You aren't buying a $175K house making $12.54 an hour. It's not happening.
Good maths but do it again with median, not average
You need to use median household income, not per capita. It's $49,111 in Mississippi according to your source.
The ratio of home price to household income is typically between 4 and 5 in the US, so the median family should be able to afford the median house in Mississippi.
Household income is absolutely not the right metric to use here, because it'll always be proportional to the cost of the house out of necessity.
For example, if the cost of a house goes up relative to individual income, then more people in the family need to start working more hours, and more people live with roommates.
Household income stays proportionally the same, always, but individual income shows you how much people are struggling.
No, it's not the right metric. Which is why people don't use it.
Imagine you make $160K and buy the nicest house you can afford with that income.
Then you get married, and your spouse makes $100K. Your household income has increased to $260K, which means you can afford an even nicer house.
Your per capita income has decreased to $130K. By your logic, you can't afford a nicer house. In fact, with a second income you might no longer be able to afford your current house. That's nonsense.
When multiple people live in a house they all have the opportunity to contribute to paying for it. Some may contribute a lot, some (like children) may contribute nothing. The house you can afford depends on the total amount everyone contributes, aka household income.
if the cost of a house goes up
This doesn't make sense. The cost of a house is fixed when you buy it. It won't ever go up while you live there.
People didn't used to need a second income to afford a house. Now they do.
Household income doesn't show that change. Individual income does.
The median income for a single-income family is $78K. That's enough to afford a house that costs $310K-$390K.
That doesn't give the median, but it's lower. Those numbers are always thrown off by a few rich people.
When everyone needs a separate individual house that they refuse to share, then per capita income will be relevant.
But in the real world, people buy houses because they want to share them with their family. On average, 2.5 people live in a single house. And the median household income is $63K in Michigan.
So if you really want to look at per capita income, that means there is $87.5K (2.5 x $35K) available to buy a house, which is easily enough to afford a $300K home.
Again, families didn't used to need 2 incomes to buy a house.
Saying that households can still afford houses is tautological. Of course they can, or they wouldn't be a household.
Who said they need two incomes?
You insist on using per capita income for some reason. That means that even in a single earner family, the income is considered to be divided equally among the family members.
If you are a single earner making $160K in a family with two adults and two kids, then when using per capita income you consider all four family members as making $40K each. That's the definition of per capita.
And that's why it's nonsense to say that per capita income of $40K is not enough to afford a house. A family of five with per capita income of $40K would be in the top 10%.
Household income is total family income, regardless of whether there is one earner or more than one. And it's not tautological. If your household income is very low, then your family may not be able to afford to buy a house.
If your household income is very low, then your family may not be able to afford to buy a house.
If your family can't afford to buy a house, then your family doesn't get counted as a household.
A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit (such as a house or apartment) as their usual place of residence.
A household includes the related family members and all the unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit. A person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit such as partners or roomers, is also counted as a household.
"If you want to move to a shithole, you can get a good deal on a house" is not the persuasive argument you think it is.
EDIT: Just so you know where this person is coming from, they've moved on to talk about how fascism isn't so bad from a "global perspective" and being anti-fascist is just "tribalism."
That's because it's not my argument. You're being reddit-brained again.
Yeah, there are plenty of other places you can live though.
Sure sounds like your argument to me. But do tell us the non-shithole places you can live where houses are less than $300,000.
Places with median home prices under 300K and Democrats in state government:
Buffalo, NY
Rochester, NY
Michigan
(Since you live in IN, you don't need me to tell you that Michigan is a pretty nice state to live in).
I live in Michigan. Most of the houses below 300k are either so far out in the sticks you can barely even get Internet, or they're in dangerous and very run down areas.
There are a few nice places listed at 250k, but they sell instantly and for quite a bit above what they're listed at, so it's not like you can actually get one of them.
The median price is under 300K, so at least half the houses in Michigan cost less than 300K.
So what you're saying is that more than half the people in the state of Michigan live in houses that are not nice enough for you?
I'm saying your numbers are bullshit. Houses aren't actually that cheap.
I'm going to go with what Forbes says over your impressions.
Not if you hide the pending/contingent ones. They're basically already sold.
Also, the houses that have a garage and aren't pending are mostly above $250k. They barely count as being "below $300k".
And like I said, those cheaper houses sell instantly and for a lot above the asking price, unless there's something wrong with them that will cost a lot to fix. You can't actually buy a $250k house for $250k.
Even if you filter out pending/contingent sales and houses on the market less than 14 days, there are still >50 houses (not trailers) in that price range. And since they have been on the market for at least two weeks, they aren't going to sell above asking price.
Yes, houses require maintenance/repairs. Even expensive houses require maintenance, in fact maintenance costs are generally higher in more expensive houses.
That's just one of the tradeoffs of home ownership. You should be ready to replace pretty much everything in the house over the next ten years. If you don't like performing maintenance or paying someone else to do it, you should rent.
Finally, $250K absolutely counts as "under $300K".
@jordanlund already linked saying the average price for a home is 170k in Mississppi, and even that isn't necessary to find a nice place.
My house was only $60k and it's 1,200 sqft and 10 minutes from a hospital.
The real issue here is your entitlement. You think you're 'too good' to live in places that many others do because you think you're better than them.
Well, if you're so much better than them then pay up, lol. The problem with you people is that you think you're entitled to live in expensive places, but you're not actually valuable enough to society to have a salary that can pay for them. Then you want other people to foot the bill so you can continue to have more than those living in what you deem 'shitholes.'
You'd come across as more genuine if you just admitted it. But you won't. Nobody wants to acknowledge their entitlement, lol.
Yes. Mississippi. Notoriously not a shithole.
"The entire state of Mississippi isn't good enough for me, but I'm not entitled."
Yeah... supply and demand applies to you too, buddy. We can't all live in the Bahamas (which is actually surprisingly cheap), but that doesn't make 'regular' places like Mississippi shitholes. You can live a higher quality of life than the vast majority of people in a $60k* house in Mississippi.
*I haven't been house searching for 2 years, it's overwhelmingly likely this number has increased to $70k or even $80k. Still way way cheaper than what you think a house should cost.
Please- do tell me where you believe I live. Go ahead. Guess.
Kentucky.
Close. Terre Haute, Indiana. And, like the rest of Indiana, it's a shithole. So I may know a little bit about living in a shithole.
And yeah, you can probably get a house that cheap here- if you want a "unique fixer-upper" in between the meth lab house and the house with squatters in it.
Now it's your turn to tell me that if I didn't want to live in the luxurious town of Terre Haute, known throughout the world as The Utopia on the Wabash, I'd know how people really live.
Alright see, there you go saying an entire state is a shithole and (I assume) 'not good enough for you.'
That's what I mean by entitlement. It's insane that you can be living a higher quality of life than the vast majority of people on the planet, yet still think you need more and should get it before they do.
We're just passing a bunch of money around at the top. And most of us are proud of it.
Alright see, there you go saying an entire state is a shithole and (I assume) ‘not good enough for you.’
Yeah, crazy how I would call a place that legislatively is making my queer daughter unsafe a shithole. But I guess I'm just crying liberal tears.
Lol, that's funny. When you say 'shithole' when buying a house, most people will think you're talking about the quality of the property because that's an issue that affects everybody.
If you have something specifically relevant to you that causes you not to like a place, then understand that your judgement is not an absolute truth. Most people will not consider Indian to be a shithole because of its legislation, but you're an exception.
Instead of saying a place like Indiana is a shithole, you should say it's just not good enough for you. That takes the faux-objectivity away from your argument and allows us to discuss on relative terms.
See how it all goes back to entitlement? Trying to convince people you 'need' something because that way they're the bad guy if they try to take it away from you. In this case, as with most, it's money. You need that money, and anyone who gets in the way is a bad person for taking away your needs.
Do those places have even remotely comparable work, laws, or amenities? Because yeah you can buy a dirt cheap house 5 mountains from the nearest city in rural Tennessee, but it’s a terrible place to live and you won’t be able to find work.
That’s not a crazy price, that’s like outskirts of reasonably sized city price.
Yeah, there are plenty of other places you can live though.
There are, but you can't make a living there.
It's all proportional.
Let's say you want to live in a low cost of living state:
https://www.ramseysolutions.com/real-estate/cheapest-states-to-live-in
Mississippi.
OK, I don't know why anyone would want to live there, but sure, let's look at the numbers.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MS/BZA115221
Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2021 dollars), 2017-2021 - $26,807
Persons in poverty, percent - 19.1%
https://www.zillow.com/home-values/34/ms/
"The average Mississippi home value is $174,932."
You aren't buying a $175K house making $12.54 an hour. It's not happening.
Good maths but do it again with median, not average
You need to use median household income, not per capita. It's $49,111 in Mississippi according to your source.
The ratio of home price to household income is typically between 4 and 5 in the US, so the median family should be able to afford the median house in Mississippi.
Household income is absolutely not the right metric to use here, because it'll always be proportional to the cost of the house out of necessity.
For example, if the cost of a house goes up relative to individual income, then more people in the family need to start working more hours, and more people live with roommates.
Household income stays proportionally the same, always, but individual income shows you how much people are struggling.
No, it's not the right metric. Which is why people don't use it.
Imagine you make $160K and buy the nicest house you can afford with that income.
Then you get married, and your spouse makes $100K. Your household income has increased to $260K, which means you can afford an even nicer house.
Your per capita income has decreased to $130K. By your logic, you can't afford a nicer house. In fact, with a second income you might no longer be able to afford your current house. That's nonsense.
When multiple people live in a house they all have the opportunity to contribute to paying for it. Some may contribute a lot, some (like children) may contribute nothing. The house you can afford depends on the total amount everyone contributes, aka household income.
This doesn't make sense. The cost of a house is fixed when you buy it. It won't ever go up while you live there.
People didn't used to need a second income to afford a house. Now they do.
Household income doesn't show that change. Individual income does.
The median income for a single-income family is $78K. That's enough to afford a house that costs $310K-$390K.
The average individual income in Michigan, where houses are actually selling for around $300k, is $34,768. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MI/INC110221
That doesn't give the median, but it's lower. Those numbers are always thrown off by a few rich people.
When everyone needs a separate individual house that they refuse to share, then per capita income will be relevant.
But in the real world, people buy houses because they want to share them with their family. On average, 2.5 people live in a single house. And the median household income is $63K in Michigan.
So if you really want to look at per capita income, that means there is $87.5K (2.5 x $35K) available to buy a house, which is easily enough to afford a $300K home.
Again, families didn't used to need 2 incomes to buy a house.
Saying that households can still afford houses is tautological. Of course they can, or they wouldn't be a household.
Who said they need two incomes?
You insist on using per capita income for some reason. That means that even in a single earner family, the income is considered to be divided equally among the family members.
If you are a single earner making $160K in a family with two adults and two kids, then when using per capita income you consider all four family members as making $40K each. That's the definition of per capita.
And that's why it's nonsense to say that per capita income of $40K is not enough to afford a house. A family of five with per capita income of $40K would be in the top 10%.
Household income is total family income, regardless of whether there is one earner or more than one. And it's not tautological. If your household income is very low, then your family may not be able to afford to buy a house.
If your family can't afford to buy a house, then your family doesn't get counted as a household.
That's absolutely not true. A household is one or more people who live in a housing unit. They can be homeowners or renters.
Yeah, my house was only $60k. 1,200 square foot. Wasn't the best deal I could get, but I'm satisfied with my purchase.
I was also looking at houses in a similar price range in Mississippi.
You don't "need" to spend 'average price' for a nice house. You choose to because you want the luxuries that cause the price to go up.
"If you want to move to a shithole, you can get a good deal on a house" is not the persuasive argument you think it is.
EDIT: Just so you know where this person is coming from, they've moved on to talk about how fascism isn't so bad from a "global perspective" and being anti-fascist is just "tribalism."
That's because it's not my argument. You're being reddit-brained again.
Sure sounds like your argument to me. But do tell us the non-shithole places you can live where houses are less than $300,000.
Places with median home prices under 300K and Democrats in state government:
(Since you live in IN, you don't need me to tell you that Michigan is a pretty nice state to live in).
I live in Michigan. Most of the houses below 300k are either so far out in the sticks you can barely even get Internet, or they're in dangerous and very run down areas.
There are a few nice places listed at 250k, but they sell instantly and for quite a bit above what they're listed at, so it's not like you can actually get one of them.
The median price is under 300K, so at least half the houses in Michigan cost less than 300K.
So what you're saying is that more than half the people in the state of Michigan live in houses that are not nice enough for you?
I'm saying your numbers are bullshit. Houses aren't actually that cheap.
I'm going to go with what Forbes says over your impressions.
Or what Zillow says.
Or just look at the > 200 2+BR houses under $300K in Grand Rapids alone.
Lol they're mostly trailers
More than half of those houses have a garage...
Not if you hide the pending/contingent ones. They're basically already sold.
Also, the houses that have a garage and aren't pending are mostly above $250k. They barely count as being "below $300k".
And like I said, those cheaper houses sell instantly and for a lot above the asking price, unless there's something wrong with them that will cost a lot to fix. You can't actually buy a $250k house for $250k.
Even if you filter out pending/contingent sales and houses on the market less than 14 days, there are still >50 houses (not trailers) in that price range. And since they have been on the market for at least two weeks, they aren't going to sell above asking price.
Yes, houses require maintenance/repairs. Even expensive houses require maintenance, in fact maintenance costs are generally higher in more expensive houses.
That's just one of the tradeoffs of home ownership. You should be ready to replace pretty much everything in the house over the next ten years. If you don't like performing maintenance or paying someone else to do it, you should rent.
Finally, $250K absolutely counts as "under $300K".
@jordanlund already linked saying the average price for a home is 170k in Mississppi, and even that isn't necessary to find a nice place.
My house was only $60k and it's 1,200 sqft and 10 minutes from a hospital.
The real issue here is your entitlement. You think you're 'too good' to live in places that many others do because you think you're better than them.
Well, if you're so much better than them then pay up, lol. The problem with you people is that you think you're entitled to live in expensive places, but you're not actually valuable enough to society to have a salary that can pay for them. Then you want other people to foot the bill so you can continue to have more than those living in what you deem 'shitholes.'
You'd come across as more genuine if you just admitted it. But you won't. Nobody wants to acknowledge their entitlement, lol.
Yes. Mississippi. Notoriously not a shithole.
"The entire state of Mississippi isn't good enough for me, but I'm not entitled."
Yeah... supply and demand applies to you too, buddy. We can't all live in the Bahamas (which is actually surprisingly cheap), but that doesn't make 'regular' places like Mississippi shitholes. You can live a higher quality of life than the vast majority of people in a $60k* house in Mississippi.
*I haven't been house searching for 2 years, it's overwhelmingly likely this number has increased to $70k or even $80k. Still way way cheaper than what you think a house should cost.
Please- do tell me where you believe I live. Go ahead. Guess.
Kentucky.
Close. Terre Haute, Indiana. And, like the rest of Indiana, it's a shithole. So I may know a little bit about living in a shithole.
And yeah, you can probably get a house that cheap here- if you want a "unique fixer-upper" in between the meth lab house and the house with squatters in it.
Now it's your turn to tell me that if I didn't want to live in the luxurious town of Terre Haute, known throughout the world as The Utopia on the Wabash, I'd know how people really live.
Alright see, there you go saying an entire state is a shithole and (I assume) 'not good enough for you.'
That's what I mean by entitlement. It's insane that you can be living a higher quality of life than the vast majority of people on the planet, yet still think you need more and should get it before they do.
We're just passing a bunch of money around at the top. And most of us are proud of it.
Yeah, crazy how I would call a place that legislatively is making my queer daughter unsafe a shithole. But I guess I'm just crying liberal tears.
Lol, that's funny. When you say 'shithole' when buying a house, most people will think you're talking about the quality of the property because that's an issue that affects everybody.
If you have something specifically relevant to you that causes you not to like a place, then understand that your judgement is not an absolute truth. Most people will not consider Indian to be a shithole because of its legislation, but you're an exception.
Instead of saying a place like Indiana is a shithole, you should say it's just not good enough for you. That takes the faux-objectivity away from your argument and allows us to discuss on relative terms.
See how it all goes back to entitlement? Trying to convince people you 'need' something because that way they're the bad guy if they try to take it away from you. In this case, as with most, it's money. You need that money, and anyone who gets in the way is a bad person for taking away your needs.
Nailed it.
Do those places have even remotely comparable work, laws, or amenities? Because yeah you can buy a dirt cheap house 5 mountains from the nearest city in rural Tennessee, but it’s a terrible place to live and you won’t be able to find work.
That’s not a crazy price, that’s like outskirts of reasonably sized city price.