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

A Few Rules

collaborativefund.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 85 posts

Re: A Few Rules

#51

Post by isaacg »

larrik wrote: post #49

> Median family income adjusted for inflation was $29,000 in 1955. In 1965 it was $42,000. Today it’s just over $62,000. We think of the 1950s and 1960s as the golden age of middle-class prosperity. But the median household today has roughly twice the income as the median family of 1955. I mean, sure, but I'm pretty sure the median household income today is from 2 working adults, where 1955 and 1965 are a single work…

I don't think that owning a house is nearly out of reach for a family making $62k/yr. Standard advice is that one can afford a house costing 2.25 times one's annual income. That means the median family can afford a $140k house.

Briefly checking my city, paying $140k for a house in my city is enough for a 3 bedroom detached house with a large yard, in the suburbs, with a 15 minute drive to downtown.

Re: A Few Rules

#53

Post by Swizec »

isaacg wrote: post #51
larrik wrote: post #49

> Median family income adjusted for inflation was $29,000 in 1955. In 1965 it was $42,000. Today it’s just over $62,000. We think of the 1950s and 1960s as the golden age of middle-class prosperity. But the median household today has roughly twice the income as the median family of 1955. I mean, sure, but I'm pretty sure the median household income today is from 2 working adults, where 1955 and 1965 are a single work…

I don't think that owning a house is nearly out of reach for a family making $62k/yr. Standard advice is that one can afford a house costing 2.25 times one's annual income. That means the median family can afford a $140k house. Briefly checking my city, paying $140k for a house in my city is enough for a 3 bedroom detached house with a large yard, in the suburbs, with a 15 minute drive to downtown.

What the heck where do you live? $140k gets you a beat up garage everywhere I’ve ever checked.

The 2.25 advice is interesting. By that logic me and my girl can afford $750k which juuuust about starts to get you in the starter fixerupper homes here in SF. But we can’t afford the downpayment. And to make it worth buying, we’d have to stay there for 10+ years and then suddenly a starter 1.5bedroom becomes a little small when you consider what usually happens to couples in our age group on a 10 year timeline.

Re: A Few Rules

#54

Post by terr-dav »

dredmorbius wrote: post #46

The full context of the Wilson Newton/Darwin quote, from an obscure lecture (Worldcat has no record), is this: The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the s…

Thanks for the context.

In response to Wilson, I’d argue that Marx’s work provides a better analytical framework for understanding government than Darwin though.

(;

Re: A Few Rules

#55

Post by jolmg »

kubanczyk wrote: post #43

> People learn when they’re surprised. I took it as a quick opportunity to stop reading, since I wasn't surprised at any point. But now I'm thinking: in the morning I found out that "la hoja" is "the sheet [of paper, etc]" in Spanish. How do I still know it in the afternoon if my jaw didn't meet the floor at any point?

> How do I still know it in the afternoon if my jaw didn't meet the floor at any point?

It doesn't say people only learn when they're surprised.

Re: A Few Rules

#56

Post by haskellandchill »

3pt14159 wrote: post #47

Most of these are true enough, but this: > Self-interest is the most powerful force in the world. Which can be great, because situations where everyone’s interests align are unstoppable; bad because people’s willingness to benefit themselves at the expense of others is so seductive. No way. Self-interest is useful enough for day-to-day interactions, but for the stuff that truly matters it is not even in the top five.…

Self-interest is the dominant ideology pushed these days, but it's a choice and it doesn't have to be that way. Good luck.

Re: A Few Rules

#57

Post by rockostrich »

Swizec wrote: post #53
isaacg wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that owning a house is nearly out of reach for a family making $62k/yr. Standard advice is that one can afford a house costing 2.25 times one's annual income. That means the median family can afford a $140k house. Briefly checking my city, paying $140k for a house in my city is enough for a 3 bedroom detached house with a large yard, in the suburbs, with a 15 minute drive to downtown.

What the heck where do you live? $140k gets you a beat up garage everywhere I’ve ever checked. The 2.25 advice is interesting. By that logic me and my girl can afford $750k which juuuust about starts to get you in the starter fixerupper homes here in SF. But we can’t afford the downpayment. And to make it worth buying, we’d have to stay there for 10+ years and then suddenly a starter 1.5bedroom becomes a little small…

The 2.25 thing seems like it's very conservative. The general advice is that the most you should spend on rent in a given year is 30% of your salary, but let's bring it down to 20% to be conservative. Let's say we get a shitty mortgage rate of 4% over 30 years. Assuming your income won't change at all over the course of the 30 year mortgage and spending the equivalent of 30% of your salary per year, you end up spending 9 times your income on the house. Going off of Google's mortgage calculator, the cost of the mortgage is about 172% the cost of the loan for 30 yr/4% so that means you could buy a house that's ~5.25x your income to be equivalent to the money spent on rent.

Obviously this is ignoring a lot of things like HOA fees and taxes, but if even if you're mortgage payment is 50% of your monthly housing expenses you could still pay for something that's more than 2.25x your salary.

Re: A Few Rules

#58

Post by AnimalMuppet »

larrik wrote: post #49

> Median family income adjusted for inflation was $29,000 in 1955. In 1965 it was $42,000. Today it’s just over $62,000. We think of the 1950s and 1960s as the golden age of middle-class prosperity. But the median household today has roughly twice the income as the median family of 1955. I mean, sure, but I'm pretty sure the median household income today is from 2 working adults, where 1955 and 1965 are a single work…

The 50s and 60s were a golden age of middle class prosperity, because median family income went from $29K to $42K with only one adult working. If you were living through it, it must have been amazing.

Re: A Few Rules

#59

Post by notsureaboutpg »

Swizec wrote: post #53
isaacg wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that owning a house is nearly out of reach for a family making $62k/yr. Standard advice is that one can afford a house costing 2.25 times one's annual income. That means the median family can afford a $140k house. Briefly checking my city, paying $140k for a house in my city is enough for a 3 bedroom detached house with a large yard, in the suburbs, with a 15 minute drive to downtown.

What the heck where do you live? $140k gets you a beat up garage everywhere I’ve ever checked. The 2.25 advice is interesting. By that logic me and my girl can afford $750k which juuuust about starts to get you in the starter fixerupper homes here in SF. But we can’t afford the downpayment. And to make it worth buying, we’d have to stay there for 10+ years and then suddenly a starter 1.5bedroom becomes a little small…

You must live on the coasts. I moved back to the Midwest during COVID, and all my old friends from school have bought houses because good houses here cost $100k-$200k, and I have a yearly salary around that amount and cannot afford to even get a mortgage on a house on the coasts.

Re: A Few Rules

#60

Post by Swizec »

rockostrich wrote: post #57
Swizec wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the heck where do you live? $140k gets you a beat up garage everywhere I’ve ever checked. The 2.25 advice is interesting. By that logic me and my girl can afford $750k which juuuust about starts to get you in the starter fixerupper homes here in SF. But we can’t afford the downpayment. And to make it worth buying, we’d have to stay there for 10+ years and then suddenly a starter 1.5bedroom becomes a little small…

The 2.25 thing seems like it's very conservative. The general advice is that the most you should spend on rent in a given year is 30% of your salary, but let's bring it down to 20% to be conservative. Let's say we get a shitty mortgage rate of 4% over 30 years. Assuming your income won't change at all over the course of the 30 year mortgage and spending the equivalent of 30% of your salary per year, you end up spendi…

Sure and all of this is moot if you can’t afford a down payment. The down payment and closing costs on a 1.5mil home are massive

Paying the mortgage itself isn’t the problem. We already pay the landlord’s mortgage.

Post reply on HN