Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rents cannot rise to higher than median local incomes will support. If you keep your skills up to date, you'll be fine. The problem is with people that either fail to distinguish wants from needs when it comes to living space and privacy, or fail to work on their skill set.
As I've gotten older, I've lost interest in cheap, easy answers. WELL THEN GO BACK TO SCHOOL AND BECOME A NURSE!! isn't quite the panacea that ideologues would have it be.
Actually, in a lot of places, rents have risen grotesquely due to other factors in the housing ecosystem, which has essentially 'created' nothing more than economic hardship for the people who live there and a boon for people who own rental property. One can argue that it reaches an economic equilibrium over an arc of time but 'short term disruptions' historically speaking can last decades.
Right now, hosing cost 'aberrations' are displacing people and not just in San Francisco... which leads us to the big question? Why? And is there anything about it that can be done?
Excessive regulation is a HUGE problem when it comes to housing, a huge driver of cost and a huge barrier to the production of affordable homes. The housing problem in this country could be fixed in 3 years if the labyrinth of red tape and municipal extortion that surrounds any high density development, or even just routine development, were done away with. It doesn't hurt the 20% of people who can afford it.
The 1960s war argument doesn't pass the smell test to me.
First of all, is money is so tight these days how come we have record corporate profits?
Second, how come in the late 90's, decades after the war, wages were still good?
Money is tight AFTER paying executive pay. Walmart and Home Depot both pay their executives over 10 million in compensation and they are retail companies. The problem is because of that, they cannot pay the people who make the products or sell the services the company actually offers.
How is it "hypocritical" exactly, that (as I pointed out in an earlier post) in 2015, a homebuyer may have no choice other than paying up to $750,000+ for a home that may have cost as little as $25,000, circa 1950s-1960s home prices? That is Exhibit A really of how "living within your means" is merely doublespeak and a loaded phrase used to perpetually keep the average person's standard of living down. Living within one's means would never have been an issue had wages over the past some decades actually been adequately-indexed and adjusted to inflation, but as it is, the means have only gone down, not up.
Or, in other words and to put it a different way: "living within one's means" = catchphrase for using inflation and deflation (as referenced in the above example) for "continually keeping regular, everyday people in poverty"
I submit that you have no idea what "choice" means. If you are determined to own a $750,000 house, you have no choice but to buy it. If you are realistic about what you can afford, many choices will become available. In the 1950s, $25,000 was over twice the price of the average home, and very few people could afford that. They bought what they could afford instead. It looks cheap to you now because you didn't live back then.
Just try living beyond your means and see what happens after a few years.
Then you'll drop the nonsensically applied "loaded" adjective and replace it with
"wise"
This. If anything, it's more important advice for those who are not well-off to follow. If a wealthy person digs themselves into a financial hole by overspending, they may be able to get themselves back out of it by learning and applying some financial self-discipline. If someone who's barely making it does the same, the only way out may be bankruptcy, which will destroy their credit rating (and with it, their chances of getting a good rental apartment or in many cases a decent job).
There's simply no way to live beyond one's means indefinitely. Sooner or later, the debt catches up with you.
As I've gotten older, I've lost interest in cheap, easy answers. WELL THEN GO BACK TO SCHOOL AND BECOME A NURSE!! isn't quite the panacea that ideologues would have it be.
Actually, in a lot of places, rents have risen grotesquely due to other factors in the housing ecosystem, which has essentially 'created' nothing more than economic hardship for the people who live there and a boon for people who own rental property. One can argue that it reaches an economic equilibrium over an arc of time but 'short term disruptions' historically speaking can last decades.
Right now, hosing cost 'aberrations' are displacing people and not just in San Francisco... which leads us to the big question? Why? And is there anything about it that can be done?
Excessive regulation is a HUGE problem when it comes to housing, a huge driver of cost and a huge barrier to the production of affordable homes. The housing problem in this country could be fixed in 3 years if the labyrinth of red tape and municipal extortion that surrounds any high density development, or even just routine development, were done away with. It doesn't hurt the 20% of people who can afford it.
It crushes the 80% who can't.
Home ownership is still over 60% of the US population, and 30% of those homes are owned free and clear with no mortgage. Then add in the number of people who just prefer to rent, or move to often to make home ownership practical. That leaves about 20% of people who can't afford it.
Rents are rising because people are still responding to the mortgage crisis. They got the idea into their heads that home ownership is a bad deal, and there it sticks. In fact, home ownership has always been cheaper than renting, because it locks in your housing costs and gets you out of the inflation rat race.
I "lived within my means" while being a single parent raising 2 kids. We always had a nice place to live and my kids lacked nothing, why you might ask. My housing was priority ( nice area) food, gas , insurance, kids needs ( not wants) and then myself ( though made sure I had the proper clothes for work).
In addition we never qualified for food stamps or assisantce, and am forever grateful , it made me better myself.
We always upgraded through the years if you will. While living up in Nebraska in an old house ( miss mosh) is where I learned take care of what you have ( make the best) decorate the best you can to make it nice and you will get better one day, sure enough it has always worked. Prioritizing ones means is important , make your coffee at home, bring your lunch to work before you know it life gets better.
Working hard to be the best in whatever it is you do, standing out above everyone else. But as cb73 puts it , sometimes easier to complain . Easier in the short term , not the long term.
If you don't like you situation you and only you have the power to change it , I did.
Exactly. Many people don't have the self discipline to admit that they are broke. Most poor people waste thousands of dollars a year on unnecessary purchases because they don't know how to prioritize and lack self discipline.
You live in a horribly expensive area to cite that sort of housing cost.
In small-town usa you can buy a nice place for 5-figures.
Very true. Although as far as I am aware and to the best of my knowledge, the general/average standard of living is also usually considered as reduced or lower in the areas of small-town USA, vs. areas with a higher COL, such as DC, NYC, Boston, FL, CA, etc. There are pros and cons either way, admittedly.
Quote:
Sorry you missed out on it, but you need to work on yourself and not worry about everyone else. If you can't do better than min-wage you need to make some serious plans to change that.
Please refer to post #7 in the thread, where I addressed some of these same issues IME
Last edited by Phoenix2017; 02-23-2015 at 01:44 PM..
As I've gotten older, I've lost interest in cheap, easy answers. WELL THEN GO BACK TO SCHOOL AND BECOME A NURSE!! isn't quite the panacea that ideologues would have it be.
Actually, in a lot of places, rents have risen grotesquely due to other factors in the housing ecosystem, which has essentially 'created' nothing more than economic hardship for the people who live there and a boon for people who own rental property. One can argue that it reaches an economic equilibrium over an arc of time but 'short term disruptions' historically speaking can last decades.
Right now, hosing cost 'aberrations' are displacing people and not just in San Francisco... which leads us to the big question? Why? And is there anything about it that can be done?
It is mostly families with kids that are having the issues. I think school vouchers would help a lot since there would be no need to live in an area JUST for the school system.
Zoning laws are also too strict and drive up housing prices in many areas, the Bay Area being one among many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StAugustine
Excessive regulation is a HUGE problem when it comes to housing, a huge driver of cost and a huge barrier to the production of affordable homes. The housing problem in this country could be fixed in 3 years if the labyrinth of red tape and municipal extortion that surrounds any high density development, or even just routine development, were done away with. It doesn't hurt the 20% of people who can afford it.
Home ownership is still over 60% of the US population, and 30% of those homes are owned free and clear with no mortgage. Then add in the number of people who just prefer to rent, or move to often to make home ownership practical. That leaves about 20% of people who can't afford it.
Rents are rising because people are still responding to the mortgage crisis. They got the idea into their heads that home ownership is a bad deal, and there it sticks. In fact, home ownership has always been cheaper than renting, because it locks in your housing costs and gets you out of the inflation rat race.
20% of the population getting crushed is a massive problem.
You are right, rental demands right are exacerbated by some people who are spooked away from home ownership, but its nowhere near the lions share of renters. Credit is still a major issue not to mention that extreme rents are detrimental to home ownership since they siphon off the ability of someone to save to buy.
There are a TON of people who would like to buy a home right now but cannot get an inch ahead because rents are profoundly higher (over the past 5 years) than they were (5 years prior).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
