TL;DR: Americans now need to make $120K a year to afford a typical middle-class life and qualify to purchase a home. Minimum.
Note that the source of this opinion piece is TikTok. The salary needed for a middle class existence varies wildly from city to city.
I’m in Salt Lake City, for example, and a recent article has the necessary salary to afford a home around $140,000/year. I moved here in part because it was a much cheaper alternative to D.C. and the minimum salary to own a home is still $140,000.
There are some pockets of affordability out there.
The map in this article is nice (though you have to scroll through some annoying stuff to get there):
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/06/homes/housing-market-prices-affordability-dg/
I would guess those would be the areas of next major population influx as people continue to flee high cost of living in other areas. Climate change making much of the west and southeast more unattractive in the long run too. While the more affordable areas are still relatively cheap compared to the rest of the country, most of them have already been seeing large spikes in housing prices too. We need some major policy changes to encourage cheap and higher density housing, better use of land in general, can’t just keep building only single family homes in low density areas sprawling out forever.
I honestly don’t even know why this upsets me so much. I am 50 and all set. I don’t have children and barely any debt. I never considered myself particularly patriotic but somehow this whole thing gets under my skin. I guess it sours my achievements and fruits of decades of struggle (it took three generations of planning and hustle to get us out of poverty). It’s like being a kid having a birthday party at Chuck E Cheese by yourself while all your friends are locked outside and you can see them through the glass windows.
It gets under my skin because the west was on the right trajectory; improving wealth equality, quality of life, work life balance, etc — Then Capitalists killed all those gains using Conservatism, Neoliberalism, and a bastardised version of Libertarianism — just to enrich a tiny percentage the human population and return the rest of humanity to feudalism.
Why should they own all the gains from humanities collective efforts, when all of us have a rightful claim to a share of those gains?
In the early 1900s we had huge fights for labor. Strikes yes, but also some literal armed fights.
We won a lot. They conceded a lot.
But they’ve eroded those wins, little by little, for a century or so.
This is what will ALWAYS happen when you live in a system explicitly designed to extract profit from workers and reward greed. It cannot be reformed. It cannot be controlled. It will always slide backwards into this. We need a different system altogether.
the west was on the right trajectory
A lot of the west is still on the right trajectory. It’s the US that is not.
There are a lot of developed countries, especially in Europe, where the “American Dream” is much easier to attain than in America. But, more often than not, they don’t even want that dream. For good reason.
Wanting other people to have what you have, without your struggle, is an opinion we need more of.
Especially when we have a society with a huge number of people who think that if you’re poor, you deserve it.
Where we failed is that $120k was supposed to be a middle-class income when living costs this much. The fact the median is 63k is a sign that all the excess value has been sucked out of the masses and funneled into the coffers of the billionaire class.
100% this. It’s not that costs rose as much as it’s that salaries didn’t increase.
It’s both. If the price of homes aren’t reflecting an affordable price, you have to ask, who’s buying them? It’s not the average family - it’s corps sucking up homes as investment assets, driving up prices to sell to each other and the “lucky” family or two that get to empty out their retirement fund just to have a place to live. That’s not reflective of a natural, reasonable increase. That’s the result of hedge funds destroying the housing market for the rest of us, just to pad their bank accounts.
That may be true in some of the lower priced Midwestern markets, but I sell real estate in Boston and I don’t see big corporate interests in the single family or owner occupied 2-3 family market. as much as big corporations have ruined a lot of things in this country, I don’t think we Dan just wave our hands and say “corporate buyers” and explain away our housing market problems.
We have a confluence of decades of exclusionary zoning and restrictions on building that make meaningfully adding to the supply of housing almost impossible. We have a huge deficit of qualified workers in the building trades, in part because all the work dried up after the great recession and people left the field and in part because we’ve pushed more and more kids to go to college. We have a mortgage system that’s nearly unique worldwide that allows homeowners tremendous advantages in keeping their housing costs low, but inversely provides tremendous disadvantages to having them move around more often and free up housing stock (so lots of aging singles and couples in big houses better suited for young people with kids). We have a society that’s bizarrely fixated on single family living even though we desperately need more density in most markets. And we have the problem of wage stagnation. None of those things are directly attributable to corporate ownership of large numbers of houses.
I’d love for there to be some silver bullet where we could just say “disincentivize corporations from owning small housing stock” and solve the problem, but it’s nowhere near that simple.
In the late 70s around 23% of US corporate revenues went to pay salaries. By 2012 that had fallen to 7% - in other words, just before neoliberalism really took off almost 1/4 of the money workers spent buying goods from US companies was almost directly back in workers’ pockets, whilst by 2012 less that 1/14 of what workers spent buying goods from US companies ended back in workers’ pockets.
All that excess money that doesn’t get recycled back to workers anymore has got to be pooling somewhere.
The problem is you need to be a couple to have a house.
In the 80s and even 90s the mother of the house probably didn’t work. I know mine didn’t. Now they have to. The prices have gone up to match this “new normal” because there simply aren’t enough houses. Or at least not enough houses in the places people want to live.
The free markets have settled on the idea that a house should cost two incomes. The government needs to step in to build affordable homes and get them into the right hands. No landlords scoffing them all up.
Here’s what happened in a nutshell.
Lyndon Johnson had great plans for the US, but wanted to win the Vietnam War with one huge push. That quickly turned into a giant quagmire. LBJ and later Nixon, ordered bombing of the North. That meant the US factories were working 24/7. Nice for factory owners and union workers, but LBJ was paying for it with paper money because he didn’t want to raise taxes. Ironically, Nixon ran for President as an anti inflation and pro peace candidate.
Nixon and Kissinger doubled down on the bombing and inflation started to spiral. Also, those factories were getting a bit worn down. Unable to met the deamnd for the bombing and supply foreign markets the US ceded local steel making to Germany and Japan. This is going to bite the US in the ass when the Arab Oil boycott hits. US steel is much more oil dependant than the newer factories, so suddenly Toyotas and VWs are the hot cars, and US manufacturing takes a huge hit.
Carter tried to control inflation and cut oil use, but got kicked out over the Iran hostage mess. Reagan came in and cut taxes for the rich. This increased the debt, but gave the economy an unrealistic jolt.
tl dr. In 1960, minimum wage was $1.00/hour. The average house was $11,000.00 and $1 million was considered a vast fortune.* Middle class meant a High School graduate with a Union job supporting a family of four.
By the time Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr were done, ‘middle class’ was two college degrees supporting the house and $1 million was what a rich guy paid for a party.
- In case anyone tells you that $1 million is 1960 would be $10 million today, tell them that in 1960, $100,000 would buy a mansion in Beverly Hills.
Lyndon Johnson had great plans for the US
I recently learned that Johnson’s “Great Society” plan was partially a continuation of Kennedy’s “New Frontiers” plan (which he wasn’t very successful in pushing through Congress before he was assassinated).
LBJ is probably the most WTF President of the 20th Century. He pushed the Civil Rights Act, and created the Vietnam fiasco.
I like this story. Someone who worked for Kennedy and Johnson put it this way; if JFK came into your office and saw you reading he’d assume you were working. If LBJ saw you reading a book he’d think you were goofing off.
I think most people would see the gulf between owning one moderately nice house and a small business [$1 million in 2024] and owning an estate with several acres and some horses, a half dozen cars, and enough in the savings account to keep a few families going. [$1 million in 1960]
Doesn’t help that corporations own 27% of single family homes.
This is ludicrously false.
The statistic you’re trying to say is that about 25% of homes sold in recent months have been bought by investors, which is a very different thing from saying that nearly one-fourth of all single family homes are owned by investors, which falls apart the moment you actually go outside and talk to people, since, for starters, about 65% of Americans own their home.
The homeownership rate of 66.0 percent was virtually the same as the rate in the third quarter 2022 (66.0 percent) and not statistically different from the rate in the second quarter 2023 (65.9 percent).
65% + 25% = 90%. Doesn’t seem “ludicrously false” by that assertion; I wouldn’t be surprised if the remaining 10% accounted for all individual landlords.
Not all homes are for sale every year. The vast majority are not.
If Wall Street buys 30% of all homes for sale this year, that does not mean that they now own 30% of all homes that exist, only 30% of those that happened to go on sale this year.
To answer the proximate question, about 70% of rental properties are owned by individuals.
