I’d say for the individual this is the core issue people face today. That they after needed fixed/utility costs have very little left over and that amount is actually decreasing and has been decreasing for decades now. “The economy” matters not to John Hancock and Jane Doe, all that matters is how much is left in the bank account once the bills they can’t remove or reduce are paid. And this is true also for the people that own, of course. Because while equity is great down the line it does little to alleviate the day-to-day / month-to-month finances.
Far to little economic policy in the US aims to actually make meaningfull progress on this problem, it’s all lofty high level goals but no decisive plans with a clear stated goal of improving the situation for all that truly struggle with making ends meet.
I’d actually rank this higher than healthcare, certainly higher than legalization and much more important than any identity politics or even international politics like the war on Gaza. To the voters that will win the election for either candidate this autumn it’s this question that will decide it, I’m certain. But if they’ll vote on “feeling” (i.e. which candidate they feel address their problem regardless of what they actually propose) or on proposed policy is entirely up to the candidates and so far none of them have done anything to address this in a clear and direct manner.
What does it mean that they ‘paid unaffordable rates’? Are they paying with borrowed money?
It means they had rents that were more than 30% of their income, by this study’s definition.
Shit, I consider myself in a good position if I’m under 50%
I’m not saying that rent isn’t high but I don’t like this definition. 30% is not crazy high. I would say 20% is low, 30% is medium, 50% would be high.
It’s a fairly typical “rule” in personal finance not to spend more than 30% of your income on housing or rent, which is probably why that’s what the study is using. You’re right it is a little conservative, and especially in cities most people have been going over that for quite a while. Some landlords will not even consider your application though if your income isn’t 3x the rent. It’s still a good idea to spend 30% or less on housing or rent, if you have the option. Not everyone does.
I paid my rent with real money. I bought my groceries with borrowed money.
People are maxing out their credit cards, so probably.
Wtf? The answer is literally in the first couple of paragraphs. All you had to do was open the article and read for less than 5 seconds.
deleted by creator
Renting is the biggest scam this generation has convinced itself to fall for.
If, by “this generation,” you mean the past couple of thousand years.
People rented apartments in ancient Rome. And they had a high rent problem too.
Woah, it’s almost like magnitude matters and the amount of people doing something is important.
More people are renting than owning.
Very few people in Rome owned their home. It was mostly owned by the upper class.
Yeah, there are two generations.
The rome generation and this one.
Nothing in between, and certainly not a generation that valued ownership more than the current one.
No, there are also the many generations in between where the wealthy minority owned almost all of the land and charged for the “privilege” of living there.
Seriously, I have no idea why you think it’s the norm in history for most people to own their own property.
I have no idea why you think it’s the norm in history for most people to own their own property.
Because you have a bad habit of making up stances for other people.
I never said, nor implied, it was the ‘norm in history.’
My exact words were: “Renting is the biggest scam this generation has convinced itself to fall for” which is true.
Because you have a bad habit of making up stances for other people.
I was going to respond to the rest of what you said, but first you made this claim. I’m sure you can provide evidence for this. Unless it was a lie, of course. Was it a lie?
As opposed to… homelessness??
No, no, no. Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and buy a house
As opposed to living somewhere cheaper.
Most of you feel entitled to live in major cities.
Hey genius, if everyone moved to your shitty little town the rents would be unaffordable there, too
Everyone isn’t moving to my town, but if they did it would also be more attractive and create another place that people like you would like to live.
The key is to spread out. Create more supply to satisfy demand.
But you don’t want to do that because you feel entitled to live where you can’t afford.
Yeah, we want to live where its desirable to live, not at even intervals across all the available land so you have to travel 90 miles to get groceries. Room temp IQ
Then you have to pay more.
Supply and demand.
Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
When I find a fully remote job I’ll consider somewhere with a lower cost of living.
