Exactly, I feel a lot of my coworkers fell under this trap: if you need cashflow for mortgage on your 4m mansion in (affluent neighborhood), you can't really afford it.
I make a decent salary as a programmer (150k) but my house only cost 250k and my mortgage is about 1400. How I see it, if I have to flip burgers to keep my house, I can pull it off. I can't imagine have a mortgage that's 10gs a month.
Sadly it seems it's unlikely they'll hire you even though they might need the help that bad because they're afraid of paying to train you and then you leaving once something better, and in your line of work, comes along.
I mean I just meant a low paying job. During COVID which even have more oversupply, I was bored and I was drive around doing doordash and other delivery services even though I had my tech job. There is always a surefire way of making one or two thousand a month here in the states if you're properly motivated.
Not sure what you mean. Job growth is continually rising, and unemployment continues to remain at historic lows (where it has been since 2021-ish). [0]
The job market is doing just fine, unless you’re in very specific areas such as the automotive industry or certain types of manufacturing.
These charts use "employment" in a very pedantic way. They don't look much at underemployment nor the shifts in proportions of salary ranges.
I believe they also count gigs. So I could run Doordash for under minimum and be "employed" technically.
The other dangerous thing is "averages". This is one of the special cases where you need to look at the lower quartiles. The average/median can look great, but if we have an entire quartile unable to pay rent we'd be in trouble as a whole.
I find it hard to believe you can flip enough burgers to pay that mortgage and still survive. Not many fast food places will pay over 30 hours a week to burger flippers. Managers yes. You would barely survive.
That is nonsense. That's more than enough to afford a studio in New York City.
You can easily afford a luxury studio with a doorman and a pool making half of that!
Is a "luxury studio" a real thing in NYC real estate or was this a joke?
The term itself sounds absurd and oxymoronic to me, but also I know NYC housing is absurd and I can imagine that there are places that do nice interior finishes on studio apartments and call them luxury so maybe it's real?
really depends on CoL and remote work and a half dozen other factors. My house is around the same mortgage but also twice as expensive in a suburb that is arguably the boonies. Even with the $20/hr miniumum wage for flipping burgers It'd be a tight fit after utilities and other payments.
Every house requires cash flow, regardless of mortgage amount. There's something to be said for overspending on a house for sure - but let's not forget mortgage(if any), maintenance, property tax, utilities, insurance, etc. Last year I spent more on maintenance than my mortgage cost.
You get a mortgage because most people cannot just outright buy a hosue with cash. We can discuss the balance of how big a mortgae to your salary, but most people through American history could "not really afford it" by that definition.
But most of history relied on a labor market focusing on retention and training. We're far past that. We're a gig econnomy in all but name with these kinds of evonomic swings.
The only mortgages that don't require cashflow are the paid off mortgages. Even if someone has a year of savings, or two years, or three, after that amount is drained, they need cash flow again. So how does one buy a house without being dependent on cash flow?
Well, you need cashflow on a house in general. Even with a paid-off mortgage, I'm easily $10K/year and probably closer to $20K if I'm not pushing various stuff off.
2025 standard deduction is $30k for MFJ. Ain’t many people passing that mark these days in itemized deductions so the mortgage interest deduction is moot.
Well the most obvious approach would be to pay cash.
The more fiscally conservative option is to only borrow money if you have capital which is earning income at a higher rate than the mortgage. This probably necessitates having more capital than the house costs.
The problem with that is that unless you have an extremely well paying job or rich parents, you have to outsave inflation and rising house prices. You may never own. Getting a loan just locks you into an inflation proof price as a "forced" savings. I don't think it's realistic at all for 85% of Americans to save for a new house.
If you save $2.5k/mo for 15 years, after 14 years (mid-30s), you’d have $800k at 8% interest.
Even in Seattle, $800k would get you a decent starter home.
(I chose $2.5k, bc 15 years ago out of college, that’s how much I saved living in GA on a $70k salary). I saved even more when I move to California in my mid 20s.
That' assuming houses don't go up in price though right?
Also I think it's pretty rare for people to have the mental fortitude to save 2.5k a month for a house on top of living expenses, rent, and trying to build your retirement / savings / emergency fund.
It's definitely possible but I think it's out of reach for the average person.
> That' assuming houses don't go up in price though right?
No, it isn’t. You can invest your savings. If you had put $2,500.00 a month into SPY500 since October 2009 (15 years ago) you’d have $1,388,302.13 today.
> Also I think it's pretty rare for people to have the mental fortitude to save 2.5k a month for a house on top of living expenses, rent, and trying to build your retirement / savings / emergency fund.
How is saving for a house “on top of” literally “saving”? If you can save for retirement, savings, and emergencies then you have the mental fortitude to save for a house. People are bad with money, we know that. One of the best examples is buying a house they can’t afford.
> It's definitely possible but I think it's out of reach for the average person.
No, those are considered. That $2,500/mo is at the bottom of your career. You will be saving more as you age, even accounting for employment gaps.
If we are considering kids, presumably there is another partner (and income) to be added to the equation. While you may have half the amount saved due to the cost of raising children, your partner would have the other half.
8% was chosen to discount 3% inflation (cost of living) from SnP 500’s average 11% growth.
Yes, it’s a tragedy of the commons. That doesn’t make taking on a loan you can’t afford less of a bad idea.
House prices are unaffordable because people take on loans they can’t afford. This reinforces the unaffordable prices. If milk was $40.00 a gallon you’d just stop putting it on cereal and eventually farmers get the message. Houses are the same thing.
If you can’t comfortably afford a house then don’t buy it. You’re stuck renting or buying something more modest. This isn’t complicated.
The idea that house prices can only go up is delusional. Nothing about a house is uniquely inflation proof or even inflation resistant. This isn’t the only investment vehicle available to you.
This idea that houses are an important part of financial security is putting the cart in front of the horse. It leads to the NIMBYism that prevents additional supply from being built because prices must always go up.
We all exist in the same economy and no action happens in a vacuum. When you buy something you have reduced supply and applied upward pressure on price. Individually this effect is so small it is immeasurable. In aggregate it isn’t.
This was a failure of regulation, not just in the US but elsewhere too; banks and mortgage brokers weren't doing their due diligence and were giving out loans and mortgages that people couldn't afford based on their income and other outstanding debts, eventually leading to the 2007/8 financial crisis.
Which should have been a lesson, but five years later, housing prices recovered and ballooned. I don't know why besides increased demand and reduced availability, clearly people can still get mortgages despite the lessons learned from the crisis.