Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about those with low expectations? All I want is a 400-sq ft house on a 2,500-sq ft lot. Why should I be denied that option because others have higher expectations?
From the information you have gave us over the years...........you can not afford a house.
In January 2015, the median home price in the US was $294,300 (not sure where you got that $350K figure from since you didn't give your source). The median square footage for new construction in 2014 was 2600 square feet. This comes to $113 a square foot. https://www.census.gov/construction/...uspricemon.pdf
So actually, per square foot, the median price has dropped slightly since 1973.
What about those with low expectations? All I want is a 400-sq ft house on a 2,500-sq ft lot. Why should I be denied that option because others have higher expectations?
There are smaller homes out there for sale. No one is forcing you to buy a large home. In fact, if you like, you can build your own small home. But you do have to qualify for ANY home loan if you don't have the cash up front. That's your first step.
Last edited by KathrynAragon; 03-08-2015 at 05:27 PM..
And the size of the median home has increased by more than 1000 square feet.
CPI adjusted, the price of a home, per square foot, hasn't changed since the 1960s. I am going to let you run the numbers on that since I've posted the info several times on this forum already, but I'm right.
This is interesting to me because it showcases a fundamental shift in expectations and preferences of consumers.
The idea that most people who are struggling these days are just not "living within their means" is so simplistic, isn't it? Dave Ramsey followers who think if people would just stop going to "Starbucks" every day and buying all of those "large screen TV's," they would be just fine.
Wages are not keeping up with the continued upwardly spiraling cost of living and NECESSITIES like utilities, health care, property taxes, auto repairs, food, etc.
how so? Because it doesn't fit your narrative? Where's your "proof" to argue against the claim?
Quote:
Wages are not keeping up with the continued upwardly spiraling cost of living and NECESSITIES like utilities, health care, property taxes, auto repairs, food, etc.
Well yeah, they want larger houses which means more property taxes/utility costs/etc. Bigger cars for more costly repairs/gas/insurance. Wanting "more" shouldn't be reflected in what someone is actually paid. You can't claim that wages aren't going up fast enough just because people changed their standards to include larger items. They should have changed their jobs for higher paying ones first but they don't
Really? What do you base this claim on? I gave you the sources for my claim - the US Census Bureaus records of home sales since 1963 to the present, plus an inflation calculator from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's really sort of elementary math from there.
how so? Because it doesn't fit your narrative? Where's your "proof" to argue against the claim?
Well yeah, they want larger houses which means more property taxes/utility costs/etc. Bigger cars for more costly repairs/gas/insurance. Wanting "more" shouldn't be reflected in what someone is actually paid. You can't claim that wages aren't going up fast enough just because people changed their standards to include larger items. They should have changed their jobs for higher paying ones first but they don't
A bunch of nonsense.
My 'narrative' has nothing to do with it.
The relevant proof exists in the form of overwhelming anecdotal evidence:
1. My parents generation was able to support families (house, car, food, insurance, etc) on 1 income with average incomes. This generation cannot even with 2 incomes.
2. Reasonably priced small houses don't exist, and when they do they have skyrocketed in price. As an example, I grew up in a small house. It would go for around one million dollars on the open market, maybe a little more. Yet my parents were able to afford it on average incomes.
You are also comparing apples to oranges. A top of the line car in 1970 should be compared with a top of the line car today, for example.
Your entire premise is totally incorrect.
Wages have collapsed and the evidence is all around us.
Your anecdotal evidence doesn't apply
1) I can support a family on my single salary
2) I bought a 3 bedroom/1.5 bath house for $110k, I found it fairly affordable, I'll have it paid off in a little over 15 years.
3) anecdotes don't count as evidence
Quote:
A top of the line car in 1970 should be compared with a top of the line car today, for example.
A top of the line car in 1970 is what a middle class car is today if you account for all the safety items (air bags/abs brakes). If you are saying the old aston martins, then only the wealth could afford it back then the same as how they are the ones that can afford the super cars today. You want to compare apple to apples but don't want to compare items in your anecdotes of equal items yourself.
You're right - anecdotes don't count as evidence but since we're pontificating, I'll throw mine in.
The median home price around here is $122,000 (in a metro area of about 220,000). Tyler, TX - Forbes
The cost of living is 1.3 percent lower than the average cost of living in the US.
My two daughters are married to men who make what I consider a decent but not an executive level salary. One husband makes about $80K a year and the other makes about $65K a year. Neither of my daughters' has to work in order for their families to live a comfortable lifestyle (they each have several kids and they homeschool their kids). Their families are healthy and enjoy some perks as well as having all their material needs met and then some.
As for my husband and I, we just bought a VERY nice home, in a very nice neighborhood, for $193k - $78 a square foot in fact. But hey - it isn't a brand spanking new home. It doesn't have every bell and whistle that newer homes have and that so many people expect - even in their first home. It was cosmetically dated but structurally and functionally in excellent shape - but people walked right past it for months because of wallpaper in several rooms, and tile counter tops in the kitchen. OH THE HORROR!
In fact, our realtor had shown it to several younger couples and people with budgets much lower than ours (we could have spent up to $450K if we'd wanted to - but we didn't want to). They turned their noses up at it though because it wasn't updated to the minute. Like I said, it was functionally just fine - anyone could have moved right into it and lived in it as it was - for $73 a square foot. BUT NO.
Peoples' expectations were higher than that - and they didn't mind going into more debt to get that new construction with granite counter tops, stainless steel appliances and NO BRASS FIXTURES.
By the way, we upgraded all the flooring to hardwoods and new carpet in the minor bedrooms, and completely renovated the kitchen, removed all wallpaper and updated nearly every wall color as well as one of the bathrooms - spent $50K doing it - and we're still $14 below the average cost per square foot for the comparable properties in the area!
And our monthly mortgage payment reflects that $93 a square foot price VERY nicely.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
