Live data from Hacker News

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

realtor.com

411–420 of 550 posts

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

#411
post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Markets aren’t magic, they are the result of people pushing back and forth on each other. What do you mean by “blame?” I felt like my post was generally in the less-finger-pointing direction.

I guess I'm just confused why your entire comment is about landlords and the super-wealthy when the article and message you are responding to don't mention either.

Landlords and rent are obviously related.

The line of thought that links super-wealthy people and wages is described in my first post. If you want to argue against it that’s fine, it isn’t a perfect link. But I’m not sure what to do with general confusion.

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

#414
post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say at least 2K. But the poster above says it's over 3K.

The poster above was quoting the median for all apartments in New York City, the (second-?)most expensive market in the country. Nationally it’s about $1,600 for a 1br: https://www.apartments.com/rent-market-trends/us/

You mentioned NY - logical to look at NY then no?

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

#415
post #123

The problem is absolutley that housing is too expensive, which of course a bunch of realtors are not going to point out. Increasing wages will not fix the housing crisis, and will just drive prices higher. How convenient for a bunch of realtors...

Supply and demand, supply and demand. It’s not that complicated. I’m not sure how or why this article got published by an organization that should, given its very nature, understand economics. The article doesn’t paint them or their members as people I’d trust in either side of a major financial transaction.

> given its very nature, understand economics

I'd say being a realtor is more about dealing with the psychology of buyers and sellers than the economy. And yes, you are wise to not trust them. Their interests are not yours.

And as the saying goes, it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it. I bet most realtors would prefer housing prices to stay high and the average home owner to stay rich. They are not here to solve the housing problem. They are a part of the problem.

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

#416

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.

I don't think it's that simple. In my town, we're building like mad (thousands of units) and it is possibly slightly impacting pricing in that the rise is not as meteoric as it was 7 years ago. But new buyers are still priced out. Houses are vacant. There must be other factors.

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

#417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it costs over $500k to build a single apartment unit and most of those costs are construction with very little of the regulation burden driving up that cost. What? What? I dare anyone here who's simping for regulation to try to develop from scratch something that does not benefit from the myriad of exemptions that apply to 1-few family residential development (because there'd be no political will for the racket if t…

it most certainly is not going to cost me $100k in engineering to design a SFH in arguably one of the most regulatory burdened states in the US: vermont

>it most certainly is not going to cost me $100k in engineering to design a SFH in arguably one of the most regulatory burdened states in the US: Vermont

I can do that easily. Give me a ~10ac property where what isn't steep is stream or bog. I want to clear ~1ac total for 5-houses on 2ac each and the road to reach them needs to cross a stream and traverse some bog (read: offsets). The houses will have to be on piles because as expensive as that is that's cheaper than cutting flat land and doing walls or offsets.

surveys and delineation $20,000 bridge $25,000 road and driveway $75,000 stormwater $40,000 Wetlands offsetting $25,000 250 Permitting $140,000 the houses themselves (remember, they're on fancypants piles) $100,000 septics (mounds) and wells $75,000

total: $500k, 100k per house.

You could cut some out by DIYing the actual permitting submissions but even if you don't make costly mistakes in wording and/or detail level there's a lot of value in having your shit cross the government's desks on the letterhead of an engineering firm who's stuff they've approved a million times before.

The developer needs to then build the houses rich af on the inside and generally check every box to sell for enough to cover the costs. This kind of stuff is why so much of the development in Vermont is rich assholes from NYC in brand new million dollar homes on the world's shittiest gravel road with the world's shittiest driveways. Granite countertops and picture windows the size of rail cars are damn near free compared to the cost of putting a shovel in the ground.

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

#418
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 1…

Build Moar seems to be too simplistic. There's just too much demand and too much investment capital seeking profit. No matter how much you build, most of the housing supply is going to get sponged up by investors, landlords, and private equity, and the price isn't going to go down. You'd probably have to 4X to 5X the current housing supply to make a dent in prices.

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

#419
post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much no.

and your evidence that property prices are almost entirely set by wages is?

Want to make a bet on what happens to rents in South Padre Island, TX (near SpaceX's Starbase) in the next 6 months?

Want to make a bet on what happens to rents in San Francisco after Anthropic's or OpenAI's rents after they IPO?

There's no reason either event should decrease supply or increase demand, correct? So prices should be stable?

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

#420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I should feel an obligation to compensate the risk of a capital loss Where did they say that?

"Landlords ... assume risk on your belalf."

That means the opposite of what you're telling everyone it means. When someone assumes risk it means the risk is theirs. You're debating the meaning of English words right now.

I take your overall point about rich people making laws. But on this specific point you're wrong. Take the L.

Post reply on HN