Offline
OK , just more more more money for me , which I promise to spend profligately , thereby stimulating virtually all economies in my immediate vicinity . You're welcome .
Spread the wealth my friend.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
OK , just more more more money for me , which I promise to spend profligately , thereby stimulating virtually all economies in my immediate vicinity . You're welcome .
A popular narrative of the U.S. housing market has been that big city prices are locking out young buyers, feeding a cycle in which a growing number of people are forced to rent at ever higher rates as demand overwhelms supply. Throw in the fact that wages haven’t kept pace, and you have a world where a wide swath of Americans can't save enough to ever buy that first home.
The reality may be a bit more complicated. It's true that, when combined with a lack of government support for affordable housing, this situation has pushed the number of cash-poor renters to a new high. Some 26 percent of U.S. renters paid at least half their income to landlords in 2014, up from 20 percent in 2001, according to the State of the Nation’s Housing report, published on Wednesday by Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies.
On the other hand, the number of homeowners who are severely cost-burdened (paying 50 percent or more of their income) or moderately cost-burdened (paying 30 percent to 50 percent) actually fell from 2013 to 2014, the JCHS study said. And while the poorest renters are more likely to find themselves in dire straits, data compiled this month by Greg Willett, chief economist at property management software maker RealPage, suggests that market-rate renters are keeping up with those rising rents, and are thus able to put some money away for that eventual first purchase.
The median rent-to-income ratio (derived from 4 million apartments tracked by RealPage) has hovered between 22.9 percent and 23.3 percent since 2010. While rents increased over that period, so did the median income of market-rate renters, which rose from $44,000 in 2010 to almost $58,000 so far this year. That’s partly because incomes have risen faster for more affluent renters, Willett said, and partly because changing home-buying behavior has kept higher earners in the renter pool longer.
Those trends have been good for landlords, and they show that most renters are able to find apartments that fit their budgets. The poor, however, are still bearing the brunt of a tight market: The availability of affordable housing falls at the lower end of the market-rate segment, creating greater affordability challenges in lesser-quality apartments. For the bottom tier of rental units, described as "Class D" in the chart below, the median renter is spending more than 30 percent of his or her income on rent.
Plenty of renters remain cost-burdened, and some of them earn good salaries. In 2014, 399,000 households earning $75,000 or more paid at least 30 percent of their income in rent—a number that probably skews to hot markets such as New York or San Francisco. About 1.7 million households earning from $45,000 to $75,000 were moderately rent-burdened during the same period
New market-rate construction tends to focus on luxury renters, and lower rents take time to filter down. More than 1 million new households were created in 2015, compared 620,000 new homes built, according to new research from the Urban Institute. The shortfall of 430,000 units put more pressure on housing prices, especially at the bottom of the market.
Not sure if this should go here, or one of our economics discussions but...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/renters-making-more-landlords-100009343.html
Then later, this nugget resonates. I stated this before elsewhere.. everything I see in development down here is "Luxury".
When the bottom has pressure, it moves up to the middle. If you can afford a 500k+ home, you're probably fine in many markets. If not, you're going to have a harder time.
EDIT: This link directly from Bloomberg is better. Renters Are Making More, And Landlords Get It All - Bloomberg
jibes with empirical observation
no one's really offered a decent "gloom" scenario to show what would happen if price controls were exerted
However, again I think price controls are fine, but pegging based on salary is bad. Also, I think new homes need to be built in the 'non-luxury' category more than they are.
in my initial fantasy, a neighborhood could only have a discreet numbers of rents at specified levels (x # of homes at $1000, x # at 1500, etc)
in the hopes that not only would the rent squeeze be alleviated but the resultant problems of disparity of public education, healthy food accessibility, et al would tilt toward an equilibrium
So, basically forcing a mixed income neighborhood like HUD tries on occasion?
I have the sudden urge for Burger King drive-thru.(I do miss BHM, though)
I don’t think this is exactly the thread I was thinking of
But it’s in the ballpark
(I do miss BHM, though)
so rule of thumb seems to be that rent should be 25% of gross salary
what would happen if we pegged that? made it so that rent was "controlled" at 25%? (the % isn't important, but more the idea of 'fixing' it)
i think i can anticipate some of the "why nots" but I'm interested to hear the arguments pro/con
To add, to me, the only real solution is for these altruistic billionaire investors to invest in decent housing (heck, it doesn't even have to be built cheaply, because they can afford the loss, or use it as a tax write off as charity, I'm sure). Basically set it up similar to Habitat for Humanity, but perhaps with less volunteering required. Have an ownership time requirement before you can consider selling the house or whatever. Allow people who qualify (all via this investor person, or via the charity) to purchase homes for an amount based on income (and I'd honestly go under 25% of monthly, especially since many are paid bi weekly, and you have to wait 6 months to catch up, since you only get paid for 4 weeks a month for a while).
Side Note, Section 8 makes you pay 30-40% of your income, but without looking, I'd assume that's after taxes (and not counting EITC if you get it).
So, two things happen. You drastically increase or improve the number of low income homes that most builders or investors don't want to touch right now (unless they're going for section 8 vouchers). So, you are relaxing the strain on the "tier 2 market" for middle class buyers. Some middle to lower middle class could potentially qualify for some of these homes (there could be tiers). It's all my pipe dream anyway.
And secondly, you decrease the bottom end of pricing relaxing some of the false supply side price increase. I say false, because so many over priced units sit empty and either people over pay to squeeze in there or it inflates other properties near by that were a bit cheaper. e.g. if you like a neighborhood and see a series of houses all for $400k, and there is one gem for $300k, you might find yourself in a bidding war with a few others for that cheaper home, now it's $375k and you strain to buy it.
The more I think of all this stuff, the more I realize I need to move out of a metro area. An Engineer and a social worker can't hack it here, I guess.
I don’t think this is exactly the thread I was thinking of
But it’s in the ballpark
(I do miss BHM, though)