Rent is unaffordable for half of U.S. renters, 2022 data shows
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/27/rent-unaffordable-housing-market-apartment-prices-cost
Rent is unaffordable for half of U.S. renters, 2022 data shows
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/27/rent-unaffordable-housing-market-apartment-prices-cost
@knittingknots2 Great indicator and proof that most people are irresponsible with their spending and tend to rent places outside of their means.
This isnt a graphic showing rent is too high, its a graphic showing people are irresponsibly spending their money by signing onto rent deals they cant afford.
No, In fact there are more houses currently open for rent then there are homeless people in the USA. So we know for a fact the issue isnt that there arent enough homes.
@freemo @knittingknots2 My brother in Christ, it’s like this because the U.S. does not have enough homes for the number of people who live in it. The problem is particularly acute in the areas where most of the jobs are. A cursory examination indicates that it’s a supply and demand problem, not people being irresponsible with their money.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/08/homes/housing-shortage/index.html
Right we arent talking about the places that arent for rent that are abandoned. I'm talking about actual homes up to code, more than enough for rent to cover all homeless people several times over. It isnt a quantity issue.
@freemo @knittingknots2 No there are not “more houses for rent than there are homeless people in the USA.”
There are a lot of housing units that are long abandoned and falling apart and/or in places like Bumfuck Alabama that nobody wants to live in they are not “for rent.”
You have no clue what my idea of the problem actually is, you didnt ask. But it isnt qty, yes they exist.
Now saying "they arent where the jobs are" that at least gets closer to an aspect of the problem. But that also is in line with what I said, it isnt a quantity issue.
@freemo @knittingknots2 Yeah I know you are talking about those. There aren’t enough of those. Like, they don’t exist. Especially not where the jobs are.
You have a weird idea that’s a combination of this stupid leftist myth and a stupid right-wing personal responsibility myth.
Which to my point, then you shouldnt be looking locally. You should be looking in areas where there is no local crisis. Showing it isnt a qty issue, you have options just not options that match what you want (something in a specific area).
@freemo @knittingknots2 Yes it is. I live in an area where we have a rent crisis and this is the biggest factor contributing to it.
And you think, what, housing is a fungible commodity where it doesn’t matter where the housing is? Of course it matters where it is. Can’t pay the rent if you don’t have money, which almost always means a job.
No they arent. The convention ont he fedi is to keep people at the bottom and the first person tagged at the top indicates who you reply to.
Some servers (perhaps yours) will auto tag people, others dont do that, it depends on the software your on.
Even when it is automatically done the convention is often to leave it anyway as it gives an explicit indication as to who is directly being responded to, something you can do if you leave off the OP as the OP wont know when you are addressing them by moving their name back tot he top. So its a convention usually maintained regardless (though you dont have to).
@freemo @knittingknots2 You don’t need to keep tagging the OP at the end by the way when you reply to me or I reply to you they are automatically tagged.
Most likely there is at least one home for rent within the hour or so commute radius for your job. If your claiming there isnt I'd be really curious what area your even talking about.
That said no.. what I am saying is if the areas you have to pick from to move to dont have job options for you there, that is a problem with the job market, it doesnt mean there arent enough houses.
@freemo @knittingknots2 Some people can work remotely but most people can’t. You mean someone should just move wherever where they might not be able to have a job to pay their rent with? That’s bananapants. Nobody does that. I’m pretty sure even you wouldn’t do that when making decisions about your life.
There are 357 million bedrooms in the USA and 323 million people... There is literally enough room for every single person to have their own bedroom. Since in reality we have 2 people to a bedroom in most cases we are talking about x2 more housing space than people...
Yea there are more than enough houses.
@freemo @knittingknots2 It’s also still a quantity issue as the CNN article said (and they’re not the only ones) there is an overall shortage of housing units NATIONWIDE. We do not have enough housing for all the households or people.
> There are homes for rent within an hour of my job and they’re all very expensive.
Then if there isnt a single affordable option then the problem is your pay is too low (or the homes are too expensive), not the qty of homes. Still I'd be very skeptical there isnt a cheap room to rent anywhere in that area.
@freemo @knittingknots2 There are homes for rent within an hour of my job and they’re all very expensive.
Also “it’s a problem with the job market not that there aren’t enough houses” so thank you for confirming that moving to a place where you cannot get a job to pay the rent is a terrible idea, why did you suggest it
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 If this were true, people wouldn't be trying to rent in apartments in cities, and simply go for the places "1 hour or so commute of their jobs".
Those areas are *also* cities, packed just as tightly, with people holding unused homes to an aggressive rental pricing, let alone buying pricing.
> If this were true, people wouldn't be trying to rent in apartments in cities, and simply go for the places "1 hour or so commute of their jobs".
How ya figure? Most people dont pick the cheapest option, most people are very irresponsible with their spending and will get a place they cant afford because they want to be close to the bar or have a nice place. Thats part of the problem.
What? Well there is yourproblem... Why would you compare housing units, which are design to house whole families, to number of people? One person isnt living in a housing unit for 4 people.
You count **living space** one person should be rending one small room not a housing unit. If you are a family with multiple members then you might rent a whole home, at most.
@freemo @knittingknots2 There are almost 335 million people in the United States, your count is off.
And now you are talking about bedrooms, not housing units. We weren’t talking about *bedrooms.*
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
As a matter of charity I take people into my home who are homeless and give them a place to live. This is usually a mutli-year process as I help them get on their feet and out of poverty. I have done this with many people.
Virtually every person I ever helped who was homeless had horrible money management issues and overspent on things they couldnt afford, including rent (before they became homeless)... Yes it absolutely is most people who are in this situation. Not surprisingly almost all of them were in denial about their habits and wasnt until they were back on their feet and doing well they realized their bad habits and corrected them.
@freemo @AT1ST @knittingknots2 This isn’t “most people.” I don’t know what your financial or housing situation is but I don’t think you’ve talked to real people about theirs.
Lots of people with limited means have gotten priced out of cities and pushed into the suburbs and have long commutes.
Yup, the definition of "housing unit" is exactly as I described it. A unit for living such as a home meant to house an entire family **or** person. So entire homes count as 1 housing unit, even if they house 10 people (a family)... as I pointed out.
@freemo @knittingknots2 No. Refer to the definition of a “housing unit.”
Right, but not because the rent was simply too high, but because they choose places that were well beyond their means and were irresponsible and had far more space than they needed (often renting apartments intead of rooms).
For every single person I helped and is now out of poverty and doing well they had to adjust how they spent money and be more responsible. Once they did they had no trouble affording their rent, once they picked a place they could afford.
@freemo @AT1ST @knittingknots2 Yeah, most people who end up homeless can’t afford rent…because rent is extremely expensive and being rent-burdened is a common problem. That’s why a lot of people end up homeless! Because the cost of living, including housing, is expensive.
Of course it can. When did I say we were talking about independent physical structures? A home can be a condo for example.
And no i read, its you who arent reading what **I** said, and I agree, you arent a productive person to talk to.
@freemo @knittingknots2 No. A housing unit may also be part of a building housing multiple people.
I don’t think you’re a productive person to talk to. You don’t read. You don’t think.
Im not sure what those items cost. Are you willing to give the name of the area your in?
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 The cheapest rent in my city that I've heard cited is my studio apartment (0 bedroom), and it...is about 2 Slim PS5s worth a month.
My parents own a place and rent their basement, an hour and a half away on public transit, for around the cost of 1 Slim PS5 a month.
Rent is so high, I can compare it *literal luxury items.*
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 The PS5 Slim Digital costs $579.99.
And to be clear, where I live, we recently invoked a rent freeze, so without it, in the last couple of years, it could've been more.
Like, gone up to 3 PS5 Slim Digital consoles' worth.
That adds up for a studio in some expensive cities. But again if 1K is too expensive for you then you probably should be renting a room, not a studio. The most expensive area in the USA to rent (manhatten) has rooms that are quite a bit cheaper than that. Go an hour outside of manhatten even cheaper still.
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 Are those the places that are often described as shoeboxes, sometimes not having a dedicated bathroom or kitchen?
Because somehow I got those in mine, and space is somehow a thing I'm not short on for my price.
(Also, my prices are in CDN, for comparison.)
I'd add one contention for Manhattan - are we talking 1 hour outside but within public transit access? That's what the places I'm mentioning have.
Are those the places that are often described as shoeboxes, sometimes not having a dedicated bathroom or kitchen?
They are rooms to rent in a home you’d share with other roomates. So you’d have a shared bedroom and kitchen, and one room in the home to yourself.
Yes you can pay more and obviously get much more space to yourself. But we are talking about affordability, that is a choice your making, and if you can afford it, enjoy. The point is most people get more space than they can afford, and there are much cheaper and very livable options until you improve your career.
Right, which is nearly twice the price of renting a room in the most expensive area in the USA (Manhattan)... Which would suggest unless your in Manhattan itself there are cheaper options, even if there wasnt a rent freeze. If I knew the specific area I'd probably find one as an example.
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 (Oh, to clarify, my studio was double the listed price of the Slim PS5 Digital listed above. And it would've been higher had we not got a rent freeze 3 years ago - technically 5, but only enforced 3 years ago.).
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 I mean, I'm not looking to move myself - I do know that others have significantly more costs incurred.
Because the issue isn't as big an issue for me - but my sister, her husband, and their toddler now live in a 2 bedroom a bit closer to the downtown of the city...and they pay ~5-6 PS5 Slim Digitals a month..
"Reasonable for the area" or not, it...gets on my nerves when people say that the homeless or others just need to have better spending habits.
gets on my nerves when people say that the homeless or others just need to have better spending habits.
Like I said, its simply the truth (though the word “just” is wrong there, its only one aspect of the issue).
Like I said I have helped many people over the years get out of poverty and 100% of them all had bad spending habits as part of the problem. Often there are other issues as well, but that is always a huge aspect. You and people you know buying hugely expensive homes because they can afford it is fine. Doesnt change the fact there are very affordable options for those who cant too.
I mean a ps5 is hardly a luxury item.. Most kids I know who live with their parents were able to afford one. It seems like a kinda horrible comparison to start with. Luxury items are like gold necklaces or a porche, not a video game console made for children, teens and adults that almost everyone owns.
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 (The reason it gets on my nerves is that there's pretty much *no* reason to buy more than one of those items for the entire lifespan of the console [7-10 years] for personal use, and it would constitue the most reckless spending spree that comes to mind.
It's not how people spend their money, even enthusiasts within the field. But it is how we spend our rent, because...?)
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 More than one a month?
It gives off "Kid drove a Porsche into a ditch, and their parents bought them another one" level of luxury.
For perhaps a more clear way to put it - this guy [ https://youtu.be/ifAm3Vp0JnU?si=EdI_uvcv8c6XH23N ] (For the purposes of the skit) is more "Fiscally responsible" than people who live in my city for 2-3 months, or the apartment my parents rent to people...for 5 months.
More than one a month?
Buying more than one PS5 a month wouldnt be luxury, it would just be stupid.
It gives off “Kid drove a Porsche into a ditch, and their parents bought them another one” level of luxury.
Not saying its affordable to buy multiplke PS5 a month, but its a poor measure of luxury. Might as well measure it in 10,000 rubber bands.
For perhaps a more clear way to put it - this guy [ https://youtu.be/ifAm3Vp0JnU?si=EdI_uvcv8c6XH23N ] (For the purposes of the skit) is more “Fiscally responsible” than people who live in my city for 2-3 months, or the apartment my parents rent to people…for 5 months.
Being fiscally responsible isnt about how much you spend in a month. Buyng 2 ps5 every month at the same price as rent doesn’t make it equally fiscally responsible as spending it on rent. Thus why the comparison is nonsensical.
It would be stupid, I agree - but it’s luxury to be able to afford them.
ITs a luxury to be able to afford anything that has no utility. If i could afford to buy 10 $10 nikon phones every day despite having no use for more than one, thats a luxury too. But being able to afford $500 for rent is not a luxury, in fact that is cheap.
What makes something a luxury isnt the price, its the cost to utility ratio.
I’m paying my landlord, in rent, enough for her to buy 2 PS5s a month…for being able to live in a 0 bedroom place.
Or enough for her to buy 100 nokia phones… again the fact that you can spend the money on shit you dont need is hardly an indication that the price is high. Yea its a luxury if she can waste the money on nonsense, so?
How does that not seem wasteful luxury to be able to afford that place, because quite literally that is what my landlord can charge for my place.
Because luxury is when you spend a lot of money for something with no utility. It has nothing to do with how many PS5s you can buy.
I’m saying that living with my parents rent free and then doing that is equivalent in cost. Per month. To live in a room.
Ok, and? Luxury has nothing to do with the cost of a thing compared to some other arbitrary thing.
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 It would be stupid, I agree - but it's luxury to be able to *afford* them.
I'm paying my landlord, in rent, enough for her to buy 2 PS5s a month...for being able to live in a 0 bedroom place. How does that not seem wasteful luxury to be able to afford that place, because quite literally that is what my landlord can charge for my place.
I'm saying that living with my parents rent free and then doing that is equivalent in cost. Per month. To live in a room.
I’m saying that the sheer cost of the renting of an apartment is really, really high, relative to any other thing one could reasonably buy to get to the amount one spends on rent.
Of course it is… Look how big your house is, and look at the resources you consume taking up that space month after month… Then look at how little utility a PS5 gets you and how little space and resources it takes up…. Of course a place to rent costs you several PS5 a month, it should probably cost you more, its remarkably cheap compared to something that is literally for playing games.
And it’s a monthly expenditure.
Right, as one would expect it to be. Again look at the amount of resources and utilities for a place to live compared to a toy.
Hypothetically we can add it up and find that, in a year and 3 months, and…that money is enough to buy a small used sailing yacht (Apparently they can sell for $15K…or less.).
If you bought a 15K sailing yacht youd have to invest another 20K into it to bring it up to snuff minimum, AND you’d have to pay the fee to dock it, which would be about the same price as rent. How is this even a valid comparison, it literally winds up being about the same price range as renting a home. Many people choose to rent or buy a yacht and live out of it. In fact if yachts are so comparible there you have it you proven another alternative and affordable living option. QED.
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 I'm saying that the sheer cost of the renting of an apartment is really, really high, relative to any other thing one could reasonably buy to get to the amount one spends on rent.
And it's a monthly expenditure.
Hypothetically we can add it up and find that, in a year and 3 months, and...that money is enough to buy a small used sailing yacht (Apparently they can sell for $15K...or less.).
Food has utility that you also need every day, but even at $10 a meal, that only comes up to ~310 a month.
$10 a meal is $10330.. so $900. Which is double the cost of rending a cheap room in the most expensive area in the USA.
To reach the amount I’m paying for rent, every meal I’d be eating would be $30. That’s 4.5 avocado toasts…per meal, every meal.
No, you messed up the math, it is 1/3 what your calculating.
That’s a cost that would indicate that the “Thing you need” is being charged at luxury pricing, despite not being a luxury, but a thing people need.
Since your own example had an error in and the actual numbers line up with my own statement, since this was your example and convincing to you when it had the error does this mean you now change your mind and admit rent is cheap?
If not, ask yourself why was it a convincing argument with incorrect numbers and when the actual numbers show the exact opposite it suddenly stops being a convincing argument to you.
There’s no reason rent needs to be so high, anywhere.
I mean you were literally off by a factor of x3 in this comparison….
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 Food has utility that you also need every day, but even at $10 a meal, that only comes up to ~310 a month.
To reach the amount I'm paying for rent, every meal I'd be eating would be more than* $30. That's ~5 avocado toasts...per meal, every meal.
That's a cost that would indicate that the "Thing you need" is being charged at luxury pricing, despite not being a luxury, but a thing people need.
There's no reason rent needs to be so high, anywhere.
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 "Look how big your house is" - I can stand from one end of it and look at the other end, and see all of it. It's not a multi-story studio apartment. And I'm *missing a bedroom*.
Oh, and this doesn't include utilities, so this is before resources I consume.
And it's not like I can't use some of the space to "Cheapen it out" - this is how it came.
And yet I pay monthly for...a thing that was going to be there anyways. There no manufacturing cost anymore.
“Look how big your house is” - I can stand from one end of it and look at the other end, and see all of it. It’s not a multi-story studio apartment. And I’m missing a bedroom.
You are, presumably, a single person. You are not missing a bedroom. You have a whole home just for you, that is luxury, you have far more than you need. All a single person needs is a room to rent, anything more is a luxury. Nothing wrong with you having luxury, and being able to afford it. But it is more than what is needed to live.
Oh, and this doesn’t include utilities, so this is before resources I consume.
No utilities arent the only resource you consume. You are missing the biggest one, space.
And it’s not like I can’t use some of the space to “Cheapen it out” - this is how it came.
The way you’d “cheapen it out” is by not getting a space that is more than what you need. You got more than you need and wanted the luxury of it, and you pay more than you need to pay for that luxury. No single tenant needs more than a room, but it is nice that rent is so cheap that you can afford the luxury of more than you need.
And you dont see the backpeddling your doing… Your whole argument was “look rent is more than double food”. Then when you find out its the reverse, that food is actually double the price of rent now your trying to change the numbers you set and tweak the equations for it to still work out to your argument.
Can you not see the confirmation bias and back peddling right now? Clearly even when i turn out to be correct when you lay the ground rules, you still dont accept the conclusion and change the rules….
I will end the discussion there, I think that leaves you with enough to think about, and hopefully youll realize you werent being objective here and no matter what rules you set or what the facts said you wouldnt have changed your mind, as we see here.
Feel free to reach out on future discussions if youd like, I enjoyed it. Just saying if i cant convince you even when i play by your axioms and rules then there is no conversation left to be had.
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 Ah, I'll admit I forgot it was times 3 initially, but that's still $10 a meal, which is a lot on its own.
That's expensive, even for something you need to eat to live.
1/3 the total cost is still really expensive for food (Most meals aren't anywhere near as expensive as $10 in my experience.).
And again - this is for "Roof and walls, and access to plumbing.".
That's still really expensive for the utility it provides, considering it's idle otherwise.
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 It's 0 bedrooms - the place I put my bed is in the same room as my kitchen, the same room as the entranceway, the same room has direct access to the building's hallway.
Literally the only separated room I have is the bathroom. And my landlord is in a different country most of the time, and has her own apartment. And another one she rents out. So...I'm not taking up space she didn't already have more than enough of.
And there aren't many variable sized places.
Right, which is more (both in cost and space) than renting a room. Everythign above what you need is luxury. This is luxury, im not saying its MUCH luxury, but it is luxury.
We arent talking about a number thats slightly off... your math error was off by an order of x3. Completely reversing the results. Even if you pull the numbers back to being $3 a meal you wind up with food being about the same price as rent for a cheap room in manhatten., so the point is still moot.
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 I admitted I was wrong about the numbers - but I was also intentionally inflating the numbers in the calculation to make my point. $10 is not the unit cost of cereal and milk for breakfast for a meal. It's near restaurant cost.
I recognize it's not anywhere near as strong a point as I originally thought, but regardless - food is a thing that if you don't have, you die. It *should* cost more than rent on that basis alone.
I did a search when we first spoke for rooms for rent in Manhatten. I tried to pick livable locations (clean) at the low end of the range that popped up. They were ~$500 give or take $100. The lowest I saw was $300, Obviously the higher end goes almost as high as you can imagine though.
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 ...Out of curiosity, what do you mean in price range in Manhattan?
In Vancouver here, the $1100 I pay per month is considered cheap, and at the far end of the transit system, around Langley, rent goes for $650, if you can get a grandfathered discount from a previous tenant from like a decade ago.
(CDN prices there.)
Just checked Toronto. Studio Apt. for $350: https://www.zumper.com/apartments-for-rent/56143180/room-for-rent-willowdale-toronto-on
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 I did a check online, and...I'm only seeing one that was $275 for a one room shared in a 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom place, and the address is "Undisclosed".
Everything else is still $900/month, for a room.
Sure, one quick example (first hit) is $650, so 50 above what I said but fairly close:
https://www.spareroom.com/rooms-for-rent/ny/brooklyn/east_flatbush/102394071
Here are 24 rooms for rent in manhatten/nyc area all under $600
https://www.cirtru.com/rooms-for-rent/manhattan-ny?upperPrice=600
Oh sorry, thought you said Toronto for some reason.
But to the original point. Its still not a QTY issue, at best you can argue there is an issue with the economy in general, and I would generally agree. But the problem isnt the number of homes.
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 Well apparently Toronto is much cheaper than where I live - ( https://www.zumper.com/apartments-for-rent/vancouver-bc/under-600 ) - there's literally one example listed at $750...and it turns out to not be there, but at the *far* end of the GVRD.
@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 I mean, the problem is the qty that are kept open for rent.
There's a supply issue, not a demand issue. Landlords hold on to places and do not let go.
The economy in general is starting to receed a bit, but it's always been bad for rent here.
So its not a qty issue at all if there are places to rent. Its a price issue. The price at which it would be worth it for the landlord is higher than you want to pay.
No landlord would go with a place not being rented at all if they wouldnt make enough money to make up for that by waiting for market-value.
You also have to consider it isnt just about how many are up for rent. Its how appealing it is to rent at all. If the price people were willing to pay was profitable more people would put their houses up for rent. So again its an economic issue not a qty issue as there are more than enough houses to fit people.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.