By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Baalzamon on 06 January 2020
SpokenTruth said:
Snoopy said:

Despite the fact that health insurance has gotten more expensive when the federal government got more involved.

I just told you why and you ignored it.  I'll tell you again but don't ignore it again.

In a capitalist society, a business will charge the absolute maximum it can get away with.  When a service is guaranteed to be paid for (government or insurance), then the business will charge as much as possible.  THAT is why the prices go up when government or insurance gets involved.....because capitalism.

Baalzamon said:
A 3000 square foot house doesn't provide any more "need" for somebody vs a 1000 square foot house than a game of League of Legends.

Let's not pretend here like somebody making even $20,000 per year can't afford the true needs to live (water, food, some form of shelter, and air). The fact is, free services available to many today do provide a value to people.

Regarding the inability to invest, it's a lost cause attempting to argue the point, as people who don't get it simply don't get it, and will always come up with a reason on why it isn't possible for them, and how they are an exception. Meanwhile, I'll continue to invest, as I did while working at Sam's Club making $8.50/hour in college pushing carts.

Nobody struggling is buying a 3,000 sqft house.  I can't even believe you just suggested the average person struggling is living in a 3k sqft home.

And that $20k doesn't do much for anybody in an area with above average costs or in a family household. 60% of that $20k is going to housing and I damn sure don't mean no frikkin 3,000 square foot home. 

Baalzamon said:

I just wanted to visit the housing part of this, as there is a reason I brought it up with the square footage.

There is this wild saying that housing is increasing so much faster than inflation.

Home sizes (https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/todays-new-homes-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-the-living-space-per-person-has-doubled-over-last-40-years/) have increased from 1,660 square feet in 1973 to 2,679 square feet in 2013 (despite less people actually living in the average house). When calculating home prices on a per square foot basis...they absolutely have NOT increased 100% over the last 50 years adjusted for inflation.

In addition to the per square foot price actually staying near the same over the last 40-50 years, interest rates have actually gone from 8.5% in 1970, down to around 4% today.

This means for how much house you are actually getting today, your true cost of a mortgage has actually...decreased...over the last 40-50 years.

What did that just say?  "Today's NEW HOMES...."?  Are struggling people buying 2,679 sqft NEW HOMES? Struggling people aren't buying new homes.  Hell, they aren't even buying.  Look at the increase in apartments, condos and micro-homes. If struggling people were all buying big ass homes, who are peopel leasing these apartments, condos and micro-homes?

You cannot possibly be this distanced from reality.

You don't get it, do you? The entire argument people make regarding home prices rising substantially faster than inflation over the last 50 years simply isn't true on a square foot basis.

Homes cost the same or less now on a square foot basis than they did 50 years ago.

If one wants to make an argument that smaller homes simply aren't available at all anymore (as some have here), that is a possibility.

Looking real quick on Zillow, there are numerous homes in my hometown (1400-2000 square feet) for $70-$150k. These aren't beautiful houses, but they are functional, working homes. This is $50-$75/square foot, which just further shows...yes, there are reasonable sized homes for good prices too.

If these homes are entirely unaffordable to the poor, than the exact same homes were entirely unaffordable to the poor 50 years ago as well.

It's the entire basis of my argument...we are NOT worse off than we were 50 years ago.

Does this mean somebody on a minimum wage job can afford even a $75k house? Not necessarily...but they have never been able to, so stop acting like it has changed for the worse.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Baalzamon on 06 January 2020

2/3, the median home (not just brand new) only lags new by a couple of years for square footage. ALL homes have been increasing in size (and not really price per square foot). That doesn't mean there are no longer small homes...just that most people who are buying houses are going much larger.

4 is pretty easy to answer. This "lowest since 1945" was first an issue in 2008 until about 2011...you know, when people were buying houses WAY too big for them, and many proceeded to get foreclosed on. This number has proceeded to increase from $6T at it's low in 2010 to over $15T today.

There are likely a multitude of other issues at play here. Many millenials get married, start families, etc later than ever. While there are people who choose to still buy homes before this stage, many people are living in apartments until they get here. I'm sure student loan debt likely plays a big role as well (whether or not they should have that much which is an entirely different article). It certainly makes it more difficult to save up for a down payment if you have $100k in student loans.

I'd also argue that apartment costs are absolutely insane. My nice 2200 square foot house is cheaper (after utilities, repairs, mortgage, insurance etc) than a pretty normal 2 bedroom apartment in the area. Rather than choosing to rent out homes and split it among multiple people (as I did), I can understand where somebody gets stuck in a situation of paying high rent and struggling to save down payment money on top of this.

None of this changes that homes really haven't outpaced inflation like everybody seems to keep saying. It's all certainly potential reasons on why it might be difficult for some people to save, however.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

SuaveSocialist on 06 January 2020

Baalzamon said:

None of this changes that homes really haven't outpaced inflation like everybody seems to keep saying.

Average household income in the Former Uni ted Stat es 1950: $3300 annually, which is $35 219 adjusted for inflation.
Average new house price in the Former Uni ted Stat es 1950: $7354 (2.22x the family's income), which is $78 486 adjusted for inflation.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Average household income in the present West Korea: $61 937 annually, about 1.75x  higher than the inflation-adjusted wages of 1950.
Median new house price in the present West Korea: $299 000 (4.80x the family's income), around 3.8x higher than the inflation-adjusted houses of 1950.
Average new house price in the present West Korea: $362 000 (5.84x the family's income) around 4.6x higher than the inflation-adjusted houses of 1950.

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demo/p60-009.html

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/09/us-median-household-income-up-in-2018-from-2017.html

https://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/pdf/uspricemon.pdf

Average house size 1953: 983 sq
Average house size 2019: 2543 sq (2.58x bigger)

https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html

http://eyeonhousing.org/2019/05/new-single-family-home-size-first-quarter-2019-data/

Even going by the house size, the average costs (3.8-4.6x the inflation-adjusted price of a 1950 house) exceed the average size (2.58x larger), and the average family income has been left behind.

Homes have outpaced inflation and wages.  That's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of financial record.



Pyro as Bill on 06 January 2020

House price =/= cost
$200,000 @2% = $850/month
$94,000 @10% = $850/month



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

SuaveSocialist on 06 January 2020
Pyro as Bill said:
House price =/= cost
$200,000 @2% = $850/month
$94,000 @10% = $850/month

Fake math.

Next time, use the current house prices (299 000 - 362 000) with the current interest rates (3.52% - 3.99%).

SPOILER WARNING: It's higher than $850/month.  What are the odds?



sundin13 on 06 January 2020

Also very much worth noting that for many Americans, "housing costs" and "cost of new construction" aren't the same thing. Many people rent in order to get their housing. If rental costs are increasing, it wouldn't be wrong to state that housing costs are increasing, even if new construction isn't necessarily getting more expensive.



TallSilhouette on 06 January 2020



SuaveSocialist on 06 January 2020
SpokenTruth said:
SuaveSocialist said:

Fake math.

Next time, use the current house prices (299 000 - 362 000) with the current interest rates (3.52% - 3.99%).

SPOILER WARNING: It's higher than $850/month.  What are the odds?

I'm seriously trying to get how he thinks struggling people are going to qualify for 2% when average rates have never. ever been 2% to begin with.  In fact, the lowest I could find was a 2.56% for a 15 year fixed.  Yep, because struggling people always have the ability to go for the 15 year fixed option, right?

It would have been helpful if he had any sources for where he got those numbers.  But even by themselves, they're distinctly unhelpful.  No indication of what the down payments were, how long the mortgage is, not to mention the possible omission of other costs such as insurance and taxes.  Nor did he mention where those houses would have been purchased or what year.

As it stands, literally everything he wrote was wrong.  I am singularly impressed with the sheer density of illogic and mathematical errors his little post had.  It was as if Beloved Leader himself was slapping his stubby little fingers on the calculator.



Pyro as Bill on 06 January 2020
SuaveSocialist said:
SpokenTruth said:

I'm seriously trying to get how he thinks struggling people are going to qualify for 2% when average rates have never. ever been 2% to begin with.  In fact, the lowest I could find was a 2.56% for a 15 year fixed.  Yep, because struggling people always have the ability to go for the 15 year fixed option, right?

It would have been helpful if he had any sources for where he got those numbers.  But even by themselves, they're distinctly unhelpful.  No indication of what the down payments were, how long the mortgage is, not to mention the possible omission of other costs such as insurance and taxes.  Nor did he mention where those houses would have been purchased or what year.

As it stands, literally everything he wrote was wrong.  I am singularly impressed with the sheer density of illogic and mathematical errors his little post had.  It was as if Beloved Leader himself was slapping his stubby little fingers on the calculator.

What are you going on about?

I was pointing out the obvious fact that house prices are meaningless without taking interest rates into account.

That's it.

It's dumb to compare prices over decades, even accounting for inflation, when interest rates were vastly different.

I'm not making an argument for or against anything.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

SuaveSocialist on 06 January 2020
Pyro as Bill said:
SuaveSocialist said:

It would have been helpful if he had any sources for where he got those numbers.  But even by themselves, they're distinctly unhelpful.  No indication of what the down payments were, how long the mortgage is, not to mention the possible omission of other costs such as insurance and taxes.  Nor did he mention where those houses would have been purchased or what year.

As it stands, literally everything he wrote was wrong.  I am singularly impressed with the sheer density of illogic and mathematical errors his little post had.  It was as if Beloved Leader himself was slapping his stubby little fingers on the calculator.

1. What are you going on about?

2. I was pointing out the obvious fact that house prices are meaningless without taking interest rates into account.

1. Your crimes against math and logic.  They were lengthy enough for a Klingon opera.

2. Then use real house prices and real interest rates.  The point you were trying to make has been rendered absurd by the use of fake house prices, fake interest rates, and an incomplete mortgage calculation.