Hundreds of seniors wait in line to get on waiting list for subsidized housing in Oakland (lawyer, house)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

I spend about 10 dollars a month. Other people have the option to live frugally and make living arrangements with family (it was also very socially acceptable back then even more so than now). What I did isn't even that impressive. 146k is a bar tip these days.

I think you are mistaken, in the 50's and 60's it was far more common for parents to tell kids to hit the road when they graduated from high school, the exception being kids who stayed at home while they attended college. But there were very, very few adults in their mid 20's 30's or 40's living with mommy and daddy, that is a very recent phenomenon.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I think you are mistaken, in the 50's and 60's it was far more common for parents to tell kids to hit the road when they graduated from high school, the exception being kids who stayed at home while they attended college. But there were very, very few adults in their mid 20's 30's or 40's living with mommy and daddy, that is a very recent phenomenon.

Wrong. For basically a majority of the early to mid 20th century until the postwar era it was extremely common to live at home. An adult in the 50s could have grown up in the 40s and early 50s when the depression was in recent memory

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by simbared

For many working people with families to support in the 50's, 10K might as well have been 100K. They also had to come up with a hefty down payment back then.

They had to be white too if they wanted more than a few select restricted neighborhoods.

[pacific2]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

They should have bought back in the 50s when houses were 10k. I don't have as much sympathy for them as I do for millennials who will never have such opportunities.

Look-up terms like "redlining" and "racially restrictive covenants" and get to know how these were barriers to minority home ownership. Redlining is still practiced by some banks.
1920s?1948: Racially Restrictive Covenants

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.5caad0925b6b

Redlining" just sounds like an an old-timey term, a practice that exists only in history and our re-tellings of it. The word has particular roots in the 1930s, when the government-sponsored Home Owner's Loan Corporation first drafted maps of American communities to sort through which ones were worthy of mortgage lending. Neighborhoods were ranked and color-coded, and the D-rated ones — shunned for their "inharmonious" racial groups — were typically outlined in red.

This government practice was swiftly adopted by private banks, too, during an era of massive homeownership expansion in the U.S. And the visual language of the maps became a verb: To redline a community was to cut it off from essential capital. To be redlined was something even worse.

The federal government eventually retreated from the practice, and it was outlawed by the Fair Housing Act in 1968. But black communities have warned that it still exists in subtler and changed forms, in bank tactics that have targeted these same neighborhoods for predatory lending, or in new patterns like "retail redlining." Some of the persistent redlining, though, still looks an awful lot like the original.

[justinbro2002]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

I can't even afford to buy in Hayward the ****tiest and cheapest city with in commuting distance. Things are grim for me and I'm in the top 10% of millennials.

You could still buy a house in the Bay area you just need to expand your search to longer commutes. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/reb/6172236569.html You could afford this place. With your $145k you would still have almost half of that left after down payment and closing costs. With a salary of $58k/yr you could swing the approximate $1800 a month payment and get a room mate to help out. Buying a home requires sacrifice and people sometimes have to buy a less than optimal house just be able to buy a starter house.

[justinbro2002]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

That would be a hellish commute to the South Bay.

Yeah but thousands of people do it everyday and a lot more travel even farther. You got people going to the central valley or los banos it sucks but those are the sacrifices people make.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by justinbro2002

Yeah but thousands of people do it everyday and a lot more travel even farther. You got people going to the central valley or los banos it sucks but those are the sacrifices people make.

Seems irrational to me. They could live better elsewhere

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

That would be a hellish commute to the South Bay.

In the past, your objection has been the weather, not the commute.

[justinbro2002]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Seems irrational to me. They could live better elsewhere

The same could be said for the people who are paying 50% of their income to rent in a more "ideal" locations because they can't afford to buy in that "ideal" location. Or who forgo moving out of their parents house because they would rather not commute or have to pay to live on their own.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by justinbro2002

The same could be said for the people who are paying 50% of their income to rent in a more "ideal" locations because they can't afford to buy in that "ideal" location. Or who forgo moving out of their parents house because they would rather not commute or have to pay to live on their own.

Living at home isn't irrational, it's technically the smartest financial move. If bill gates lived at home or in a home owned by his parents he'd probably be slightly richer (if they owned real estate where he moved)