Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 2:30 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #171

HumblyTossed wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not usually. But homeowners don't usually set the price themselves. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, technically they can. But a _realtor_ is in their ear telling them MORE MORE MORE.

Actually realtors egg on buyers to offer more more more. And sellers to reduce asking prices. Whatever makes the sale happen quicker.

I've had "Amazing, yes, no trouble, we'll sell this quickly" followed by "Not moving, try dropping the price by 20%" a month later.

Realtors negotiate for themselves, not for either buyers or sellers.

I did have one who dropped their commission a little to close a sale, but that's not a common experience. (And they still did very well out of it.)

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

#282

Post by cucumber3732842 » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 2:31 PM UTC

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…

> or you're not allowed to build over it,

And those laws were passed with the political will of who?

Now with the benefit of hindsight what causes that seemed legitimate were used to hoodwink those people?

Have those causes and their peddlers lost credibility or legitimacy?

Western society is basically slowly recreating old world landless peasantry because we have adopted bad world views or bad morals or bad ideologies (or whatever else you want to call them) that allow us to be manipulated into incrementally creating the system that produces that outcome.

Complaints about NIMBYism and "ship it overseas and forget about it environmentalism" are sniffing around the right neighborhood, but there's a more general problem here.

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

#283

Post by stephen_g » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 2:31 PM UTC

amazingamazing wrote: post #174

throwaway041207 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my neck of the woods (New England), home prices have doubled since March of 2020. I have yet to read a comprehensive overview of how this happened and how we get out of it. Of course, people went nuts offering over the asking price when interest rates were super low so I understand, to some degree, that baselines were reset. But the current housing market doesn't feel sustainable. I don't understand how a proper m…

It is very simple. Housing is not built.

Not that simple. In Australia over the last 10 years, the number of dwellings increased by 19% while the population increased by a smaller 16% [1]. Yet house prices still doubled. This is the same trend that has continued for decades, growth in number of dwellings has tended to outstrip population growth but house prices shot up since 2001 when the tax settings were changed to massively benefit speculation.

We also have a pretty high number of unoccupied dwellings that are left empty, since some investors see the bother of renting them out as not worth the money, since they’ll make so much when they sell that it doesn’t matter!

1. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/is-population-growth-...

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

#284

Post by supertrope » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 2:31 PM UTC

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…

Realtors are indeed market experts (not product experts). Commission pay incentivizes them to close deals quickly, not to maximize sale price. Yes they can educate first time buyers that they cannot simultaneously get the best location, condition of the house, and price. Good realtors will ask their customer which two (or sometimes one) are their real priority and realistically match them to available listings. If you're moving into an area they can provide some local information although they legally cannot comment on schools or crime. If you've done this before, realtors mainly just serve as gatekeepers to a cartel and literally unlock houses for you to view.

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

#285

Post by pc86 » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 2:31 PM UTC

jermaustin1 wrote: post #249

pc86 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is at least 80% of the problem. The system is behaving exactly as you'd expect it to with even an Econ 102-level understanding. New supply isn't being built, or is being severely hamstrung, and more people want the supply and are willing to sacrifice (often too much) to get it. Add in rent-seeking behavior, both figuratively and literally, and prices quickly double in even mediocre areas with minimal long-term p…

Even if new stock were built, new homes in Houston start around $300k for a 3/2 configuration, but those are bought up nearly instantly because not many are built, and the remaining stock are $400-700k. I grew up with 6 family members in a 3/2 house that was 1250sqft. Houses today start at 2000+ square feet in the USA. We DON'T need that. On top of that, there is very limited stock of homes for people who no longer h…

The answer is still build more (which you basically admit yourself in your first sentence).

Homes skew larger and more expensive precisely because it's so hard to build them so developers need to make more money from each one. The fixed costs per unit are too high, so the ones that need to be lowered or eliminated should be. That will incentive building more units not just more expensive units. You'd see a lot more 1200sqft new builds if it was more economically viable and developers could make a profit on a $125k home instead of needing $400k.

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

#286

Post by mamonster » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 2:32 PM UTC

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.

>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.

Not really fair to compare 2 cities on the waterfront with no obvious space to build over to a city in the middle of Texas. San Francisco is even worse than New York(IMO) because of the hills.

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

#287

Post by MemoryHoleHQ » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 2:32 PM UTC

chadgpt3 wrote: post #226

MemoryHoleHQ wrote: post #199

For the ones that didn't read the article, it says there. The problem is that the state takes more and more away from the workers wages: "The biggest flaw: It uses gross income, not take-home pay One of the biggest issues with the 30% rent rule is that it’s based on your gross income—not the amount of money that actually lands in your bank account on payday. To illustrate this flaw, let’s use some real-world numbers.…

It may say the problem is taxes take too much money so you can't pay landlords, but how do we know the real problem isn't that landlords take too much money so you can't pay taxes? Or Comcast takes too much money so you can't pay landlords and taxes?

We know it, because during the last 50 years, already adjusted to inflation the USA government budget increased by 2.48× per capita.

And unless your argument is that public services are 2.48x better now, then yes, I know that the problem is, as usual, that the government is taking workers money away to do as they please.

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

#288

Post by jermaustin1 » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 2:32 PM UTC

bcjdjsndon wrote: post #228

jermaustin1 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only partially agree with this - Access to housing for people unable to access a mortgage is very important. And the capital outlay historically required to OWN a house has been nearly impossible for the vast majority until recently. And even now, banks really hate lending to people not already "on the ladder" to use a British term. For instance: I bought my wife's grand fathers house. It appraised for $165k, and h…

> And even now, banks really hate lending to people not already "on the ladder" to use a British term. TBF, would you give some randomer a few hundred grand without a strong guarantee you'd get it all back?

> without a strong guarantee you'd get it all back?

Mortgages are backed by the asset you are buying. $400k for a house is backed by the house. On top of that, almost every bank can sell off those mortgages and get the cash back immediately.

So, you are correct, I would not lend hundreds of thousands unsecured to a random person, but if I had the disposable capital, though, I WOULD buy a house with that money, and price in their credit rating to their interest rate, and turn around and sell it to Fannie/Freddie and recoup the principal that I lent.

Banks aren't on the hook for any of this (except for mortgages that don't conform, but most banks don't touch those, you have to go to brokers for those).

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

#289

Post by amazingamazing » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 2:32 PM UTC

stephen_g wrote: post #283

amazingamazing wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very simple. Housing is not built.

Not that simple. In Australia over the last 10 years, the number of dwellings increased by 19% while the population increased by a smaller 16% [1]. Yet house prices still doubled. This is the same trend that has continued for decades, growth in number of dwellings has tended to outstrip population growth but house prices shot up since 2001 when the tax settings were changed to massively benefit speculation. We also h…

We are talking about America. In your case housing would be even higher if it were not built. People continue to make things more complicated than it is.

Build, and keep building until it is cheap. Also, you would need to consider the specific places.

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

#290

Post by TimorousBestie » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 2:32 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #146

mrweasel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably also doesn't help that to many people want/need to live in the same few areas. If you could take your office job (which in most cases would work perfectly fine) and move to a less popular area, 30% might be rather high.

That's the thing or at least one thing. These discussions aren't about most small towns and cities in the Midwest. They're about prime areas on the coasts for the most part. Heck where I live about an hour west of Boston/Cambridge is a lot cheaper than the metro itself for the most part.

Housing prices in the Midwest have also inflated greatly.