I bought my house in 2014, $224k at 4% APR, my monthly payment including taxes is $1400/mo.
It’s only been 11 years, inflation is up ~35% in that time, so buying the same house now should be ~$1900/mo. Actual price if I were to buy it now? ~$3500/mo. And wages have barely budged. No wonder young people entering the workforce can’t buy houses anymore.
We bought a house in Tampa Florida area in 2018, our monthly cost was $1400/month. Moved to Washington in 2022 and bought a house and the house is smaller and our monthly payment is $3k. Area matters of course, but comparably I’d imagine we’re in similar situations.
Interestingly, though, that huge run-up in price is also half the reason why people think they need to own homes. We need to stop looking to homes to be the “engine of wealth creation” or we’re only asking for more of this.
The other half of the equation, of course, is wanting to have a stable home that you can control. And that’s still as valid as ever.
But homeownership isn’t necessarily the best choice for everyone. It reduces your mobility and optionality and it carries some risks and hidden costs.
But as long as everyone looks at it as the gateway to wealth, and feels like everyone is getting a piece of that action except them, it will contribute to the continuation of hyperinflation.
This is exactly right. I don’t believe in property ownership anyway, but even if you do, it is still irrational to chase this from a social and economic planning model. Life should be affordable for everyone. Period.
Exactly. $400 for mine. $100 would fill a shopping cart with groceries back then. Health insurance: $80-125/mo. Internet: $15/mo. Garage sales almost everything was less than $10, most of it was less than $5. Goodwill was a deal. DIY/homemade was a deal, a way to save money.
It was a different time. There’s no equivalent to that time today, today is pretty awful.
And now it’s all going to be so much worse thanks to MAGA, oligarchs, and Heritage.
Yes, what is up with thrift stores charging almost the same as “first-hand” stores? Yet another example of how this generation is screwed (along with all of us old people).
Or they somehow want to price things off eBay prices. Bro, you are a thrift store. You aren’t some place that should be trying to get the absolute most out of an item.
Price it vaguely on what people might pay for some used, unwashed, beat to hell thing. If someone thinks they can get more by selling it online, that’s fine. That’s on them. You don’t have to compete with them. Turnover of items is more important than the most money on that old glass cup.
You used to be able to get grandpa’s old used golf clubs for $5/7 at goodwill and I put together a whole set for cheap. Moved and had to leave it behind now they put all the clubs straight online, you can’t even get them at the stores anymore. And the price is barely better than a newvset from Walmart. I wanna golf again :(
Video games are almost always ridiculous too. They’ll sell anything good online, and then charge like $10 for one of their 40 copies of Wii Fit.
The only good place to thrift nowadays is the small local places run by like churches. Goodwill sells shitty acrylic yarn for more than it costs new, wants $20+ for used kitchen appliances, sells current dollar tree shit for $5…
Goodwill fell off. It’s worth noting how the stuff we buy is basically worthless for resale the moment we buy it, since cheap new stuff is outcompeting it. It’s only value is use value.
Good news! Tariffs just made new stuff significantly more expensive so the resale value will be higher now. /s
Watching new vs used prices on things will be intresting
They do employ people who might not be able to get a job elsewhere, so not evil, just halfway shitty.
What the fuck? Thanks for making my day even worse I guess. Seriously thank you for the information, they will no longer get my business.
Hey, at least they employ people who might not be able to get a job elsewhere. Goodwill does anyway.
I know it’s a little off topic but eBay is a fucking scam as well… So many used items go for prices very close to brand new. I live in California, which charges VAT for ebay transactions. Add in shipping and I would be paying more than brand new for the vast majority of the inventory.
There are no good deals on ebay unless you spend a lot of time in bidding wars. You still risk getting a damaged item too…
Walmart cut costs to the bone and squeezed down on what thrift stores used to charge.
Thrift stores are a deal compared to Macy’s, JC Penny, and such.
Boutique thrift shops all try to act like they’re some amazing place to find funky retro fashion just waiting to be discovered on a Tiktok. It’s all overpriced. We’ve been to Goodwill and Habitat locally for stuff. Prices go from great to dirt cheap. They just want to move stuff, not hold on to someone’s idea of vintage cool.
Ive noticed this at chains, but not at my local stores. Goodwill for example, I always see dollar tree items marked as $2+. I know Theyre from dollar tree because theyre still in the damn package.
I found a neat looking board game at the thrift store once. I looked it up on my phone to check reviews, and learned it would be cheaper to buy it new than what they were asking. Usually they have good deals but not that time.
I blame macklemore.
Now playing MACKLEMORE & RYAN LEWIS - Thrift Shop
Agreed.
The only way for a wage earner to bootstrap their way up is to have money when historic opportunities to invest present themselves, like March 2020 and April 2025. If you have a few thousand to invest now, chances are that will turn into a massive profit over time. And even better, hold those securities for longer than a year and you get a preferred, lower tax rate on any profits.
But most people can’t do that. They’re stuck taking out an (air quotes) “interest-free” loan from Klarna to make sure they don’t starve this week. Our politicians are, thankfully, focused on the most important priorities, like drag queen story time. (And that’s sarcasm, btw.)
Please don’t invest right now. You are right that you can make a lot of money if you know what you’re doing, but it’s still a casino. With the people running the US right now, if they ever fully implement the tariffs, the market is going to eat shit. Then you can buy if there’s some glimmer of hope like Republicans losing Congress in 2026. I’m not trying to do US defaultism here, I believe this advice holds worldwide.
I pulled all my money out when Trump got elected, and that was a good choice. If I’d gone all in on options I’d be straight up hood rich, but I can’t gamble everything we have.
If the US collapses, the dollars you saved from pulling your investments is worthless…
That’s true, but so would the investments themselves.
Yes… But if the US doesn’t collapse then you make a lot of money buying the dip.
So either the US survives, and you make a lot of money if you invested, or the US crumbles and your cash or investments are both worth the same amount (zero).
I switched my retirement accounts to cash apprx feb 28, before the tariffs announcement and the market starting crashing. I just moved back into stocks this week. I’m convinced we’ve seen the worst of the tariffs… too many people are in trumps ear telling him he’s a retard. It’s only up from here.
Cluster B personality disorders don’t change their mind when called out, they double down. And interruption of the self constructed false reality makes them reactive.
I hope you’re correct for your benefit and the benefit of people who have retirement funds in the market.
I disagree however. Even if that fucking toddler-brained jackass backs completely off the tariffs (which I don’t think his ego will let him) he will do more heinous shit that will ruin the world economy in other ways. He’s also got several accelerationists in his ear that would love to see another great depression.
In less than 90 days the tariffs are back on, and the insane China ones are currently rolling I believe. Adidas put out a statement today saying the shoes are going to get a lot more expensive. Also, as of today, the oligarch Jeff Bezos is under federal investigation over a rumor that Amazon was going to tell customers what portion of the price of an item was due to tariffs. Just over a rumor. A rumor about a legal action that would be a smart business decision.
I’m keeping my money in the bank, and some in cash hidden in my home. Hopefully FDIC insurance still works.
Yeah. We’ll see i suppose. The markets holding back a lot of suppressed upward mobility that we saw when the fake “tariffs are off” tweet happened. One whiff of good news will have us going up again.
In any case, at least I mitigated some of the damage. Can’t win 100% every time.
Just keep in mind the maxim- The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. It’s more of a vibes casino than it ever was before the GME stuff.
Even though I think you could be right, please don’t bet the barn. I don’t want to see you get hurt.
Ill be ok. Been 100% in a vtsax equivalent for 10 years… not retiring any time soon
Strongly agree. We’ve seen nothing yet and I think we’re going to see quarter after quarter of poor earnings and layoffs. Some empty shelves mid to late May. Housing crash at the end of this year or beginning of 2026. Hate to be somewhat doom and gloom but I’m also not going to miss this opportunity to jump back in with liquid. Good luck!
I was finally in a position to buy my first home just after the 2008 recession. Just a fluke of timing, and just enough to afford a hundred year old bungalow, but that luck gave me leverage. Sold the house 5 years later when I had a kid, paid off my college debt, and moved to a lower COL area. Never could have happened if I’d bought earlier or later.
Pooooor Heritage Foo dation
Actually think their kids will be down to be obscenely rich in the future world where coral reef diving and backcountry skiing are only possible in VR
(I have to assume wealth and intelligence have a decent correlation sometimes, but Heritage proves the relationship is certainly not 1:1)
(I have to assume wealth and intelligence have a decent correlation sometimes, but Heritage proves the relationship is certainly not 1:1)
They decidedly do not have a correlation. The majority of wealthy people inherited their wealth. Inheriting enough wealth to pay a competent finance professional has been the primary means of accruing wealth since at least the 80s. Those getting wealthy from startups and the like are outliers.
All CEOs are bastards or something
“Have you tried simply having more money?”
Life’s really easy when you’re born rich and white.
If you’re born rich it doesn’t matter what color you are. The difference is probably being born middle class and white, that’s probably where you reap the most benefit from systemic racism. Being born poor, doesn’t matter, the cards are forever stacked against you.
I started at $1,400 in 2011. That went up to $3,200 by 2023 for the cheapest place in a worse part of town.
I had to move to an entirely different city. Fuck San Diego. Shitty ass city.
My last apartment was 1500 a month and I made a huge jump to buy a house with a 2500 a month mortgage. Seems crazy at first, but in 5 years that same shitty “luxury” apartment is going to cost at least 2800 a month.
My parents, 35000 dollars for a two bedroom, 1 bath house 3 acres of land in the middle of BFE back in the 80’s
Today, 3 bed, 1 bath house with less than .25 acres, 200k same BFE area.
With inflation something comparable to my parents house in BFE, because it’s not changed all that much, should only be 100k.
And the recent minimum wage increase to 13.75 an hour passed by the people is in process of being revoked by Republicans.
And I do get tired of visiting home and taking to people that spout off the ‘back in my day’ bs.
BFE?
Acronym for being in the middle of nowhere.
“Bum Fuck Egypt” or some odd variant of that.
I’ve heard of “Butt Fuck Nowhere.” But never BFE or Egypt.
It’s been around a long time, at least since the ‘80s. You can now add it to your vocabulary.
Or not if noone knows what it means and it makes no sense.
Everybody I know knows what BFE is. Ask around.
It does make sense. It’s hyperbolically saying it’s so far away it might as well be in Egypt.
A lot of us in the Midwest say BFI, with I being Iowa. Think it has more to do with none of us wanting to be in Iowa.
I don’t care, you do you. Nobody’s making you do anything. Plenty of people do know, so not like your lack of knowledge limits anyone else’s usage.
Sounds like “I enjoy being indecipherable, not my problem!”
Everyone said BFE and still says it, where I grew up.
It means out in the middle of nowhere. Most people know what it means, looks like it is just you here who doesn’t.
And you know the person that literally asked. And all the people that upvoted him. And if you look the comment saying he’s never heard of it has more upvotes than the comment saying it’s common. Brilliant analysis that it’s only me lol.
I see a lot of folks here saying “based on inflation since X, item Y SHOULD only cost Z.” I want to point out those inflation numbers the government gives out every year are complete bullshit. Inflation has been WAY more than 30% over the last decade and a half or so (not you but someone above mentioned 30% as the inflation number since the aughts)
They change their basket of goods to artificially deflate inflation numbers, it is way way way higher than the 2% a year that they claim is the average. Add greed on top and you get the crazy insane prices we see today. For a 2% inflation to really work for everyone and not just the rich assholes then minimum wage needs to increase proportionately. Should force minimum wage up the stated inflation rate once a year. So every year min wage increases by 2% (or more depending on the actual inflation rate).
the recent minimum wage increase to 13.75 an hour
Have higher standards
Seriously. I’m sick of this let’s-beg-for-an-itty-bitty-change nonsense. If rent near me is $2000/month, and that’s supposed to be 1/3 of my pay, then I should be making $6000 per month ($72k per year!)
Assuming I worked a full 40 hours every week, with 4 full weeks in a month, that means I’d need to make $1,500 per week, which breaks down to $37.50 per hour (before taxes, as well as before payments for employee benefits, garnishments, etc.)
I don’t live anywhere fancy. This place is an average apartment with too little parking and too many centipedes. Thankfully, I am not paying the entire rent by myself at this time, because I don’t make anywhere near $37.50/hour.
If $13.75 was the wage of somebody who worked a full 40 hours/week, for 4 weeks, they’d only make $2,200. Total. That’s it. For the entire month.
If your fight for a new minimum wage is starting with a number less than 30, you’ve already lost.
We had to give up entirely on affording a house. There are ROOMS for rent at $1200 here. This used to be a low COL area until COVID. We had low infection rates so a ton of people moved here and we don’t have the infrastructure to support them. We’ve been priced out of what living space we did have and since there’s still the illusion it’s cheap to live here, it’s almost impossible to get a living wage.
Is this the original unmodified drawing? What a dump truck on the lad.
Dr. Manhatten got back.
Nope!
Right I remembered him fit, not deformed lol.
Somebody actually took the time and effort to make that adjustment.
This is from the alternate reality where Rob Liefeld illustrated Watchmen
Nah, Doc has feet, couldn’t be liefeld
No one wants to work (for nothing) anymore!
There’s a famous Agatha Christie quote where she mentions that when she was young, she never imagined she’d be rich enough to own an automobile or poor enough to not have servants in her house. At some point, the affordability of one shot way past the other.
In my lifetime, I’ve seen huge cost increases in housing, and huge cost decreases in most technological products. When I was a kid, the normal TV size was something like 20 inches, and cost more than a month’s rent for a typical apartment. In 1990, the average rent was $447, according to this. I found a Sears catalog from 1989 with a 25 inch TV selling for $549, and a 20 inch TV for $318. It would be hard to convince someone from 1990 that one day the cheapest, shittiest apartments in the poorest neighborhoods would rent for more than a 60-inch TV per month. Or that the typical ambulance ride costs something like a month’s salary of a factory worker.
That’s the real problem with old people’s sense of money. The human tendency is to assume that all products cost the same multiple of those products prices in their early adulthood, so the luxury products of their youth remain the luxury products of today. These old people are stuck in some kind of Agatha Christie style of cost comparison, without the self awareness, and thinking that someone who owns a cell phone should be able to afford to buy a single family detached house, or couldn’t possibly be bankrupted by a single Emergency Room visit.
Please stop blaming “old people”. It’s a divide and conquer tactic. I have grown children that are struggling with housing costs, and I absolutely understand why. Because greedy wealthy people/corporations are buying up all the property. If “old people” are pulling the avocado toast argument—they’re probably wealthy. Young wealthy people use the same argument. Something to think about regarding TVs. They were expensive back in the day, but they lasted 30+ years. ✌️ ☮️
Please stop blaming “old people”.
I’m not “blaming” anyone. I’m pointing out the mechanism that causes a portion of old people to be out of touch on these things. They rely on their own experiences to draw inferences that don’t actually apply to others.
"That’s the real problem with old people’s sense of money”. That is blaming old people.
“Blame” means to attribute for some negative result. There’s no assigning fault here, just an observation, and an explanation behind that observation.
If I said “Bob is a fucking idiot,” that’s not blaming Bob for anything.
So yeah, I stand by my explanation behind the observation in OP’s screenshot: that people tend to draw on past experiences even when those experiences are no longer as relevant, or are even actively misleading. And that the phenomenon I describe (that not all prices inflate at the same rate or preserve the same ratios to each other) exacerbates the problem.
OK. I’m seeing “the real problem with old people”. So, de facto, there’s a problem with old people.
The topic of the original posted screenshot is about inter-generational financial advice. I’m pointing out the need for intellectual humility when talking to a younger generation, by identifying a specific cognitive bias that tends to trip people up. And because this particular bias forms through experience, it tends to apply more to people with longer experience (that is, people who are older).
I thought my original comment wasn’t judgmental, and didn’t even purport to claim that all (or most) old people actually fall victim to the bias, to where they’re acting upon that bias. I’m just pointing out that it’s something to look out for, and to keep in mind, if you’re ever in the position to be giving younger generations financial advice.
Coming in here and trying to defend old people against an imagined attack is, frankly, off topic and not particularly helpful.
It is absolutely OK to assign accurate blame and this basic misunderstanding absolutely afflicts people who aren’t rich. The kind of person who bought their house when it’s cheap and thinks the $2000 they pay in property taxes per year are murderous whilst ignoring the fact that folks around them are paying $2000 a month in rent.
I don’t know where you live, but property taxes are sky rocketing as well. And, thanks to global warming, house insurance is also sky rocketing. A lot of people who own their home are facing difficulties. There are communities in British Columbia where insurance companies refuse to offer fire coverage. There are communities in British Columbia where insurance companies refuse to offer flood insurance. These same insurance companies used to. You know why they won’t now?? Because the Oligarchs own the insurance companies, and they know what’s coming.
I totally agree with you that this is true, but I think it’s more a problem with reactionary thinking than anything else. The way I see it, the type of thinking that leads to reactionary comments is individualistic solutions to social and economic problems because you’re not allowed to question affordability.
People of all ages pull this shit. I can’t count how many times some millennial on reddit made unwanted suggestions for a poor person’s budgeting or grocery purchases. It is obviously difficult for older folks to understand things they’re not experiencing, but I don’t think that’s the primary issue.
Ask any traitor lunatic under 40 what to do about high prices, they’ll tell you exactly.
I definitely see this a lot. Any time someone complains about the unaffordability of life you get a swarm of people prying into their personal details desperately trying to figure out how that person’s situation is their own fault.
Exactly. I never want to hear from someone making >$300,000 that I should be eating lentils all week.
My first apartment (without roommates) was $600/month I think. I just check the present day at it rents for $1400! The mortgage cost on my first house (small/low cost of living area) was only $1000/month.
I just don’t know how young people are affording housing these days.
Well, most don’t. Just let them enjoy abuse at home.
I rent my parents’ other house and just pay carrying costs. It’s still $2800/month because of location. Trust me, it’s a much better deal than it sounds…
Is it greedy landlords? Or is there a bigger issue at play, and landlords are the scapegoat? I imagine not all landlords are greedy, but if market price is $1,600, why wouldn’t the landlord charge $1,600?
Why should we have a market for housing at all? Not everything needs to be a market
Also add in: education, health care, and prisons.
It’s appalling the things people are able to make money off of and still sleep well at night.
but if market price is $1,600, why wouldn’t the landlord charge $1,600?
Because they’re not greedy. Since they all do, they’re all greedy. No exceptions.
There’s a concept of supply and demand. There should be more supply.
No, not all landlords are greedy but the ones who’s decisions have a large impact on the housing market are. The elderly widow who is renting out her basement to a young professional isn’t being greedy. The CEO who said this quarter he’ll return 25 million in stock buy backs instead of the regular 15 million are the greedy motherfuckers
whose
You got 2 downvotes for saying it’s not all landlords. I think that was what I was getting at.
It’s easy to point your finger and blame an imaginary person for your problems. But it’s often much more complicated than that.
There’s an infrastructure built around benefiting people with wealth that, in turn, harms people without wealth.
Are you not in America? We have whole software systems illegally manipulating the rental market prices.
This is a great example of one of those “bigger issues” I was talking about.
Even if it is a bigger issue, the landlords still hold blame for the situation. Can’t escape that
I shouldn’t have phrased it as an either or. Landlords are definitely partly to blame. Especially the ones making millions and lobbying congressmen to keep things shitty for the less wealthy.
But it’s a much bigger issue than just blaming a group of faceless people.
It’s definitely landlords. See: Rent seeking behavior.
Ok, but it’s not just landlords. It’s an entire infrastructure built on allowing this kind of thing to happen.
Because after construction costs have already been paid off everything that exceeds maintenance costs is pure profit for landlords.
Wanting to increase profis beyond the inflation rate to cover their own costs of living is greed.
You’re just saying “capitalism is greed”. Which is fine, and not wrong, but it Isn’t all that insightful and does nothing to solve any actual problems.
Fact is, supply and demand is driving these costs, not greedy landlords. If somebody wasn’t paying that rent, they wouldn’t be charging that much.
We need to prioritize building low income/affordable homes. Flood the market with supply and the price will go down.
supply and demand is driving these costs
In an abstract economy 101 sense that is true.
In a more concrete real world sense, the price is set by the landlord. Neither the supply nor the demand curve force the landlord to increase rent.We need to prioritize building low income/affordable homes. Flood the market with supply and the price will go down.
That too is somewhat true. In a profit oriented market however the lower bound of the price of rent is dictated by the building costs, the time it takes to recuperate these costs and the expected profit margin.
Assuming building costs are more or less fixed in the short term, flooding the market and reducing the price you can charge will reduce potential profits. Thus private investors are incentivized to build only so much that it does not significantly lower prices.So, the “we” that could lower prices by building more would have to be the state or some public entity that is less profit focused, not private landlords.
In an abstract economy 101 sense that is true.
In a more concrete real world sense, the price is set by the landlord. Neither the supply nor the demand curve force the landlord to increase rent.The price is set by the landlord based on what people are willing to pay. What people are willing to pay is based on what is available in the market.
This is all just supply and demand. If a landlord has an empty home for rent, and there are no other homes for rent nearby, they can charge whatever anybody is willing to pay. If there are 3 empty homes right nearby, they will need to price it in line with the others.
So, the “we” that could lower prices by building more would have to be the state or some public entity that is less profit focused, not private landlords.
Or the local/state governments need to create zones for lower/middle income homes or apartments. Or in some way they need to encourage developers to build these homes.
Capitalism alone gives us the current situation. Having a government that can counterbalance this will make it work.
The price is set by the landlord based on what people are willing to pay.
What people are willing to pay sets the upper limit of what he can charge. He is not forced to set the price at this upper limit. No amount of demand forces him to increase the price beyond cost + enough profit to live off.
Or the local/state governments need to create zones for lower/middle income homes or apartments. Or in some way they need to encourage developers to build these homes.
I’m not sure how zoning in the US works. How exactly does this reduce construction costs or increase return on investment without high rents? What incentive does this give profit oriented investors to invest in affordable housing instead of other investment options?
He is not forced to set the price at this upper limit.
It’s no different than any other product you could buy in a store. Supply and demand ultimately determines the price. Charging what it is worth is no more greedy than any other aspect of capitalism. And as I said originally, maybe there are bigger issues than just “greedy landlords” that are causing the prices to go up so much, in this case unchecked capitalism.
Zoning is just one example. Part of the problem is that someone that just bought a million dollar home doesn’t want multi family homes built across the street. That will decrease the value of their house. Zoning plays into this. There’s plenty more state/local governments can do, but are not doing.
It’s interesting that when talking about the people building homes, you totally get the profit driven mentality. Why should we expect investors to build homes that would give them less profit? Exactly, and why would you expect landlords to charge less than what the home is worth? Why would Nike charge $50 for those shoes when they can charge $200 and still sell out immediately?
There’s lots to consider and saying “greedy landlords” is the problem just ignores the entire reality.
To be clear, I am making one statement in this discussion and that is that the price is being set higher than it needs to be.
By stating that int he discussion about Landlord greed, it can be inferred that I equate this with greed.It’s no different than any other product you could buy in a store.
Saying that other businesses operate similarly does not refute my point. As you yourself pointed out, at best your argument is that all “capitalism is greed”.
It’s interesting that when talking about the people building homes, you totally get the profit driven mentality.
I never pretended not to “get” it. I’m just claiming that it’s greedy.
The way I see it there are two ways to counter my argument:
Either show that landlords have no choice and must demand the prices they do.
Or argue that wanting more than you need (usually to the detriment of others) is not greed. In that case I would be very interested where greed actually starts.
Saving money on food to buy a guillotine is personal finance.
Maybe there is a financing plan in installments. Klarna or something…
Trade and barter with your fellow proletariat and create the tools.
Have tools, need wood.
Have wood, need hands. Sounds like we have a start!
Now kiss. Get your hands on their wood.
Wood for sheep?
We have scrapyards and bulk pickup. Reuse materials and save some dough
But this flies in the face of the great American delusion that everyone can white knuckle their way through large crises arising from systemic failures or engineered on purpose by oligarchs.
Exactly. We need more flying in that face. Like bricks
