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

311–320 of 550 posts

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

#311

Post by pc86 »

triceratops wrote: post #303
groundzeros2015 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This lawsuit is about realtors acting against your interest (agency problem), and is not about you being forced to pay a particular commission. You can choose your realtor. You can discuss with them. This person just bought a 2m house!

> not about you being forced to pay a particular commission It's literally in the first paragraph of the article. "At trial, a federal jury found that they violated antitrust law by conspiring to force home sellers to pay inflated commissions to real estate agents."

The force applies to "inflated," e.g. they agreed to pay a fee but were forced to pay an inflated fee. Not they were forced to pay any fee at all.

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

#312

Post by win311fwg »

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…

> So, housing cost has nearly doubled

That is in line with expectations:

1. The average house is ~60% larger than in 1970. More house equates to higher costs.

2. In 1970, the typical working-class man would spend time in a public house 5-6 nights a week. Today, third places are nearly nonexistent. Houses, largely driven by the internet opening it up to the world, has become more than a place to eat and sleep. Monetary spending is naturally directed to where one spends their time and energy.

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

#313

Post by thepryz »

daveguy wrote: post #220
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.

Realtors are experts in the market. A good realtor pays for themselves by getting you the best selling price or finding the best home for your price range. If you don't understand opportunity cost, then obviously it appears to be a ripoff. But once you understand, it's clear that realtors have value. And realtors are probably going to be the last to be replaced with AI. It's all about value judgement and AI is garbag…

I would disagree. Theres enough information readily available to be able to see what relative home values are, where the good school districts are, etc.

The only reason I’ve ever used a realtor is because I don’t have the time to deal with the contract/legal side of everything. Most would be better served by hiring an attorney and title company if your state allows.

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

#314

Post by triceratops »

pc86 wrote: post #311
triceratops wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not about you being forced to pay a particular commission It's literally in the first paragraph of the article. "At trial, a federal jury found that they violated antitrust law by conspiring to force home sellers to pay inflated commissions to real estate agents."

The force applies to "inflated," e.g. they agreed to pay a fee but were forced to pay an inflated fee. Not they were forced to pay any fee at all.

I don't understand the point of this clarification.

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

#315

Post by ecshafer »

Arodex wrote: post #258
inglor_cz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But even if/when the law finally allows more building, you will have to compete with a richer, and richer, and richer upper-upper-upper class - both people and firms - who will price you out.

The rich only buy so many homes.

Its close to a pigeon hole problem. If there are 10 houses and 11 people, the homes are going to go up in price until the 11th is homeless (or moving away to somewhere cheaper). If there are 100 people, its the same issue except magnified, this is what happened in the bay area. Significantly more people than homes. But if there are 100 homes and 10 people, it doesn't matter how rich they are, the prices will drop because there is less demand. It will also be less attractive as an investment vehicle, because they will demand less rent.

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

#316

Post by cucumber3732842 »

john_strinlai wrote: post #208
WarmWash wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i can introduce you to ~50 people making about that amount. let me talk to my school and i can probably get a few hundred more. very kind of you to offer them all a job at twice that. how do i reach out to you?

That's a good slight of hand you pulled there. Most of the demographics here won't have taken a path through college that equips them with the specific knowledge to catch it.

(I'm not gonna spoil it, I wanna see if anyone else can figure it out)

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

#317

Post by hgoel »

shlant wrote: post #278
hgoel wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's largely landlords causing trouble building housing where it's needed because it would limit how much they can make.

are you referring to NIMBY homeowners? because yes, people who own houses are the most likely to prevent more housing from being built (although not the only reason more housing isn't being built)

Yep, referring to NIMBYs.

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

#318

Post by fooker »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #269
fooker wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you perhaps too privileged to have seen situations where owning land is a liability? As we speak, close to a billion people are in the middle of ongoing wars. There are entire countries where land is worthless. Ukraine has several hundred square kilometers of land with a thick covering of fiber optic cables from drones.

Why on Earth should I feel the slightest obligation to make whole some jerk who bought the right to kick me off a piece of land and lost money when that right became less valuable? I have a much better idea: point, laugh, and say "sucks to suck!"

I did not say anything about how you should feel. That's up to you.

I'm telling you why the system works like it does now. You can, of course, choose to deliberately not understand it.

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

#319

Post by ghaff »

win311fwg wrote: post #217
epistasis wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New things do tend to cost more than old things, that's pretty much always the case! Where I live, people are blocking the construction of new apartments because the cost of the new ones is a bit higher, 10%-50%, than the average existing apartment. The idea behind blocking the new apartments is that "new expensive apartments don't help anybody" and people get very upset that the new housing is going to the type of p…

> the type of person that can afford to pay slightly more for the newer apartment. Relying on that is the root problem. I could technically afford the new house, but in the end I couldn't find a good reason to tie up that much capital for something that does the same thing as what I've already got, only shinier. If the price were more reasonable then I'd make the move and then someone else could move into my much che…

There is a lot of cost and effort associated with moving into (or building) a new house. Honestly, where I live isn't huge but it's probably a bit more than I need at this point. But, absent a real shift such as buying an urban condo, it makes more sense to just hold onto the paid-off exurban house for the time being.

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

#320

Post by cloverich »

darioush wrote: post #101
whoknowsidont wrote: post #20

Landlords are the least productive class in society, and it's not even close in terms of ranking.

I don't understand this school of thought? Without renting everyone would have to buy a house / apartment on each move.

...at much lower prices.
Post reply on HN