My salary didn’t change at all, but homes went up 82%. The money I saved for a down payment and my salary no longer are good enough for this home and many others. This ain’t even a “good” home either. It was a 200k meh average ok home before. Now it’s simply unaffordable

  • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    In my area, it’s a 100-150% increase in four years.

    It doesn’t sound like much until you see numbers.

    A $350k house is now $700k for no reason.

    A $400k house is now a million.

    It’s depressing.

  • socsa@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Not that this is “ok” but it’s why “buy whatever you can as soon as you can” is good advice. If you’d put whatever you had into a shitty condo four years ago, and kept saving at the same rate, you’d likely be in good position to trade up soon.

    I see a lot of people I know end up in the same position because they’ve been waiting for either the exact right circumstances or for prices to “crash.” All the people i know who started with anything they could afford now have a huge amount of equity in nice homes. The difference is real and primarily about timing more than income or location.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      I bought 5 years ago when it was still reasonable. I have a great rate on a great house that has increased by about 50% since I bought it.

      I don’t want to, because this is just about the perfect size house for us in a great location, but I can’t really “trade up” as the interest rates are through the roof and everything is more expensive too.

      • 667@lemmy.radio
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        If your circumstances change, you can make a lateral move and invest the net profit in an index fund.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think you misunderstand. He didn’t have the financial wherewithal to acquire a home of any sort because a down payment was expected even of the shitty condo. He didn’t have the money then he doesn’t have the money now he’s on the same shitty treadmill that the rest of us in the permanent underclass are.

      • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        My man let me introduce you to globalism and people living in refugee camps in South Sudan.

        $325K is more money than most of the people in the world for all of history would see in a lifetime.

        Wake up to your riches.

  • sleepmode@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    2 days ago

    I like the utility feed hanging off the front of the house going straight through the roof and blocking them from installing the other fake shutter. I wonder what other construction horrors lurk inside.

  • Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is everywhere. I’ve been looking for houses for 3 months in NW Ohio. 300k is the new 150k, and all the houses are beat to shit on the inside needing 50k just to make them passable inside because nobody takes care of them.

    • Soleos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      I wonder what proportion of it is also due to people fleeing 1 million + average house markets during the pandemic work from home wave. Not saying this about you, but it makes me think it’s funny how the common refrain of “Don’t like it? Just move” is often uttered by NIMBYs.

      • Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think a big part of it is we’re on the other side of the peak of all houses going for 100k over asking regardless of condition. A number of houses have that grey vinyl flooring installed in a bunch of rooms that’s as cheap as it is ugly.

        • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          grey vinyl flooring

          I hate that shit even more than I hated the fake wood paneling and shag carpet of the '70s. I bought a house last year that had the grey vinyl flooring in the living room and I’ve tried my hardest to fuck it up during the renovation so I have to replace it, but unfortunately it holds up to extreme abuse pretty well.

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            A former housemate did so much water damage with a portable A/C unit, that not even two months ago I had to rip up the whisper walk, and the original wooden flooring (house was built in the '30s) all the way down to the subfloor. Replacing the whisper walk would have been $3000 for just that room. We managed to find vinyl flooring that matched the rest of the flooring in the house and redid the floor for $1500.

            My point is that you can get nice vinyl flooring, and it’s not terribly expensive to replace/ install.

            • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              Heh, according to the guy who sold me the house, he had to put the grey vinyl flooring in because of water damage from a portable AC unit.

  • Jackthelad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    ·
    2 days ago

    You just need to stop watching Netflix and buying avocado toast.

    At least that’s what old people say anyway.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Can confirme. I stopped drinking Starbucks and now I own a 50 acre plot with a 6 bedroom house on it. If only I would have listened to their Facebook comments sooner, I could have afforded that private jet too. Edit: Apparently sarcasm is lost on a few. So for explicitness - /s

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        With the Star bucks prices you might as well by a house. Damn they are expensive. People spend like $10 on coffee

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          I honestly just started going to my own local coffee joint. What used to be expensive for something like a cappuccino (like 7 bucks) is now cheaper than starbucks. Plus I help a small business.

    • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 days ago

      Assuming you spend $10 on avocado toast every day, as well as $75 on eating out for every meal, $20 for Starbucks, and ALSO assuming you have $150 worth of monthly subscriptions:

      It will take you 25 years to save one million dollars. That’s assuming you never get sick, never lose a job, never need to buy a car or have major repairs, or basically any kind of surprise expense or setback that could wipe out savings.

      To be the richest person on earth, you would need to save that money every year for over 6 MILLION YEARS

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Not to devalue your point, but if you truly were spending (10 + 3*75 + 20)*30 + 150 per month (so a total of 7800 USD) and you invest it in an index fund getting back 5%, you’ll have your million in 10 years. 8 years at 10% which is the long-term growth rate of DJIA and S&P 500.

        You’ll still never be the richest person in the world, but if you truly were burning away that much money, you could make decent dough just from investing it passively. In 30 years you’d have like 15 million, more than enough to retire.

        Now the only real problem is that nearly nobody is actually burning that much cash and the “stop eating avocado toast” suggestions are indeed stupid af.

    • WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Said it before: no corporation except non-profits focusing on housing should own retail property.

  • curiousaur@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    That’s cheap as hell compared to California. And I work remote from anywhere I want. Thanks for the tip!

  • jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    So occasionally I look out of curiosity and the reason is pretty plain.

    I look for houses for sale in a suburban area as public listings, and there’s like 1 within a few square miles of the area.

    I switch over to renting, and there’s like 12 houses just like the one for sale available, all owned by companies. I also know a coule that aren’t listed that have no tenants, but are still owned by one of those companies. You can tell because those yards are now waist deep grasses (in an area where HOA throws a hissy fit if your yard looks just a smidge unkempt).

    Don’t know why the companies find it more profitable to buy houses people aren’t looking to actually move into, at least at the rent they are willing to accept. If I fully understood why, it might just piss me off more. Like maybe the houses work better as a loan basis than other assets, so even empty and unused they are valuable as some sort of financial trick.

    • WingedObsidian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      My understanding is that these companies are investment companies that need stable assets for their billions of dollars portfolios and they actively look to keep buying property as a stable form of appreciating asset. They have so much money that needs to find some way to make more money for their investors.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      Don’t know why the companies find it more profitable to buy houses people aren’t looking to actually move into, at least at the rent they are willing to accept. If I fully understood why, it might just piss me off more. Like maybe the houses work better as a loan basis than other assets, so even empty and unused they are valuable as some sort of financial trick.

      That’s one thing, but housing has been a low-risk investment for a long, long time. If they bought the house OP posted in 2020 and sold it in 2024 they would have almost doubled their money even without renting it out.

  • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    A lot of boomers are going to die in the next ten years or so. That is the biggest age demographic in the u.s. the population is going to shrink by a lot. That’s why there’s a push to make people have more kids, because otherwise workers and consumers have a lot more power.

    • rauls4@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Private equity is already gobbling up the houses. Boomers are cashing in to finance extravagant retirement. Those who are not, are leaving it to their children who will then sell to private equity groups.

      • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Eventually supply will catch up with demand which will supress rent (if we do something about the price fixing) and it will no longer be a viable investment. They’re probably losing a lot to management costs and capital expenses already.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 days ago

          Single-family rental is also a huge thing now.

          I work in municipal development, and since 2021, 100% of single-family subdivision developments that have approached the city have been for rental-only neighborhoods.

          And they want to put all the homes on a single shared commercial water meter on a single piece of property instead of extending public lines, so they can’t even be converted later without massive infrastructure projects and replatting.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          Eventually supply will catch up with demand

          Not if NIMBYs have their way. We have a MASSIVE supply problem already, and it’s getting worse.

          • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Not exactly a good business strategy. You can deduct the taxes, insurance, management costs, but you have to amoratize depreciation of the building over 28 years. Not to mention that an empty house is going to start developing problems fairly quickly.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    This won’t change as long as property ownership and property renting is unified. There’s just to much of a business incentive from renting, even if it takes decades to make it back. Worst that can happen is that it can sell it back to a market that criminalizes homelessness instead of treating it or its causes.

  • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    A 1200 sqft bungalow near me just sold for 1 million Canadian rubles

  • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yep, that’s on track! My house has almost tripled in price since I bought it 12 years ago. Denver metro. No way I could afford it if I had to buy it today.

    • 11111one11111@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      That you don’t understand the realestate market? Or you didn’t know this has been projected for a decade now from millennials getting as old as the avg age of first time home buyers and being the largest % share of the US population creating more demand than available supply?

      • pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        More like that they probably are too young to have bought a home earlier. All people in their 20s (and I think we make a large percentage of Lemmy users) simply have to cope and buy some overpriced home regardless.

        • 11111one11111@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          To add to that, we also the only generation who lived thru the only housing bubble giving a hesitation to the concept that realestate has always been the safest investment. They’re buying high but are able to control most of not all extrinsic variables that could keep them from selling higher than they purchased. There aren’t many ways to invest money that you 100% either control the out come of or can insure what you cant control. The exceptions like community wide property value loss are still specific to the properties location that you decide before purchase. I know there are cases where your research before buying can fuck you but it’s still more control than investing in the market where everything about the value of your asset is out of your hands. All you can control is how it’s value is managed.

  • w3dd1e@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    It’s the same in Kansas City. I just checked a random house in my city and it’s up almost $100k in 4 years.

    3bd, 1bath 976 sqft