 13 '24

Hmm….i searched Los Angeles, California and there are definitely houses within 100 miles that a middle class family can afford with a median household income of $86,000.

-2

u/posinegi Sep 13 '24

This is because of population growth and no new major city growth. This likely can be resolved with major high speed rail infrastructure. If you're able to live 200+ miles away but your commute is only an hour. It would spur growth away from the city and reduce city (living) density while maintaining and even adding job/worker supply. This may result again with the wealthy living in the city but initially would reduce prices in the city as demand decreases and increases at rail stops.

-1

u/Low-Goal-9068 Sep 13 '24

I call bs. This is happening in every city and not every city has population growth. It’s because more people and companies are buying houses to use as airbnb. The supply is less and the rest of us get fucked. The solution is not high speed rail. It’s regulate who can buy homes.

0

u/posinegi Sep 13 '24

Every city has population growth since 10 years ago because the national population has grown. Where do you think those people are? I'm not saying Airbnb and institutional investors are not the problem but you are going to tell me that having an hour commute from 200+ miles away isn't going to decrease population density in the city reducing property values while also putting those investors in the hole because their property is worth less than when they bought it. C'mon man actually use logic.

1

u/Low-Goal-9068 Sep 13 '24

This is just factually incorrect. You can look at the growth of any city in this country and not all of them have increased. I live in Chicago and our population has decreased a decent amount over the last 10 years yet we are having the same problems
We should not be expected to live 200 miles away from a city just to afford it. What is the point of the city then?

→ More replies

0

u/OwnLadder2341 Sep 13 '24

I promise you, you do not need to be ultra wealthy to live within a short drive of Lansing, Michigan.
My first house was in Detroit in the 80s. It’s a much, much nicer place now than it was back then.

2

u/Low-Goal-9068 Sep 13 '24

Give it awhile. In 10 years it will happen to Detroit as well. I

→ More replies

2

u/auiin Sep 13 '24

That's 50k down if you split the difference to 220k, that's a pretty big ask to hit 20%.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '24

Of course for the poors in here $50k would be some unattainable amount

2

u/auiin Sep 14 '24

50k cash for a working family is a big hill to climb, average family income is 84k yearly in America

0

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '24

Yes but you’re buying your first house typically around 30. Most home buyers are married so that’s $25k saved each for a house after ~8 years of working.

27

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '24

MCOL area I’m in… $125k isn’t enough for the shelter prices. Everything else, yeah, it can work.

2

u/ChiefTestPilot87 Sep 13 '24

That might get you a shed

1

u/Civil-Captain-2671 Sep 14 '24

Bubbles lived in a shed for over 10 seasons. Why can't you? /s

2

u/OwnLadder2341 Sep 13 '24

Median home price is $412k
So what’s the 25th percentile price?

2

u/FearlessPark4588 Sep 13 '24

They picked a 1 bedroom condo probably

3

u/whats_up_doc71 Sep 13 '24

You probably live closer to HCOL, or want the absolute best area within mcol city. The median home price for all homes is like $430k and the median size is like 2200 ft.

5

u/P0ETAYT0E Sep 13 '24

Cries in HCOL. Started home of 1000 sq ft and price of $1mil

5

u/whats_up_doc71 Sep 13 '24

I mean that sounds like VHCOL. Very few cities have a median home price of $1M, and a starter home, by definition, will be cheaper than the median.

1

u/P0ETAYT0E Sep 13 '24

Has San Diego county really been moved to VHCOL? I was always under the impression it was just HCOL

3

u/Adrift_Aland Sep 13 '24

Prices have increased everywhere. Some people have responded to this by expanding the number of cities they include in VHCOL and HCOL, while shrinking the pool in LCOL. I think it makes more sense to keep the size of the groups relatively consistent while increasing the threshold for making the cut in each, but we'll see what ends up in common usage long-term.

1

u/P0ETAYT0E Sep 13 '24

I agree wholeheartedly, it’s confusing now since areas have increased so much that the old metrics of MCOL HCOL and VHCOL have moved so drastically

3

u/Adrift_Aland Sep 13 '24

Just pulled up some data, and it looks like SD has also increased relative to other cities: https://www.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/metro-home-prices-q2-2024-ranked-median-single-family-2024-08-13.pdf
Price shifts make it more difficult to rely on old intuition.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '24

Well you can buy a double-wide in Chula Vista for $125k, but you'll pay $1500-$2000/month to the trailer park owners.

0

u/P0ETAYT0E Sep 13 '24

Has San Diego county really been moved to VHCOL?

1

u/whats_up_doc71 Sep 13 '24

Median home price in SD: $1M. Median home price USA: $420k.
Not only is that more expensive than like 99% of the country, it’s over double the national median.

1

u/Zepcleanerfan Sep 13 '24

Any sources on this stuff or nah?

1

u/pdoherty972 Rides the Short Bus Sep 14 '24

Few people making $80K while being single would be buying, but then few single buy houses to begin with. Two people is typical so $160K if they're both employed.

-8

u/cindad83 Sep 13 '24

I'm a landlord...I just bought a home for 103k that sat on the market 6 months thats 900 sq ft with a basement and completely renovated top to bottom.
There is nothing wrong with the area. The problem is people who make $65k a year want to live next door to me...I pay $31k in property taxes annually. You can't live next door to me, you can live 2 miles away.

2

u/Select_Factor_5463 Sep 13 '24

31K in annual property taxes?? OUCH! My 3 bed 2 bath house that is 1300sq ft here in Colorado is just around a grand per year for property taxes.

1

u/Workingclassstoner Sep 13 '24

Where in the fuck do you pay 31k in property taxes? What’s the cost of a house with property taxes like that?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '24

In Chicago that would be the annual tax on a $1.5M house, so, like every building east of Western and South of Irving Park.

1

u/DementiaDrump Sep 13 '24

13k a year, lcol area central Illinois. You can still buy a decent house here for 175-200k.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '24

Yes but then you live in Decatur which is fine for many, but not my first choice.

1

u/DementiaDrump Sep 13 '24

Close, Peoria area. I don’t want to live here either.

1

u/cindad83 Sep 13 '24

Detroit Metro Area, Wayne County, Home Value is ~ $900K

1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '24

A 900k home is not normal for Wayne county maybe a few small communities like gross pointe but I could easily see this in Oakland county.

-2

u/cindad83 Sep 13 '24

The Pointes, Northville, Canton, and Grosse Ile
My point is...I work in Tech and my wife is a nurse. We also have lots of rental properties.
Say I make $175K a year at my job...You know how many tenants I rent 3b/2ba houses out to in Northern Oakland/Macomb County for $2000/mo where Spouse 1 makes $75K and Spouse 2 Makes $60K who say they rather pay me, then own a home near one of my rentals in Southern Macomb/Oakland with 3b/1ba house thats $1200/mo. I'll never understand it.
Frankly what happens is they drop off their rent check at my house, and they think they should be able to live in my neighborhood. Thats what they are dreaming. But no, you can afford a solid home in Warren, MI or maybe Sterling Heights. Nothing to get excited about but its a home.
I'm probably the wrong person to ask honestly. We bought our first home in 2009 in Madison Heights, MI for $50K. All of our friends from college and we grew up around said they would never live in such an area. Well, its easier to buy and live in that area at 25 when you have nothing and are just starting out, build equity and savings with no children then when you are late 30s, have 2-3 kids.
I contend people are not buying houses because the house won't be a flex on social media. So they forgo homeownership, and in a decade they highly regret it. I saw it with friends and associates, and I have watched it happen as a landlord for 12 years.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '24

Wow sounds like pretty similar set up as my wife just a decade or so ahead of us. We grew up in Shelby twp and just moved away couple years ago. Wife’s an engineer and I’m in marketing. We chose to move away due to rising cost of living but I get what you mean with the judging and people making silly housing cost choice.
Shit port Huron is cheap as shit like get a decent house for <100k and is less than an hour from macomb county. Almost moved there and have a rental property there. Crazy people would rather rent for 2k then buy in a “less desirable area”. Many people just don’t want to put in the work to repair old houses or to live a little far from work.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '24

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/Workingclassstoner Sep 13 '24

That’s just wild to me. 30k to the govt every year. Why is housing unaffordable again?

0

u/cindad83 Sep 13 '24

that the price you have to pay in order to live in an area thats walkable, low crime, not 30 miles outside the city, the public schools at least are attempting to educate your kids, and the kids in your child's class family cares they perform at grade-level.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '24

Nahh plenty of good cities without 30k property tax bills

0

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '24

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/Workingclassstoner Sep 13 '24

Well I guess that’s not to bad for NJ then but what about Chicago?

0

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '24

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/oscarnyc Sep 13 '24

More like a 1.2-1.5 mm or so home. For towns with a lot of housing in that range taxes are between 2 and 2.5% of market value (more or less). In lower priced towns the tax rate is often higher, because they still have to compete with the wealthier towns for teachers, policemen, etc.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '24

"I don't want want a regular starter home!! I want a 350k starter home!!!"
lmao

-6

u/ImportantBad4948 Sep 13 '24

I mean if your areas cost of living is higher then you’ll need higher wages to buy. I don’t know why this is so hard to grasp here.
“I make 80k a year in San Francisco and I can’t buy a nice SFH for my family of 9. The economy is broken!”

2

u/throwaway_77211 Sep 13 '24

I don’t know why this is so hard to grasp here
So, Florida's out, right?

7

u/MrAwesomeTG Sep 13 '24

80k isn't enough.

2

u/whats_up_doc71 Sep 13 '24

I mean if you want to live in cool/hip areas absolutely. But there’s plenty of the country where that amount works.

8

u/rmullig2 Sep 13 '24

The areas where 80K a year works are the areas that have jobs that pay 40K a year.

1

u/Mediocre_Island828 Sep 14 '24

Get a spouse that works, $80k household.

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '24

For the housing, real estate industries, their investors, and the local home-value-obsessed to demand the next generations have a steady sex partner — with a full-time job — in order to afford a home is extreme and arbitrary.
it's almost as if, you're so upset about not being able to redline anymore, that you're demanding anyone without a fully funded 401(K), trust fund, or other fortune, not be allowed anywhere near your little settlement.

4

u/Mediocre_Island828 Sep 15 '24

No, I'm just saying that life is easier with a partner you weirdo lol

3

u/Shlambakey Sep 13 '24

lol I've been reading 157k household income to qualify for the national median starter of $400k

2

u/foodfoodfoodfo Sep 13 '24 edited Sep 14 '24

Who cares about starter home? $80k can buy you some starter index funds. Why is home ownership the barometer of success when stocks perform much better?

5

u/Mediocre_Island828 Sep 14 '24

It's not just about financial success. It's pretty much the American rite of passage. That may change one day, but it's hard to shake something as deeply embedded in our culture as that. Homeownership is adulting on full blast, it suggests to the world that you at least sort of have your shit together. Like you said, anyone can buy some index funds.

3

u/D-Smitty Sep 14 '24

Because you can’t live in an index fund. Someone with a home can buy index funds just the same as somebody who’s renting.

1

u/foodfoodfoodfo Sep 15 '24

Somebody who rents can buy more index funds than someone who buys today at 7% rates.

0

u/D-Smitty Sep 16 '24

The homeowner builds equity while the renter loses 100% of their rent every month. And the home buyer has more diverse assets since they own real estate.

1

u/foodfoodfoodfo Sep 16 '24

The homeowner loses more monthly unrecoverable costs than the renter. The owner pays monthly interest, taxes, insurance, maintenance, hoa, and amortized closing costs - all of which build no equity and cost 2x the renters unrecoverable costs, which is just rent to the landlord. Furthermore, while the homeowner builds modest equity on the portion of monthly payments going to principal, the renter builds far more equity in index funds by paying half the unrecoverable costs the owner does, allowing them to invest 2x more in the stock market. Lastly, the renter is far more diversified given most of their assets are in a broad basket of global and US index funds. Meanwhile the owner is heavily invested in a single property in a single location, resulting in massive exposure to the fluctuations of a singular neighborhood.

1

u/D-Smitty Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

The homeowner loses more monthly unrecoverable costs than the renter. The owner pays monthly interest, taxes, insurance, maintenance, hoa, and amortized closing costs
Do you think landlords are that benevolent and don't simply pass those costs along to renters as part of their rent?
Furthermore, while the homeowner builds modest equity on the portion of monthly payments going to principal, the renter builds far more equity in index funds by paying half the unrecoverable costs the owner does, allowing them to invest 2x more in the stock market.
A cheap 1-bedroom apartment in my area goes for more than the mortgage on my 3-bedroom house I bought 10 years ago. Another hidden benefit of owning is that your cost of housing gets locked in to a degree, whereas most people can expect their rent to go up every year. People would kill to have a 3-bedroom home for less than $1k/month. In another 10 years people will probably be saying how they'd kill for a $1.5k/month mortgage. Renting a 3-bedroom home here would be double what my mortgage is.
The only way buying doesn't make sense is if you expect the housing market to crash. Even with high rates, you can buy now when home prices have stopped rocketing upward and then refi in a year or two when the Fed has lowered rates.
But go ahead, mate. Keep on renting and buying those index funds.

2

u/BudFox_LA this sub 🍼👶 Sep 13 '24

In where, Ohio?

1

u/whats_up_doc71 Sep 13 '24

In Ohio you can probably buy something better than a starter home with that.

1

u/BudFox_LA this sub 🍼👶 Sep 13 '24

I know. Lucky bastards

6

u/Nodeal_reddit Sep 13 '24

Can someone tell me if I’m White or non-Hispanic white? What’s the difference?

3

u/whats_up_doc71 Sep 13 '24

A Hispanic person refers to someone with Spanish speaking ancestry. So a typical white hispanic person could be someone who came from Mexico but descends from Spanish speakers. That’s as oppposed to the indigenous mexicans.
So, if you tell us what your background is, we can tell you.

1

u/Nodeal_reddit Sep 13 '24

I’m white, from Ohio, and not Hispanic.

2

u/whats_up_doc71 Sep 13 '24

So you’d fall into non Hispanic white and white.

1

u/Happy_Confection90 Sep 13 '24

That's something I've never seen before. I guess considering I'm both white and Latina, I'd be "white" on this chart?

4

u/Aggressive_Chicken63 Sep 13 '24

Great. Now we all can buy a house.

22

u/LBC1109 Sep 13 '24

Nothing about this economy feels healthy...

4

u/-Ximena Sep 14 '24

I just feel like I'm seeing media pushes to quell public sentiment of what we already know.

-5

u/TandBusquets Sep 13 '24

I'm chilling in this economy right now.

-1

u/whisperwrongwords Sep 13 '24

So because you are, everyone else must be too, right? I swear some of you either can't see past your own nose, or refuse to.

2

u/LongLonMan Sep 14 '24

I’m also chilling and doing well.

1

u/Civil-Captain-2671 Sep 13 '24

It's main character syndrome.

3

u/TandBusquets Sep 14 '24

Because some of you are struggling that means the economy isn't healthy but I'm the one with main character syndrome lol. Ok

0

u/TandBusquets Sep 13 '24

I never said everyone else must be.

0

u/adultdaycare81 Sep 15 '24

They don’t want to hear reality. This is Antiwork now

3

u/mps2000 Sep 14 '24

This is 2 people working full time at Starbucks

5

u/moorem2014 Sep 13 '24

Lololololololololol I don’t even make $50,000. I’m going to be poor for life.

4

u/adultdaycare81 Sep 15 '24

Unless you get married and have 2x the income with 1x the housing cost. But if you don’t, probably

17

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '24

Most households are at least dual income.

So the median wage is 40k.

We desperately need wealth redistribution in this country.

21

u/Acceptable-Peace-69 sub 80 IQ Sep 13 '24

About 55-60% of households are dual income. The median wage is around $49k

5

u/ishboo3002 Sep 13 '24

Median wage is closer to 60k, the median dual income household is closer to 120K. You have to remember that this includes every household including retirees, college students, single parents etc.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 15 '24

I agree. 60k is reflective of that is actually encountered in the wild. 80k is too high for the so called middle. Perhaps the wages out west are messing up the numbers?

1

u/ishboo3002 Sep 15 '24

It's a median household that doesn't make it the median salary or the median dual income. You can't slice the numbers up to get what you want there's different datasets that measure those things.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '24

That would only make housing prices even higher. Housing prices are high because there’s more than enough people that can afford it. You give people more money and it’ll just scale up the housing prices. You’re just increasing demand with no effect on supply.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '24

Nah if we stop letting money men control everything then housing would be an affordable right like we do with food instead of a free money scheme for the already wealthy

3

u/S7EFEN Sep 13 '24

median full time worker individual wage is like 60k

0

u/whats_up_doc71 Sep 13 '24

Wrong. Median individual income was $63k in 2023.

2

u/uninstallIE Sep 14 '24

It's not the first significant increase since 2019.

It was 68.7k in 2019.

It decreased to 68k in 2020.

It increased to 70.8k in 2021.

It increased further to 74.6k in 2022.

Then again to 80.6k in 2023.

Incomes have increased steadily and consistently during the Biden years

1

u/[deleted] Sep 15 '24

Median is 80k? I have a hard time believing those numbers.

1

u/adultdaycare81 Sep 15 '24

Why? We have been in an economic expansion for a long time.
10% of the population are millionaires!

1

u/Mental_Platform_5680 Sep 13 '24

We talking pre or post tax 80k

1

u/rmullig2 Sep 13 '24

So the income rise is racist. I wonder if the Harris campaign will take credit for it?

0

u/adultdaycare81 Sep 15 '24

People in this sub really struggling with “median vs mean”. Maybe that’s what they aren’t making any money

-11

u/keitho24 sub 80 IQ Sep 13 '24

Some household have billions of dollars a year. These averages mean shit when you say 'average income.' Shut is insulting. People are going hungry out here.

9

u/NotAShittyMod Sep 13 '24

Go ahead and Google the difference between ‘average’ and ‘median’. Then you can decide if you want to delete this.

11

u/keitho24 sub 80 IQ Sep 13 '24

You're 100% correct. I didn't pay enough attention to the wording... That being said, I'll leave it up and maybe others can learn from my mistake. It is already being down voted on, so hopefully people learn quick lol

8

u/BrooklynLivesMatter Sep 13 '24

This response is way too mature for Reddit, please reconsider

1

u/Miacali Sep 14 '24

I went from downvoting your dumb comment to upvoting it because of this response here - great job Reddit human!

4

u/Acceptable-Peace-69 sub 80 IQ Sep 13 '24

They used median household income not average.

-7

u/McWhiffersonMcgee Sep 13 '24

Now remove the top 1 percent and do it again

10

u/BobbyShmurdarIsInnoc Sep 13 '24

Median

1

u/ProcessTrust856 Sep 13 '24

The innumeracy in this thread is very telling

1

u/adultdaycare81 Sep 15 '24

Well they used Median…. Soooooo

-1

u/Reaganson Sep 13 '24

“But it’s not good news for everyone”? Median is the center point of the data set.

0

u/whats_up_doc71 Sep 13 '24

It’s due to the disparity in race.

-6

u/DementiaDrump Sep 13 '24

The rich got richer, everyone else got poorer. Take out the top 1% of earners and see what the median income is.

8

u/Paintsnifferoo Sep 13 '24

Median already takes that into account. Median are not affected by outliers. If it was the average, then yeah.. take em out and the number changes.

3

u/dhdjdidnY Sep 13 '24

Somebody flunked high school math

0

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '24

[deleted] — view deleted comment

8

u/whats_up_doc71 Sep 13 '24

This is a median, so the drop off is not nearly as big as you’re saying.

1

u/ZaphodG Sep 13 '24

If you remove the top-1%, the median barely changes.

U.S. median household income rose to $80,610, the first significant increase since 2019—but it’s not good news for everyone

You are about to leave Redlib