WA State = 2nd worst for shrinking middle class (Sammamish: upper-class, sales)

[Sockeye66]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

That's right. People that work at McD, Walmart, or even Home Depot are not buying homes in this region. Those that own or are buying homes now are saving a lot of money with the same jobs but without commute costs. There is no mortgage crisis, it's the renters that are going to start being evicted when the temporary ban is lifted, and landlords are going to be suffering big losses.

I'm with you on that Hemlock. I'm at the age and career brackets that most everyone I know suffered no work interruption, are home owners, and have more money in savings and retirement accounts due to less living costs and limited discretionary spending options.

I feel for the renters.

[rkcarguy]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

Despite being the #2 state, a drop of .7% in 9 years is hardly worth mentioning.

The middle class only comprises about 15% of the population in Washington, so while a .7% drop doesn't seem like much, that's a ~5% drop of the middle class "slot".
The study is obviously based on income/cost of living #'s, as ND experienced a huge housing boom due to the oil shale fields yet has pretty poor middle class income.

Regarding the landlords, many are privy to the attempted "free rent" socialism coming down the line and are simply selling. Many of the condo's that are for sale and pending in my area, were apartments last year.

[SGMI]

Originally Posted by rkcarguy

Regarding the landlords, many are privy to the attempted "free rent" socialism coming down the line and are simply selling. Many of the condo's that are for sale and pending in my area, were apartments last year.

You'd need to be a real property tycoon with dozens (maybe 100+) properties to properly average out the risks that come with Seattle's "you must accept the first application" rule.

I have a handful of rentals here in N.C. and I think if such a law was passed locally, I'd simply sell them off one at a time as the existing tenants decide to leave. There are less risky ways to invest, and I would no longer need to meet repairmen or take weekend calls.

The more government involvement there is in the rental market, the less appeal there is for small timers. The rental stock evolves more and more towards large, faceless, corporate management.

[rkcarguy]

Originally Posted by SGMI

You'd need to be a real property tycoon with dozens (maybe 100+) properties to properly average out the risks that come with Seattle's "you must accept the first application" rule.

I have a handful of rentals here in N.C. and I think if such a law was passed locally, I'd simply sell them off one at a time as the existing tenants decide to leave. There are less risky ways to invest, and I would no longer need to meet repairmen or take weekend calls.

The more government involvement there is in the rental market, the less appeal there is for small timers. The rental stock evolves more and more towards large, faceless, corporate management.

Agreed, and this is what is happening here. I have rented out a home before (several years ago), and the way the legal system works also is slanted towards large property management companies. For example, if you are renting a home out privately, you're subject to the renters simply squatting in the home rent free for at least 90 days, sometimes more, until you can take them to court, which is at times over a year delayed. You'd lose the home, if you had a mortgage. Yet by using a large property management company those same people are tossed out days after they've missed rent.

[margaretBartle]

Originally Posted by SGMI

You'd need to be a real property tycoon with dozens (maybe 100+) properties to properly average out the risks that come with Seattle's "you must accept the first application" rule.

The more government involvement there is in the rental market, the less appeal there is for small timers. The rental stock evolves more and more towards large, faceless, corporate management.

During the "housing crisis" of 2008, billions of dollars were spent by billionaire investment funds buying up cheap American real estate. These are globalists with lots of power, and I'm sure they are behind the move to rezone single-family homes, so they can better leverage their investments, and replace a $800K house with a $4M apartment building. They are also buying up and building lots of apartment buildings. These global invement firms buying up apartment complexes have their own databases of blacklisted individuals who they will not rent to. It may be illegal, but impossible to detect. For those with resources, the "first application" rule can be easily subverted.

I'm pretty sure a major impetus for the "first applicant" rule is to drive the small, independent landlords out of business, and create a corporate monopoly on apartments.

"Corporate homeownership can not only subject tenants to higher living costs, but often destroys their ability to buy these homes themselves, as companies pay top dollar to take them off the market. As a result, America is quickly becoming a renter nation."
https://nypost.com/2020/07/18/corpor...merican-dream/

Blackstone Group Buys Houses in Bulk to Profit from Mortgage Crisis
https://corpwatch.org/article/blackstone-group-buys-houses-bulk-profit-mortgage-crisis

[MechAndy]

The days of unskilled labor keeping a middle class lifestyle are long gone.

Me I am just the average type guy that had to go to school at night to better my career.

I figure if I can do it so can others.

[Diana Holbrook]

Originally Posted by MechAndy

The days of unskilled labor keeping a middle class lifestyle are long gone.

Me I am just the average type guy that had to go to school at night to better my career.

I figure if I can do it so can others.

Hasn't that always been true? Where was it ever possible to have a middle class lifestyle or raise a family with NO skills?

Work two weeks at a job and you now have some skills you can bring to a job that should pay you more. Minimum wage is supposed to be a starting point, not an end goal. It's always been up to individuals to keep working to improve and progress.

[87112]

Its still out there, you just have to be willing to put your body thur aches and pains. I know a delivery driver who is going to end up around 4k a month in pension money when his 20 years is up. Thats a middle class lifestyle in pension money alone, not including his SS money coming in which takes it over 5k a month easily.

The employer has brown uniforms.

Honest day work honest days pay.

[rkcarguy]

Originally Posted by MechAndy

The days of unskilled labor keeping a middle class lifestyle are long gone.

Me I am just the average type guy that had to go to school at night to better my career.

I figure if I can do it so can others.

I agree. It didn't use to be that way obviously. The main driver is housing costs. Most other index's have actually shrank relative to wages (i.e. a manufacturing worker today can buy more gallons of milk, big macs, or whatever you want to compare to, now, then decades ago.) However, a home where I live for example, is 16x more $$$$$$ for me than it was for my grandparents ( A secretary and a plywood mill worker), on an average home cost/income basis.

1960's $3.30/Hour (combined), $5,500 for their first home. = 1,666 hours of work

2021 $24.50/Hour (Average family income), $661,000 average listed home. =26,980 hours of work.

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by rkcarguy

I agree. It didn't use to be that way obviously. The main driver is housing costs. Most other index's have actually shrank relative to wages (i.e. a manufacturing worker today can buy more gallons of milk, big macs, or whatever you want to compare to, now, then decades ago.) However, a home where I live for example, is 16x more $$$$$$ for me than it was for my grandparents ( A secretary and a plywood mill worker), on an average home cost/income basis.

1960's $3.30/Hour (combined), $5,500 for their first home. = 1,666 hours of work

2021 $24.50/Hour (Average family income), $661,000 average listed home. =26,980 hours of work.

That's quite a stark contrast. I think it might also be an indicator that the 'American dream' is being redefined in some parts of our nation. Specifically, in the higher in-demand areas where average homes sell for $600k+, not everyone will or even needs to 'own' a home to be happy or live the dream. Maybe they'll rent their entire lives and be ok? That reality has already been embraced by many in the more expensive regions of the country and world. They simply rent what they can afford to live where they want to live.

Its a QOL decision when QOL means different things to different people. They chose to live in their preferred location above and beyond home ownership and more affordability. Is that a bad thing? Maybe for some but not necessarily for others. Obviously, its not ideal. But it is becoming the new reality when it comes to where one chooses to call home. Apartment living, tiny houses, yurts, mobile homes, living on a boat, shared occupancy living are all becoming more prevalent. This is true in other parts of the world as well.

If one holds home ownership above and beyond their location, they will eventually move to a place they can better afford. Its a value proposition and why service workers and others considered 'middle class' remain in resort type areas. They like the area and would rather stay than move to Texas or somewhere more affordable. For popular college towns its even more common. Lots of 'underemployed' 20 somethings livin' the dream after graduation. I've seen that paradigm shift already many times where I grew up with the average home $2.1 million+ and climbing. Imagine the tax alone on a multimillion dollar home. Not everyone there is rich either. Some far from it. Yet they choose to stay and find a way to make it work.

Derek