“There’s this wild disconnect between what people are experiencing and what economists are experiencing,” says Nikki Cimino, a recruiter in Denver.
“There’s this wild disconnect between what people are experiencing and what economists are experiencing,” says Nikki Cimino, a recruiter in Denver.
What most people don’t realize is that once you have excess income, you have options. What you do with the excess is what matters. If you don’t save and invest it, you’ll be living paycheck to paycheck for the rest of your life.
A lot of folks think being rich means just spending money on whatever you want. That’s not really the case. If you spend the excess on fancy cars or luxury items that make others think you’re rich, the irony is you’ll be working for a long time and never actually become financially independent.
Edit: well, if I’ve learned anything from this comment, it’s that everyone on Lemmy identifies as a HENRY with bad spending habits no matter how much money they make. Or, at least a temporarily embarrassed one.
Except that’s not at all what OP said or was implying. Nice way of pushing the blame on the people affected rather than the broken system we live in.
Most people are struggling with the basics, not disputing that. But, then I wouldn’t consider those people HENRYs.
When I look around, I also see a lot of people with high income making boneheaded moves like buying expensive vehicles, renting luxury apartments, etc. For some people the problem isn’t the system, it’s their own lack of self-control or planning. If you’re making $200,000 and still feel broke. Maybe that $1,500/month car payment was a mistake. Maybe you shouldn’t have used the raise to move into a luxury apartment building.
When I was starting my career all my coworkers lived in $2200/month luxury buildings. I knew we all made roughly the same amount of money, so was shocked that they would pay this much for rent. Meanwhile, I sought out roommates and paid $650. With the money I saved, I paid off my student loan debt aggressively. Now all these people are struggling to get to the next step in life. Yeah, I could’ve seen that coming 10 years ago for you.
I see the same thing with cars. Everyone wants to own some luxury SUV. And, they make fun of me for driving a Prius. I won’t be surprised in another 10 years when they’re still struggling.
This isn’t an attack on people who don’t have the money. This is an attack on people who do and can’t plan well, but then act surprised when they’re broke still.
I don’t make 200k, but together with my wife, we make a little under that. We both have cars, and both are paid off. I still have the first car I ever brought, which is a Nissan Sentra 2006 basic model. So, 17 years on the same car and hers is a 2015 Toyota. We do have 2 kids and brought a house in 2015. The last 4 years have been almost impossible to make ends meet, and all we try to do is survive with the very occasional do something for the kids. I have tons of housework I can’t do but also can’t pay for either. Because of this, we also can’t move until it’s taken care of, so we’re kind of stuck here as well. We have no money to save or invest. Did we make some bad decisions? Sure, probably shouldn’t have had kids for starters. They cost a fortune. But my point is we aren’t doing anything crazy here, it’s just that more and more things are taking our money and prices also went up. It sucks because all I want to do is live and get by, I don’t really have any grandiose dreams of doing crazy things or buying tons of stuff. I just want to get by as my parents did, which seems impossible today.
How much did you pay for your house? Assuming you live in a HCOL area? Making almost 200k you shouldn’t be struggling at all, unless you’re living in some crazy high cost of living area.
I live in North NJ. From my understanding, it’s about as bad as it gets. House was 330k 10 years ago. We also have crazy property taxes, so that alone is 13k a year. I also live in a very rural area which was the only option for the area if we wanted some space and also keep house prices semi cheap.
How damn costly is everything else there, that’s crazy high for property taxes though.
Even if you do nothing, if you don’t get into debt, you will have millions in equity in the house when it’s paid off.
You’ve basically invested into real estate so you’re saving money even if it doesn’t go into your savings account.
We purchased the house for around 300k, and even with the market today, it’s about 500k. Sure, it could go for higher whenever we do sell, but it’s not an investment. With our current loan we will have paid over 500k over 30 years, so I really am not expecting to make out from this. The only way this makes me money is when I retire (which is close to payoff anyway) and move someplace way cheaper than we’re we live now.
You’re going to pay it off in what, like 25 years? Yeah, it will be worth over a million by then.
My dad bought his house for $600,000 in 2008 peak, and it is now worth maybe 2 million. It hasn’t even been twenty years and it’s more than tripled, despite being underwater on the mortgage in 2009 (owed more than market value)
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
So? Someone spending $300,000 on loan shouldn’t complain about not having money. Maybe manage finances better?
Like half the country should be so lucky to own their home
I gotta back your position here, especially because I think you’re being downvoted unfairly. There is a lot of unfairness in this economy for sure but on this thread that started with HENRY and literally “They have given up on the idea of financial solvency and are going into debt to indulge in luxuries” your comments are totally in line and fair.
Want to add too, that even the first subject in the article ‘Making the most I’ve ever made’ isn’t the best example of a tough economy. She went through a divorce and then bought a house in one of the most competitive housing markets in the US. The high interest rates certainly make that tougher but that’d be hard to afford even before without it.
I think there’s a difference between High Earner and High Income that is causing a discrepancy here. Somebody making six figures is a High Earner, but isn’t really a High Income anymore. In 2020, I made about $40k, which was more than about 55-60% of Americans made that year. That puts anybody making $100k or more in the top 25%, at least, of incomes in the country. And yet the prices of things mean that more and more of them are living paycheck to paycheck, regardless of their financial planning.
In a lot of ways, what’s in the market dictates what people can buy more than what they can afford does. I had to buy an SUV the last time I bought a car because I need the 4 wheel drive for the winters here. I had a front wheel drive car once, and couldn’t get it out of my neighborhood when there was more than a half inch of snow on the road. That same SUV today is at least 25% larger than the model I bought, because “that’s what the market wants”, according to Toyota.
When I was first looking for apartments in 2010, studio apartments in my town started at the $1,500 to $1,700 per month range. The lowest rent I could find was a single room in somebody’s house with “occasional kitchen access” for $1,000 a month. And now there are cities where landlords are telling people making $100k that they need to find roommates to afford rent. A 2 bedroom house on a tiny plot of land that’s falling apart just down the street from my parent’s house got bought last week for $1.2 million. 10 years ago that house was probably worth $500k at best. The new owners intend to tear it down and replace it with an Air BnB, taking it off the housing market and further driving up housing prices in town. Builders are making luxury apartments and condos, and single family suburbs, instead of medium density multi-family housing because “that’s what the market wants” and definitely not because that’s what has the highest profit margins. I think there’s been 1 new mixed-use development built in my hometown since I was living there as a kid, but the number of condo developments has increased from 1 to 17 in that same time frame. Every year more kids leave because it’s simply unaffordable to live there. It was even when I was trying to live there, and it’s only gotten worse.
There’s people living above their means, and then there’s people making a six figure salary who just had to replace a car in a market where car prices spiked 30% in the last 3 months of 2023 alone. Personally, I probably wouldn’t even own a car if our country wasn’t built for cars instead of people. They’re priced as a luxury but considered a necessity by the powers that be. Even if you do a lot of the routine maintenance yourself, like me, it’s still prohibitively expensive for the majority of people. Even those we could consider High Earners.
Both can be true. There are many people who barely (or don’t) make enough to survive. There are also many people who spend money frivolously and then complain that they’re broke because of the economy.
Dude, i pay near $400 a month in just student loan payments. I had to buy a “new” car last year and this 8 year old Subaru cost me $360 a month. I could have bought another $4000 beater, but that’s a hole you never get out of because you are constantly having to replace cars that aren’t worth the scrap they are made of. Everyone has been on a knifes edge for the past 16 years and now everything costs double from them but wages have been the same. No amount of budgeting is gonna fix that.
I didn’t say that… my comment isn’t directed at people who are living paycheck to paycheck. It’s directed at people who think they should be rich because they have a high income, yet always seem to have found some unnecessary thing to spend their money on, which prevents them from building wealth.
If you’re always struggling to pay your bills, you need to increase your income. Not saying it’s your fault, just that practically that’s the best thing you can do for yourself in an imperfect system rigged against everyone but the very rich.
“just make more money” lmaooooo
You’re maliciously trying to misrepresent my comment.
On Lemmy financially irresponsible people don’t exist, and when making any statement to the contrary, all they can hear is “blah blah blah avocado toast”.
Didn’t you just say you improved your budget situation by buying a more reliable car?
No, they said that their choice was either an extra expense of $360 a month for the car that they bought, or $4,000 for a cheap beater that’s guaranteed to die on you at some point and be a hole that you perpetually shovel money into if you keep replacing it with more junkers.
That doesn’t mean that they can afford the extra $360 a month. Just that it was the cheaper option.
Yes, that’s what I was pointing out. He reduced his expenditures.
I suppose he could also go without a car entirely, depending on the circumstances.
He’s still paying $360 a month more than he was before he had to buy a car. His expenditures have increased overall, though not by as much as they possibly could have. But that doesn’t mean that they’ve reduced, unless you’re for some reason considering the cost of the previous car as being more expensive than the new payment in some way.
In fact, if he had bought the $4,000 beater and had to replace it after a year, it actually would’ve been cheaper than the new car - $4,000 over 12 months comes out to $333.33 a month. Of course, that doesn’t include anything like gas or maintenance, but neither does the monthly payment on the other car.
He didn’t specify how frequently he had to replace the beater. Since he was complaining about how it would be more expensive than the car he did bought, logically I would assume it would be more frequent than that (or would require costly repairs more frequently, with the same result).
If he chose the less economically efficient option, that’s even sillier. Why would he do that and then complain about it? This is really the whole point here - budget your money and choose the expenditures that make sense within your budget.
That’s irrelevant to the point I was making. I merely gave that as an example of how the beater could theoretically be cheaper than the car payments if it lasted that long without needing additional expenses. It could’ve been the cheaper option, but that would be gambling that it wouldn’t require additional work and still be running for a full 12 months.
My point is quite simple: He paid $400 a month in student loans. Now, he pays $760 a month due to having to buy a new car. That’s not reducing his expenditures, it’s increasing it. He didn’t go from paying $400 to $360. The $360 is an additional unplanned expense he has to pay now on top of his other monthly expenses because he had to replace his car.
But previously he was paying $4000-per-however-long-his-beaters-last. That was a planned expenditure too.
Whether this is an improvement or not is impossible to say without knowing how long his beaters lasted, that would be on him to figure out. Since he made the decision to switch to the non-beater I assumed he’d worked it out, but evidently that’s a bad assumption so who knows.
I don’t think you really know what “living paycheck to paycheck” actually means if you think it, in any way, involves investing.
I think his point is people are only living paycheck to paycheck out of choice when they could save and invest if they tightened their belts.
Not saying I agree, just explaining his perspective.
Maybe if they ate less avocado toast right!
In some cases genuinely yes. If you are earning $X and you are spending $X every month, but some of those expenditures are on luxury items like fine foods, then complaining about how you’re living paycheck-to-paycheck and don’t have the “choice” to invest rings hollow. You do have the choice to invest, you’re just choosing to spend that investable money on immediate luxuries instead.
SOME cases? Half the country isn’t really earning enough to more than barely get by. They have nothing to invest. They aren’t spending much on “fine” foods unless you are counting not eating entirely ramen and rice as “fine foods”
There are peple who are genuinly struggling.
Then there are those who choose to spend 10-20K on vacations every year and ‘feel’ they are struggling.
And these latter people will forever tell you how they are living ‘paycheck to paycheck’ and talk your ear off about how theri struggles are more genuine and ‘real’ than people who are actually poor.
You can have very high income and still live paycheck to paycheck if you spend every paycheck
“living paycheck to paycheck” generally means that all money is spent on living expenses and there is very little, if anything, left over. If you have any appreciable discretionary income, you are not living paycheck to paycheck.
Tell that to the people who make 150K and spend 200K a year.
Hint: they dont’ give a shit what you say.
I’m not concerned about what those people say; they are doing just fine. I’m concerned about the people who are actually living paycheck to paycheck.
Every time ive tried investing, i had to take it out after a few months to pay for something thats popped up in life after other things have raided my savings.
Investing is for people with a lot of excess cash.
Precisely, which is why I don’t think my comment is directed at you. If you’re always trying to get ahead of the latest unexpected big expense, you’re not a “HENRY.”
That’s what living pay check to pay check is though…
Not necessarily. It’s what living paycheck to paycheck is if you’re poor. If you make a lot of money but spend a lot of money on unnecessary things you can also be paycheck to paycheck.
What are those “somethings” that pop up every few months?
Broken phone, hot water heater, HVAC, fridge, washer, dryer, toilet, stove, oven, microwave, tv, personal computer, new shoes, new clothes, friend is getting married, friend is having a baby, the car needs a new set of tires, the car was rear ended, windshield was shattered by a rock that kicked up off the road on my way to work, need a new lawnmower cause the second hand Toro mower’s gas powered engine is shot, property taxes went up because home values went up, kids got sick and went to the doctor, dentist appointment found a cavity, accidentally sat on your glasses, suit doesn’t fit anymore and you have a funeral to attend, older windows on your house built in the 90’s are starting to go bad, storm damage to your out of warranty roof, deck needs to be rebuilt because the old wood is starting to dry rot, time to replace the bed(I know you’re supposed to replace them every 8 years, but you went ahead and stretched 15 out of this one because you’re frugal)…must I continue?
New shoes and new clothes should be part of your budget. You shouldn’t be blindsided by this.
Everything else, do some reseaech into ‘emergency fund’. You need one before you start investing, else yes you’ll be dipping into your investments the moment you need some extra cash and you might end up loosing money if the market has gone down when you sell.
That’s the point. Financial security is extraordinarily tough to come by so people can’t set aside the money for an emergency fund and invest. It’s not just poor budgeting, everything is getting more expensive for the middle class. Five years ago, my fiancee and I could buy 2 weeks of groceries for $100 at Aldi. Its doubled in that 5 years. Ironically, the most stable consumer good in the last 5 years has been gas and republicans bitch about that too.
Youbare mixing things up.
Groceries have gone up, no one is questioning this, we all feel it.
When questioned about what your emergency, unexpected expenses were, that made you dip into money that you had invested, you listed real emergencies (cavities) and stuff that should be in a budget - new shoes.
Read about personal finance. You have money that you spend as part of your budget bills, shoes, rent etc.
if you manage to have any left, you put them against an emergency fund, typical recommendation is you try to build a nest that allows you to leave for six months.
Then if you still manage to have any left, you start investing.
It looks like you did the wrong way, invested money that you actually needed.
Also, if you are redoing your deck and don’t have an emergency fund, toubare living on the edge. Shit happens like lose your job and break a leg and you don’t have money to pay your mortgage. But at least you have a new deck.
This is basic personal finance, has nothing to do with the price of groceries and you are not poor since you obviously have extra disposable income that you are using wrongly. The other guy isnright BTW you don’t need a new bed ffs, if you have money to throw away start building an emergency fund.
But obviously this is lemny and my logic is in the way of the narrative that the greedy corporations are causing everyone to leave one pay check to another. Hence all the downvotes.
…or zoom out and see the hypothetical scenarios I listed as exactly that. Hypothetical scenarios. You can sit and nitpick probably about half, but I came up with all of those things in about 4 minutes. You’re not getting down voted because this is Lemmy and corporations=bad or whatever. Corporations and their executives making way too much money tax-free is the popular opinion world wide. If they’re billionaires after a 45% tax rate, then holy shit! Good for you CEO! But that’s not what is happening. They’re making billions and paying 0% on it because they’re investing it and borrowing money from banks against their company. That’s why the democratic party has won the popular vote for decades. Everyone is able to see this and are tired of getting fucked by the wealthy and Reaganomics. The middle class is paying 13% on $40K while Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are paying less in total taxes while earning multiple billions. I shouldn’t have to forgo a $250 tv in order to invest for retirement. Quality of life should be rising along with technology. There was a point at which interior lighting and electricity was a luxury and wasn’t necessary for daily life. Should that mean that I should be expected to go without in order to invest? No, it became a public necessity due to it’s net benefit to society. There’s a huge benefit to society each being able to turn on the news/sitcoms/movies in their own house. It allows children to see the outside world and become familiar with pop culture, noteworthy news, documentaries etc. It isn’t just an entertainment box that melts your brain and destroys your cornea…
Let’s entertain your deck criticism for the fun of it, what happens when you have a few friends over? You’re standing on the deck grilling for everyone and the railing someone is leaning against breaks and they fracture their leg? Sure you could have repaired the deck, but you chose to save a few hundred dollars. Now your friend has a hospital bill for $40,000 because he needed reconstructive surgery for a displaced fracture. He doesn’t have the money and would lose his house if he goes into medical debt, so he has to file a claim against your home owners insurance. They tell him to scram because it’s YOUR fault the deck was falling into disrepair. You’re expected to keep up with the maintenance of your house. Now he’s forced to sue YOU for the money. So do you spend the $1000 to repair your deck or do you risk someone getting injured on your property because you don’t have an “emergency fund” and Jim Cramer told you the only way to get rich is by investing and letting your money work for you.
Look I hate ceos profits like anyone else here. But you are right you chose shitty examples to cry poor, and they make less and less sense as you keep going.
If you knew what making ends meet means, you’d stop with this deck nonsense. You wouldn’t have friends over when you can’t afford to buy groceries, or if you know your dexk ia not safe. And you’d understand that you are privileged, are making choices with your money, and are winging because you are wasting it - new deck, new shoes, new clothes and new bed.
But sure keep going. Redoing your deck is a basic human right, how dare anyone on lemmy challenge that.
No need to continue. I see a bunch that could have been postponed or omitted.
Like what
Stove, oven, and microwave are redundant; it’s convenient to have all of these but you don’t need all of them. The TV, also, is a luxury item. I don’t know what part of your friend’s wedding you paid for, but that’s not a necessity either. Did the person who rear-ended your car not have insurance? A gasoline lawnmower is excessive, get a push mower. Attend the funeral in less-expensive clothing. Windows starting to go bad haven’t actually gone bad. Deck wood starting to dry rot doesn’t mean it’s nonfunctional, and even if it is a deck is not a necessity; get rid of it instead. Replacing your bed “just because it’s time” is weird, was there actually something wrong with it?
I’m not saying it would be awesome to cut or postpone those expenditures. But you said you had to take your savings out to do these things, and that doesn’t seem true to me. You chose to take your savings out to do those things. If you value those things more than you value having savings, fine, that’s your choice. But “Investing is for people with a lot of excess cash” isn’t true. You could have chosen to have savings instead in exchange for a less expensive lifestyle.
What are you doing to those appliances that’s making the break down so rapidly, anyway? I’ve got a microwave that’s lasted me at least a decade. I’ve never had a TV or toilet “go bad.”
I generally agree with you. Just want to address this one point.
Newer appliances break down at a much faster rate and are more difficult to repair than those made a decade ago. Planned obsolescence. Your microwave hasn’t broken because it’s a decade old.
Well, the internal light did burn out, and for some strange reason it can only be replaced by half-disassembling the whole microwave so I never bothered. The internal light doesn’t help the microwave do its job.
Perhaps if it does eventually fail in a more meaningful way I’ll look into getting a second-hand one, if the newer models have such a propensity for breaking down.
This post is weird. I get it prices have sky-rocketed I can see it myself (australia), and I am sure some people are really suffering.
But here it’s getting ridiculous, look at me I’m poor i can barely make ends meet after I redid my fucking deck and I bought a new TV.
And if you say something that goes against lemmys narrative (corporations bad) the downwotes start flowing.
Another person in another thread is complaining about the price of grapes. In north America, when it’s fucking spring and they are out of season. Tried buying fruit that is in season? Yes it’s price has increased but ffs use your brain.
Yeah. The bit I find particularly weird is how you’re “supposed” to replace your bed every 8 years. I’ve never heard this and it makes little sense. Replace your bed when it needs replacing. They don’t have expiry dates on them, do they? If the mattress gets dirty there are ways to clean them. Use good sheets and that should keep the mattress clean to begin with.
I think a lot of people don’t understand what being poor is really like.
I don’t know your situation, but investing is riskier than a savings account, that currently yeilds a high interest rate.
If you need an emergency fund, make one in a high yield savings account first. My rough number is $10,000. “You’re missing out on the gains” is an incredibly shortsighted view people have in the stock market. “Gains” are made over 20 year periods.
This is really stupid.
You’re basically telling people “just be rich” like it’s that simple.
People living paycheck-to-paycheck are not able to invest money because they don’t have excess income, they get to decide if they want to pay for rent or want to pay for food. Combine that with astonishing inflation rates and salary raises that don’t match cost of living increases or simply layoffs, and we have one fucked up situation.
This is a systemic problem. Billionaires shouldn’t exist. Billionaires are a societal problem.
edit: Oh, I see your comment isn’t directed at people living paycheck-to-paycheck, that’s a bit more reasonable then but I still think you’re missing the mark. It’s not as simple as “just increase your income” like you seem to be thinking it is.
because it is that simple.
be rich or forever be poor.
this is the system we have setup and the system that we worship.
The problem in this thread is that there are people - such as the one mentioned in the title of this article - that are living paycheck-to-paycheck by choice. They choose to spend their entire paycheck on stuff. They don’t need to spend it all, they could save some, but instead they buy the biggest houses they can afford or build a deck they don’t actually need.
There are people who would literally die if they tried to significantly reduce their spending. Those are the people who don’t have a choice, and I sympathize with them and want solutions for this because it’s a serious problem. The others I have somewhat less sympathy for.
I try to save whatever extra I have, because everyone says I need to have six months of expenses saved.
The problem is that before I can save up enough to cover that there’s some huge expense that I need to cover that empties it out and puts me even more into debt.
If I could manage to save up a year of expenses, I could probably start my own consulting agency and start making a lot of money, but I just can’t get there.
The problem is that for many folks the amount they are making isn’t enough for them to live a very reasonable life AND they have nothing to invest in the first place. Suppose a household in a given area needs $100,000 to afford a VERY modest house in that area, health insurance, savings, healthy food etc. Now suppose the house has one disabled breadwinner and one fellow working for $40,000.
Because of this they live in shit town in a tiny apartment a building full of drug addicts in a not so great part of the state wherein the average life expectancy is about 10 years less than one of the good parts of the country.
The first 40k of “excess” would be spent on having a decent life, working a sane number of hours, moving into an actual home. For fully half the country the idea of having excess is laughable. It’s a crass joke.
My SO has a medical condition that limits her income. I’m in academia, so I don’t make much and work crazy hours. We get to have happy day to day, and save money to invest by renting a shity apartment. As in, my investment account is worth more than that of some friends in software development, cus they wanted to live in good apartments.
It doesn’t matter that average life expectancy is 10 years shorter. It matters why. Are people randomly getting murdered or constantly exposed to high air pollution? Don’t live there. Is it shorter cus they are mostly stupid fucks that eat shity food and their only hobby is smoking on the bench below the building? You can live there fine, those are my neighboors. Doesn’t stop me from eating healthy home made food, staying in shape and saving money.
Am I happy about it? No, I will never own a house, and it sucks cus I love to tinker, and enjoy growing plants. But I can live a full filling live, better than any king that ever lived up till around the 18-19 century, and save money.
The economic system is dead, it died in 2008. Combine that with climate change, and things are only going to get worse. Unless some politician is going to pull out free, infinite, energy machine out of their arse they can’t do much as the system is already collapsing.
You can be smart about it, and have a few more happy years before we all die. Or you can be stupid about it, and suffer till we all die.
Most areas don’t need $100,000 a year to afford a “very modest house”, you could get a nice mobile home and afford to pay off the loan in just a couple years.
the areas where most people live, however, do.
nobody wants to live in trailer park in Mobile, AL.
Everybody wants everything at no cost. That’s not how the world works, though. If you earn $X a month and want to save some of it as a long-term investment, you simply cannot spend $X a month. You can’t have both.
There are indeed some people who have no choice but to spend $X a month, their basic expenses just can’t go any lower without literally ending up on the street or straight up dying. Those people do have a real problem and I sympathize with them.
People who say “I want to save money but I also want to live in the nicest possible house in the nicest possible neighborhood” I have less sympathy with, because they have a choice. I face that choice myself and instead of griping about how I can’t have everything I want with no sacrifice I just go ahead and make the choice. I don’t spend all my money each month, and as a result I don’t take vacations as nice as I could take and I don’t have as nice a car as I could have. But in exchange for that I’ve got plenty of savings built up.
Why not?
Lets define “most”. Herein I define most as the area immediately surrounding the majority of people. 70% of people live in urban areas not out in bum fuck.
I live in a small city of 50,000 in Washington. A house around here starts at about 400k. I would have to pay about 3100 per month including taxes and insurance. I would take home about 6500 per month after taxes if I made 100k. At current interest rates I would need to spend 3100 per month to service such a loan.or about 47% of my take home pay. It is difficult to see how I could afford a home with a household not individual of less than 100,000.
Adjacent to me is a much bigger city with about 20x the jobs and opportunities. I would need more like 900k to buy into there. Realistically to afford a home there we are talking about my household making more than 200k. Why so much? Because housing has got very expensive and interest is very high.
A ton of urban areas have much options cheaper than the west coast though, mobile homes, townhouses, duplexes, etc. $400,000 is much more than a very modest house. For example I would consider a shotgun house very modest, and short of very high income areas they’re usually much less than $400,000
Cheaper places are cheaper for a reason. Worse health care. Worse education for your kids. Worse life expectancy. Worse Opportunity. For instance St Louis has a median home price of 207k but they also have 10x the murder rate of Seattle a worse jobs outlook. You’ll make less money etc.
Who in their right mind would want to live in a red state?
Yes, and I agree I prefer higher density, but ultimately some people living in less desirable areas is more reasonable than trying to build ever taller skyscrapers in city centers- in a country with massive amounts of empty land.
It depends, there are plenty of cheaper cities with very good healthcare, I grew up in Louisville, KY, spent a lot of time in LA, CA, and now live in Prague, CZ. Louisville has had the cheapest rent/purchase price and had by far the best quality healthcare(at least that I and my family received) out of anywhere I’ve lived.
This is valid in some cases, and there are plenty of valid reasons to desire living somewhere else more, that doesn’t mean there aren’t costs to that. Furthermore, there are plenty of expensive places with terrible school systems, plenty of cheap places with passable school systems, but more importantly traditional schools systems in general suck. Kids now days have access to the internet, that combined with parents who encourage curiosity and creativity will be much more important to them learning than the school system they go to.
That is cherrypicking, compare Chicago to Fargo, ND. Or a less distant example, Seattle to Spokane.
Assuming you don’t work remotely, but you’ll also spend less.
Not about being red or blue, its about not being a HCOL megalopolis. You can also move to Maine.
Manhattan doesn’t have much room to expand up or out but but Seattle still has 70% single family homes it and surrounding cities have plenty of room to build up.
Spokane is largely populated by bigots and Trumpers. In particular the state congressman they elected wrote a paper the “biblical basis for war” wherein he advocated that after the fall of the united states they would make war on the rest of us nonbelievers taking the women prisoners and killing men who wouldn’t submit in his new Christofascist white ISIS like kingdom. He was then caught trying to “rescue” a bunch of Ukrainian kids on behalf of an organization that existed on paper only without doing boring stuff like making sure they didn’t have parents fighting in the war or other relations who wanted to take them.
On an economic front the Seattle Metro area has substantial commerce, an international airport, a port and 4M people. Spokane has about 230k. Adding another 230k would be a 5% increase in population for the Seattle Metro it would double spokane. The resources for expanding housing and resources in the Seattle metro actually exist. If it ever makes it there that is about half a century of growth for Spokane.
Ah the ol’ deserving poor schtick. Classic.
OP is like: Even if you have highly-valuable skills, you can’t get ahead, because the game is stacked in favor of renting out your assets instead of delivering valuable labor.
Reply is like: Yeah, but have you considered renting out your assets though?
Come up with a better idea besides complaining.
The funny thing is: You’re not wrong, you’re just talking about it at the wrong level.
Individually, if you don’t save and invest, you’re gonna be screwed due to unpredictable expenses, inflation, and lack of runway for retirement.
But if you zoom out and look at a whole population, it’s also true that tons of people are in such severe financial conditions that they can’t save and invest, so your advice is something like “buy a life jacket” to someone who’s already 10 feet underwater.
And if you zoom out even further, there’s no way that we’re going to solve severe wealth inequality through individual action. And especially not through investing, which helps you as an individual relative to other individuals, but also provides more options to the wealthy recipients/managers of the funds to extract wealth at a rate higher than your ROI, which accelerates the concentration of assets in the hands of people who already own a disproportionate amount of them.
what the heck’s a rimjob?