Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

realtor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 550 posts

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#291

Post by Ccecil »

WarmWash wrote: post #84
miltonlost wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go tell that to Oklahomans and others still making a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour

If you can find a single person still getting paid that, please give me their info and I will have them making twice that by tomorrow.

In my state (Idaho) they can (and do) pay less than minimum wage if you are a tipped employee. [1]

"Most" who are in those positions tend to make at least minimum wage, if not more, but that is not a guarantee, and it is harder to claim tips as "stable income" when trying to get credit/housing.

Median wage/rent is hard to apply. Totally different results if you look at what the typical renter makes (at least in my area). Minimum wage is one thing...but when it takes 3-4x minimum wage to stay at 0 every month things get difficult.

[1] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/minimum-wage/tipped

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#292

Post by SoftTalker »

pickleglitch wrote: post #129
gravypod wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1970 a $300/month apartment would be ~$2000/month in today dollars. I do think rents are too high as productivity and supply chains are much more efficient. I think in the 70s we were still using black pipe for gas, iron septic lines, and copper pipes for water. But, I don't think new builds or renovations are cheaper inflation adjusted (harder to estimate). Cost of money (inflation), building, and maintenance is…

The median monthly rent for houses and apartments in the U.S. in 1970 was $108, or around $930 in today's dollars. So, in today's dollars, that would be $11,160/year. Median household income in 1970 was $9,870, or $84,714 in today's dollars. Median rent in the us today is around $1,750, or around $21,000/year. Today's median income in the us is around $89,000. So, housing cost has nearly doubled, while wages have onl…

Supply of housing has not kept pace with population since then. So you have more people chasing relatively fewer houses.

Also compare a 1960s or 1970s house to one built today. Today's houses are bigger and much more luxuriously appointed, with gourmet appliances, stone countertops, multi-head showers, walk-in closets, huge bathrooms, etc.

Once the boomer generation dies off or goes into assisted living you'll see a lot of those 1970s houses coming back on the market.

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#293

Post by selectodude »

treis wrote: post #204
pickleglitch wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The median monthly rent for houses and apartments in the U.S. in 1970 was $108, or around $930 in today's dollars. So, in today's dollars, that would be $11,160/year. Median household income in 1970 was $9,870, or $84,714 in today's dollars. Median rent in the us today is around $1,750, or around $21,000/year. Today's median income in the us is around $89,000. So, housing cost has nearly doubled, while wages have onl…

What we spend on housing has doubled. That doesn't mean the cost has doubled. It means that we buy a lot more housing than we used to. Real estate cost is local and there are parts of america where the prices have gone nuts. But there's a lot more where it hasn't and housing is affordable.

Both are true. We’ve made cheap housing illegal and we’ve demanded ever higher quality housing.

We need to allowed for revealed preferences. In developers we trust.

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#294

Post by greenie_beans »

inglor_cz wrote: post #68
Arodex wrote: post #45

Again seeing some blaming poor immigrants for this in the very first answers. Meanwhile, where do the money for OpenAI and the SpaceX IPO comes from? Who got hold of so much money? How did they got hold of it? And here's the killer question: would they, and the rules and system supporting them, change in any way if there were less immigrants?

No amount of money will help jurisdictions that still refuse to permit new buildings in face of a constant influx of people. You cannot live in Musk's banking account. You have to have the actual physical structure, and current laws in hotspots like San Francisco and New York do their utmost to prevent new development. Places like Austin, which are less restrictive, don't have this problem.

housing is expensive everywhere, not just in SF and NYC. def expensive in Austin. how do the zoning laws in SF make NYC more expensive?

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#295

Post by ligne »

arwineap wrote: post #188
estearum wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth being precise about this because it's a really important point. Most people who we call "landlords" are simultaneously a landlord and a property manager. Property management is an important and productive job. But the vast majority of such people's financial outcome is actually from being a landlord , that is doing literally nothing except holding a piece of paper granting them monopoly on a plot of land.…

> But the vast majority of such people's financial outcome is actually from being a landlord, that is doing literally nothing except holding a piece of paper granting them monopoly on a plot of land This is how I know that you've never tried to run houses. If you hire out a property manager and all of your maintenance you are not making money. I have to be an electrician, a plumber, a painter, a drywaller, an enginee…

"And that's to make a measly 8% on my money."

Amazing how many people insist on being landlords despite it apparently being a life of sawdust and sackcloth.

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#296

Post by cpburns2009 »

chadgpt3 wrote: post #240
rootusrootus wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> investment in land can’t create more land But investment in housing can definitely create more housing, and that is by far the most common type of landlord.

Then let's move all land ownership to the government and let landlords build housing on it

The landlords could then pay rents to the local government. We could call that landlord taxes or something and use that to fund local services with them. Wait...

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#297

Post by pc86 »

mlhpdx wrote: post #273
pc86 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the extent that an organization can understand anything, this one understands economics just enough to argue for policies that will get its members more money, and argue against policies that won't. Real estate is the quintessential stay-at-home-mom backup job so it's no surprise by and large they are not known for having a nuanced and academic understanding of economic theory. They want wages to go up so that hom…

> it's no surprise by and large they are not known for having a nuanced and academic understanding of economic theory The folks I’ve worked with have been as dedicated to their career path as anyone, and while their expertise and skill varies that isn’t different than any job. I understand your point, but your (mis?)characterization hits me as a little biased and shallow. It’s not “theory”; it’s literally what they d…

They're intentionally focusing on only one half of the equation because the other half is partly their fault, and addressing it hurts their members.

They either don't understand that addressing wages without supply simply increases prices, or they do understand and don't care because it's good for their pocketbook. Which one's worse?

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#298

Post by runako »

sdenton4 wrote: post #209
jader201 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all the jobs to get replaced by AI, I would be happy to see realtors to be first in line (but I also think this is wishful thinking). I feel like I get very little value out of what seems to be a mostly fixed/required price. I know flat fee realtors exist, and if/when we sell our home, I’ll be looking into this heavily. But I feel like they rank up there with car salespeople/dealers.

Here's a recent nytimes article in a quote positive experience using ai in place of a realtor: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/28/technology/sell-house-wit...

> All three bidders waived inspection and appraisal, and they all had healthy financing

> I was transacting in a thriving market, with no special circumstances

Yeah, a hot real estate market is where a seller is likely to derive the least benefit. Although a talented agent in a hot market can drive a more competitive process, potentially generating higher offers. All of which is, to the author's credit, highlighted in the article.

Agents earn their keep in more normal/weak markets.

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#299

Post by antonvs »

shlant wrote: post #170
antonvs wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not both? Wages are too low and rents are too high. The common factor: the capital class screwing over the working class.

> The common factor: the capital class screwing over the working class. This thought terminating cliche is getting real old. What are your solutions? and what evidence do you have that those solutions will solve the problems? Shaking your fists at "the elites" and regurgitating populist slop is not going to

It's the opposite of a thought-terminating cliche. It refers to an entire world and body of work, which include solutions.

You could start by reading Marx, who laid a lot of the groundwork.

> Shaking your fists at "the elites" and regurgitating populist slop is not going to

I like the way you trailed off halfway through your knee-jerk reaction, underscoring just how much your response is an automated result of indoctrination.

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#300

Post by zer00eyz »

lp4v4n wrote: post #131

At this point I honestly think this is a bit by design. There is a crazy amount of land in the world, but either it's too expensive or you're not allowed to build over it, or a combination of both. Houses have been built for millennia but somehow in the most advanced period of humanity you're supposed to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a roof over your head. I think that low key the ruling class + landlords…

> There is a crazy amount of land in the world, but either it's too expensive or you're not allowed to build over it, or a combination of both.

This is true, to a degree. There is another factor and thats WHAT kind of housing we build.

> ruling class + landlords are not interested that housing be an affordable thing

Off the mark, the real people pinning housing prices where they are, are home owners. Home ownership is the leading predictor of voting, and issues that maintain or raise current home prices will drive that up. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/if-you-lived-here-you-...

Furthermore home ownership is a functionally unmovable number: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N (that fed data is interesting and says a lot, capturing the 2008 financial crisis, bad lending hardly moved the needle in real terms).

> controlling their access to housing?

The reality is that this is a social problem.

Boomers are living longer (higher quality of life) and alone. They either took their parents in (cohabitation) or put them in homes. I know plenty of elderly people who are living in large houses, by themselves, who had their parents, at that same age living with them. You're not going to see a bunch of retirees moving in together to save on bills - The TV show "Golden Girls" would not make sense today.

On that note, cohabitation among younger generations is down. Fewer people have roommates, and lots of them "want to live alone" - sharing a house with 4 friends is much cheaper than living in a studio or one bedroom. And there are whole categories of housing, like boarding houses, that have disappeared. Again this is a cultural problem, look at the TV show "Bosom Buddies" - this is something that would be lost on a modern audience for so many reasons.

Part of the cohabitation issue is "renters rights" have gone way too far. There are plenty of people with space, who will not cohabitate because the risk, cost and pain of a renter turning into a squatter is WAY too high. The rules to protect good renters from bad landlords have only served to push out good landlords because of bad tenants.

> If someday economic activity gets automated enough... This will never happen. If you dont think were going to find new things to keep busy and if you dont think were going to find new ways to compete for "dominance" I have news for you.

Post reply on HN