Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
How much do you/should you spend on food (US)?
Options
Replies
-
I'm worried I'm boring everyone other than you and me, Aaron, but I actually figured out a better way to express what I think we are (maybe) disagreeing about.
If you say that in Seattle a family is effectively priced out if they can't afford more than $500K (perhaps well more than), I'd totally agree. That's my perception and what the search engines seem to reflect, and I trust you as a resident who has looked for properties there, too. And that is totally not true at all in Chicago, there's a huge range of housing at different price points (more if you include the 'burbs).
BUT, if you look at average prices and say that you have a nice 3 bed, 2 bath house of 1700 or 1800 sq ft a 45 min commute from the main working area/downtown, and that in Chicago an analogous house would cost $300K, that's where I disagree. An actually analogous house if you take into account distance/commuting time from work, from neighborhoods with what normally attracts city residents, that is equally safe, perhaps has similar school options, stuff like that, will really be much more. You can find a $300K house (in fact, you can find a $4900 house, but it's in Englewood and comes with a hefty unpaid water bill), but for various reasons it won't be analogous and you most likely would not see it as an option at all if you lived in Chicago. Not questioning that the Chicago house would still be less, even if the houses used were comparable, but just how much less. It's also true that someone in Chicago will have a much broader range of choices and tradeoffs.
That does not take away from the key point, which is that the middle class is largely priced out of Seattle and can find housing easily in Chicago, but having looked for a house not that long ago and knowing what you have to spend to get certain things I expect you have with place, I just think it's inaccurate to say that you have to pay X, but in Chicago could easily have the same thing for, I dunno, $350K, because that's not the market, not taking into account the things home buyers do take into account.0 -
Yeah I think we should drop it as it is off topic, but good talk.2
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm worried I'm boring everyone other than you and me, Aaron, but I actually figured out a better way to express what I think we are (maybe) disagreeing about.
If you say that in Seattle a family is effectively priced out if they can't afford more than $500K (perhaps well more than), I'd totally agree. That's my perception and what the search engines seem to reflect, and I trust you as a resident who has looked for properties there, too. And that is totally not true at all in Chicago, there's a huge range of housing at different price points (more if you include the 'burbs).
BUT, if you look at average prices and say that you have a nice 3 bed, 2 bath house of 1700 or 1800 sq ft a 45 min commute from the main working area/downtown, and that in Chicago an analogous house would cost $300K, that's where I disagree. An actually analogous house if you take into account distance/commuting time from work, from neighborhoods with what normally attracts city residents, that is equally safe, perhaps has similar school options, stuff like that, will really be much more. You can find a $300K house (in fact, you can find a $4900 house, but it's in Englewood and comes with a hefty unpaid water bill), but for various reasons it won't be analogous and you most likely would not see it as an option at all if you lived in Chicago. Not questioning that the Chicago house would still be less, even if the houses used were comparable, but just how much less. It's also true that someone in Chicago will have a much broader range of choices and tradeoffs.
That does not take away from the key point, which is that the middle class is largely priced out of Seattle and can find housing easily in Chicago, but having looked for a house not that long ago and knowing what you have to spend to get certain things I expect you have with place, I just think it's inaccurate to say that you have to pay X, but in Chicago could easily have the same thing for, I dunno, $350K, because that's not the market, not taking into account the things home buyers do take into account.
If I get what you are saying, but I think you are underestimating the cost of even the suburbs in the Seattle area.
I have a house in one of the Eastside 'burbs Aaron was talking about. We bought in 2004 for around $250k - just a regular 3 bedroom rambler on a good sized lot in a decent neighborhood with good schools. Last month the house across the street from me which is pretty much identical to mine sold for $725k - the houses near me that have recently sold (that are comparable to mine) have been in the $625k to $725k range).
There simply isn't enough inventory when it comes to buying right now. A lot of people are just like us - we looked into downsizing last year and even though we have a lot of equity, where would we go? We couldn't rent a decent place for the money we spend on our mortgage including the taxes and insurance.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm worried I'm boring everyone other than you and me, Aaron, but I actually figured out a better way to express what I think we are (maybe) disagreeing about.
If you say that in Seattle a family is effectively priced out if they can't afford more than $500K (perhaps well more than), I'd totally agree. That's my perception and what the search engines seem to reflect, and I trust you as a resident who has looked for properties there, too. And that is totally not true at all in Chicago, there's a huge range of housing at different price points (more if you include the 'burbs).
BUT, if you look at average prices and say that you have a nice 3 bed, 2 bath house of 1700 or 1800 sq ft a 45 min commute from the main working area/downtown, and that in Chicago an analogous house would cost $300K, that's where I disagree. An actually analogous house if you take into account distance/commuting time from work, from neighborhoods with what normally attracts city residents, that is equally safe, perhaps has similar school options, stuff like that, will really be much more. You can find a $300K house (in fact, you can find a $4900 house, but it's in Englewood and comes with a hefty unpaid water bill), but for various reasons it won't be analogous and you most likely would not see it as an option at all if you lived in Chicago. Not questioning that the Chicago house would still be less, even if the houses used were comparable, but just how much less. It's also true that someone in Chicago will have a much broader range of choices and tradeoffs.
That does not take away from the key point, which is that the middle class is largely priced out of Seattle and can find housing easily in Chicago, but having looked for a house not that long ago and knowing what you have to spend to get certain things I expect you have with place, I just think it's inaccurate to say that you have to pay X, but in Chicago could easily have the same thing for, I dunno, $350K, because that's not the market, not taking into account the things home buyers do take into account.
If I get what you are saying, but I think you are underestimating the cost of even the suburbs in the Seattle area.
I have a house in one of the Eastside 'burbs Aaron was talking about. We bought in 2004 for around $250k - just a regular 3 bedroom rambler on a good sized lot in a decent neighborhood with good schools. Last month the house across the street from me which is pretty much identical to mine sold for $725k - the houses near me that have recently sold (that are comparable to mine) have been in the $625k to $725k range).
There simply isn't enough inventory when it comes to buying right now. A lot of people are just like us - we looked into downsizing last year and even though we have a lot of equity, where would we go? We couldn't rent a decent place for the money we spend on our mortgage including the taxes and insurance.
Dammit sucked in again. Okay just one more thing to point out how ridiculous house prices have gotten in Seattle. The suburbs of Seattle are definitely affected as well but inside Seattle it is truly nuts. I was lucky enough to buy a house in Seattle itself 3 years ago. At the point I bought the house I was worried I was buying at the height of the market and that the market would turn and I might end up at a loss if I ended up having to sell but I decided I needed to get in at that point so I bought. Right now the house I bought is valued almost twice as much as what I bought it for...in three years...at a point I thought was high then. Now one might say well that is just what Zillow says its worth that isn't necessarily what it will sell for...yeah true, but pretty much every house that sells in Seattle actually sells for 25% more than the Zillow valuation because people are basically willing to pay a premium to get into a market that is going up 25% a year. So if anything I'm underestimating what I'd need to pay if I bought my house today. It has gone from expensive for the middle-class to practically unaffordable...and I can't see how that is sustainable.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Yeah I think we should drop it as it is off topic, but good talk.
I'm following, but not participating because I have no unique data to add or contribute nor do I have meaningful data points, whereas I am living in a high COL area, it's temporary and I'm renting a small basement apartment so totally irrelevant to home prices.
I'm not sure that it's totally irrelevant, but it might merit a spinoff.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm worried I'm boring everyone other than you and me, Aaron, but I actually figured out a better way to express what I think we are (maybe) disagreeing about.
If you say that in Seattle a family is effectively priced out if they can't afford more than $500K (perhaps well more than), I'd totally agree. That's my perception and what the search engines seem to reflect, and I trust you as a resident who has looked for properties there, too. And that is totally not true at all in Chicago, there's a huge range of housing at different price points (more if you include the 'burbs).
BUT, if you look at average prices and say that you have a nice 3 bed, 2 bath house of 1700 or 1800 sq ft a 45 min commute from the main working area/downtown, and that in Chicago an analogous house would cost $300K, that's where I disagree. An actually analogous house if you take into account distance/commuting time from work, from neighborhoods with what normally attracts city residents, that is equally safe, perhaps has similar school options, stuff like that, will really be much more. You can find a $300K house (in fact, you can find a $4900 house, but it's in Englewood and comes with a hefty unpaid water bill), but for various reasons it won't be analogous and you most likely would not see it as an option at all if you lived in Chicago. Not questioning that the Chicago house would still be less, even if the houses used were comparable, but just how much less. It's also true that someone in Chicago will have a much broader range of choices and tradeoffs.
That does not take away from the key point, which is that the middle class is largely priced out of Seattle and can find housing easily in Chicago, but having looked for a house not that long ago and knowing what you have to spend to get certain things I expect you have with place, I just think it's inaccurate to say that you have to pay X, but in Chicago could easily have the same thing for, I dunno, $350K, because that's not the market, not taking into account the things home buyers do take into account.
If I get what you are saying, but I think you are underestimating the cost of even the suburbs in the Seattle area.
I'm really not, that was my point. I thought Aaron was underestimating what a comparable place would go for in Chicago. But that aside, I totally agree that Seattle is more expensive, of course it is, for the reasons that have been given.
But Aaron is right, we are off topic and probably only people in Seattle and Chicago care (although I am endlessly fascinated with housing talk so will have to discipline myself not to continue). ;-)1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm worried I'm boring everyone other than you and me, Aaron, but I actually figured out a better way to express what I think we are (maybe) disagreeing about.
If you say that in Seattle a family is effectively priced out if they can't afford more than $500K (perhaps well more than), I'd totally agree. That's my perception and what the search engines seem to reflect, and I trust you as a resident who has looked for properties there, too. And that is totally not true at all in Chicago, there's a huge range of housing at different price points (more if you include the 'burbs).
BUT, if you look at average prices and say that you have a nice 3 bed, 2 bath house of 1700 or 1800 sq ft a 45 min commute from the main working area/downtown, and that in Chicago an analogous house would cost $300K, that's where I disagree. An actually analogous house if you take into account distance/commuting time from work, from neighborhoods with what normally attracts city residents, that is equally safe, perhaps has similar school options, stuff like that, will really be much more. You can find a $300K house (in fact, you can find a $4900 house, but it's in Englewood and comes with a hefty unpaid water bill), but for various reasons it won't be analogous and you most likely would not see it as an option at all if you lived in Chicago. Not questioning that the Chicago house would still be less, even if the houses used were comparable, but just how much less. It's also true that someone in Chicago will have a much broader range of choices and tradeoffs.
That does not take away from the key point, which is that the middle class is largely priced out of Seattle and can find housing easily in Chicago, but having looked for a house not that long ago and knowing what you have to spend to get certain things I expect you have with place, I just think it's inaccurate to say that you have to pay X, but in Chicago could easily have the same thing for, I dunno, $350K, because that's not the market, not taking into account the things home buyers do take into account.
If I get what you are saying, but I think you are underestimating the cost of even the suburbs in the Seattle area.
I'm really not, that was my point. I thought Aaron was underestimating what a comparable place would go for in Chicago. But that aside, I totally agree that Seattle is more expensive, of course it is, for the reasons that have been given.
But Aaron is right, we are off topic and probably only people in Seattle and Chicago care (although I am endlessly fascinated with housing talk so will have to discipline myself not to continue). ;-)
If we could get Baltimore, Brooklyn, DC, Dallas, LA, San Diego, etc involved in a separate thread it would definitely be much more productive.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm worried I'm boring everyone other than you and me, Aaron, but I actually figured out a better way to express what I think we are (maybe) disagreeing about.
If you say that in Seattle a family is effectively priced out if they can't afford more than $500K (perhaps well more than), I'd totally agree. That's my perception and what the search engines seem to reflect, and I trust you as a resident who has looked for properties there, too. And that is totally not true at all in Chicago, there's a huge range of housing at different price points (more if you include the 'burbs).
BUT, if you look at average prices and say that you have a nice 3 bed, 2 bath house of 1700 or 1800 sq ft a 45 min commute from the main working area/downtown, and that in Chicago an analogous house would cost $300K, that's where I disagree. An actually analogous house if you take into account distance/commuting time from work, from neighborhoods with what normally attracts city residents, that is equally safe, perhaps has similar school options, stuff like that, will really be much more. You can find a $300K house (in fact, you can find a $4900 house, but it's in Englewood and comes with a hefty unpaid water bill), but for various reasons it won't be analogous and you most likely would not see it as an option at all if you lived in Chicago. Not questioning that the Chicago house would still be less, even if the houses used were comparable, but just how much less. It's also true that someone in Chicago will have a much broader range of choices and tradeoffs.
That does not take away from the key point, which is that the middle class is largely priced out of Seattle and can find housing easily in Chicago, but having looked for a house not that long ago and knowing what you have to spend to get certain things I expect you have with place, I just think it's inaccurate to say that you have to pay X, but in Chicago could easily have the same thing for, I dunno, $350K, because that's not the market, not taking into account the things home buyers do take into account.
If I get what you are saying, but I think you are underestimating the cost of even the suburbs in the Seattle area.
I'm really not, that was my point. I thought Aaron was underestimating what a comparable place would go for in Chicago. But that aside, I totally agree that Seattle is more expensive, of course it is, for the reasons that have been given.
But Aaron is right, we are off topic and probably only people in Seattle and Chicago care (although I am endlessly fascinated with housing talk so will have to discipline myself not to continue). ;-)
If we could get Baltimore, Brooklyn, DC, Dallas, LA, San Diego, etc involved in a separate thread it would definitely be much more productive.
yeah don't get me started on DC...i live in the boonies and drive an hour + one way a day because of how much it costs to live in the city0 -
About $700 a month for everything for a family of seven. That includes diapers and pet food. My spouse is in the military. We started out poor. We got married right out of college, so all of the frugal habits I acquired over time have stuck with me. Fewer choices when meal planning, generic brands, nothing organic or free range, using similar meal components with different seasonings and spices to change it up, buying produce in season. Groceries end up being about 10% of our income. We currently live in a low COL area and rent is about twice my grocery budget for a 5 bedroom house. It would be twice that in the other cities we've lived in.1
-
deannalfisher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm worried I'm boring everyone other than you and me, Aaron, but I actually figured out a better way to express what I think we are (maybe) disagreeing about.
If you say that in Seattle a family is effectively priced out if they can't afford more than $500K (perhaps well more than), I'd totally agree. That's my perception and what the search engines seem to reflect, and I trust you as a resident who has looked for properties there, too. And that is totally not true at all in Chicago, there's a huge range of housing at different price points (more if you include the 'burbs).
BUT, if you look at average prices and say that you have a nice 3 bed, 2 bath house of 1700 or 1800 sq ft a 45 min commute from the main working area/downtown, and that in Chicago an analogous house would cost $300K, that's where I disagree. An actually analogous house if you take into account distance/commuting time from work, from neighborhoods with what normally attracts city residents, that is equally safe, perhaps has similar school options, stuff like that, will really be much more. You can find a $300K house (in fact, you can find a $4900 house, but it's in Englewood and comes with a hefty unpaid water bill), but for various reasons it won't be analogous and you most likely would not see it as an option at all if you lived in Chicago. Not questioning that the Chicago house would still be less, even if the houses used were comparable, but just how much less. It's also true that someone in Chicago will have a much broader range of choices and tradeoffs.
That does not take away from the key point, which is that the middle class is largely priced out of Seattle and can find housing easily in Chicago, but having looked for a house not that long ago and knowing what you have to spend to get certain things I expect you have with place, I just think it's inaccurate to say that you have to pay X, but in Chicago could easily have the same thing for, I dunno, $350K, because that's not the market, not taking into account the things home buyers do take into account.
If I get what you are saying, but I think you are underestimating the cost of even the suburbs in the Seattle area.
I'm really not, that was my point. I thought Aaron was underestimating what a comparable place would go for in Chicago. But that aside, I totally agree that Seattle is more expensive, of course it is, for the reasons that have been given.
But Aaron is right, we are off topic and probably only people in Seattle and Chicago care (although I am endlessly fascinated with housing talk so will have to discipline myself not to continue). ;-)
If we could get Baltimore, Brooklyn, DC, Dallas, LA, San Diego, etc involved in a separate thread it would definitely be much more productive.
yeah don't get me started on DC...i live in the boonies and drive an hour + one way a day because of how much it costs to live in the city
LOL, I've been up here for about 2 years now, almost done!!
And at least half a dozen times I've had to decline getting together with people because they have zero comprehension of what getting around is actually like.
Oh well I'm going to be in this part of the broader metro on Saturday, Do you want to get together for dinner? "UH NO! sorry, I'm not spending 3 hours each way(best case traffic) for dinner, Love you and all but just no, sorry"
Or "Doesn't so and so work near you'... why yes he does, and if we could both break off for lunch we could get together. but he lives this direction and I live that direction. And neither of us wants to spend any extra time commuting0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm worried I'm boring everyone other than you and me, Aaron, but I actually figured out a better way to express what I think we are (maybe) disagreeing about.
If you say that in Seattle a family is effectively priced out if they can't afford more than $500K (perhaps well more than), I'd totally agree. That's my perception and what the search engines seem to reflect, and I trust you as a resident who has looked for properties there, too. And that is totally not true at all in Chicago, there's a huge range of housing at different price points (more if you include the 'burbs).
BUT, if you look at average prices and say that you have a nice 3 bed, 2 bath house of 1700 or 1800 sq ft a 45 min commute from the main working area/downtown, and that in Chicago an analogous house would cost $300K, that's where I disagree. An actually analogous house if you take into account distance/commuting time from work, from neighborhoods with what normally attracts city residents, that is equally safe, perhaps has similar school options, stuff like that, will really be much more. You can find a $300K house (in fact, you can find a $4900 house, but it's in Englewood and comes with a hefty unpaid water bill), but for various reasons it won't be analogous and you most likely would not see it as an option at all if you lived in Chicago. Not questioning that the Chicago house would still be less, even if the houses used were comparable, but just how much less. It's also true that someone in Chicago will have a much broader range of choices and tradeoffs.
That does not take away from the key point, which is that the middle class is largely priced out of Seattle and can find housing easily in Chicago, but having looked for a house not that long ago and knowing what you have to spend to get certain things I expect you have with place, I just think it's inaccurate to say that you have to pay X, but in Chicago could easily have the same thing for, I dunno, $350K, because that's not the market, not taking into account the things home buyers do take into account.
If I get what you are saying, but I think you are underestimating the cost of even the suburbs in the Seattle area.
I'm really not, that was my point. I thought Aaron was underestimating what a comparable place would go for in Chicago. But that aside, I totally agree that Seattle is more expensive, of course it is, for the reasons that have been given.
But Aaron is right, we are off topic and probably only people in Seattle and Chicago care (although I am endlessly fascinated with housing talk so will have to discipline myself not to continue). ;-)
If we could get Baltimore, Brooklyn, DC, Dallas, LA, San Diego, etc involved in a separate thread it would definitely be much more productive.
yeah don't get me started on DC...i live in the boonies and drive an hour + one way a day because of how much it costs to live in the city
LOL, I've been up here for about 2 years now, almost done!!
And at least half a dozen times I've had to decline getting together with people because they have zero comprehension of what getting around is actually like.
Oh well I'm going to be in this part of the broader metro on Saturday, Do you want to get together for dinner? "UH NO! sorry, I'm not spending 3 hours each way(best case traffic) for dinner, Love you and all but just no, sorry"
Or "Doesn't so and so work near you'... why yes he does, and if we could both break off for lunch we could get together. but he lives this direction and I live that direction. And neither of us wants to spend any extra time commuting
sounds about right...there are VERY few people i like well enough to deal with either treking into the city or driving an hour plus to see them - had friends who lived in Centreville - that was easily an hour and a half drive - but they were like family so i did it....others....yeah, pass0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm worried I'm boring everyone other than you and me, Aaron, but I actually figured out a better way to express what I think we are (maybe) disagreeing about.
If you say that in Seattle a family is effectively priced out if they can't afford more than $500K (perhaps well more than), I'd totally agree. That's my perception and what the search engines seem to reflect, and I trust you as a resident who has looked for properties there, too. And that is totally not true at all in Chicago, there's a huge range of housing at different price points (more if you include the 'burbs).
BUT, if you look at average prices and say that you have a nice 3 bed, 2 bath house of 1700 or 1800 sq ft a 45 min commute from the main working area/downtown, and that in Chicago an analogous house would cost $300K, that's where I disagree. An actually analogous house if you take into account distance/commuting time from work, from neighborhoods with what normally attracts city residents, that is equally safe, perhaps has similar school options, stuff like that, will really be much more. You can find a $300K house (in fact, you can find a $4900 house, but it's in Englewood and comes with a hefty unpaid water bill), but for various reasons it won't be analogous and you most likely would not see it as an option at all if you lived in Chicago. Not questioning that the Chicago house would still be less, even if the houses used were comparable, but just how much less. It's also true that someone in Chicago will have a much broader range of choices and tradeoffs.
That does not take away from the key point, which is that the middle class is largely priced out of Seattle and can find housing easily in Chicago, but having looked for a house not that long ago and knowing what you have to spend to get certain things I expect you have with place, I just think it's inaccurate to say that you have to pay X, but in Chicago could easily have the same thing for, I dunno, $350K, because that's not the market, not taking into account the things home buyers do take into account.
If I get what you are saying, but I think you are underestimating the cost of even the suburbs in the Seattle area.
I'm really not, that was my point. I thought Aaron was underestimating what a comparable place would go for in Chicago. But that aside, I totally agree that Seattle is more expensive, of course it is, for the reasons that have been given.
But Aaron is right, we are off topic and probably only people in Seattle and Chicago care (although I am endlessly fascinated with housing talk so will have to discipline myself not to continue). ;-)
Don't mind me - not enough coffee this morning and reading comprehension failed.
But it is a fascinating topic.1 -
we are in destin FL area and spend about 125 a week for 2 people0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm worried I'm boring everyone other than you and me, Aaron, but I actually figured out a better way to express what I think we are (maybe) disagreeing about.
If you say that in Seattle a family is effectively priced out if they can't afford more than $500K (perhaps well more than), I'd totally agree. That's my perception and what the search engines seem to reflect, and I trust you as a resident who has looked for properties there, too. And that is totally not true at all in Chicago, there's a huge range of housing at different price points (more if you include the 'burbs).
BUT, if you look at average prices and say that you have a nice 3 bed, 2 bath house of 1700 or 1800 sq ft a 45 min commute from the main working area/downtown, and that in Chicago an analogous house would cost $300K, that's where I disagree. An actually analogous house if you take into account distance/commuting time from work, from neighborhoods with what normally attracts city residents, that is equally safe, perhaps has similar school options, stuff like that, will really be much more. You can find a $300K house (in fact, you can find a $4900 house, but it's in Englewood and comes with a hefty unpaid water bill), but for various reasons it won't be analogous and you most likely would not see it as an option at all if you lived in Chicago. Not questioning that the Chicago house would still be less, even if the houses used were comparable, but just how much less. It's also true that someone in Chicago will have a much broader range of choices and tradeoffs.
That does not take away from the key point, which is that the middle class is largely priced out of Seattle and can find housing easily in Chicago, but having looked for a house not that long ago and knowing what you have to spend to get certain things I expect you have with place, I just think it's inaccurate to say that you have to pay X, but in Chicago could easily have the same thing for, I dunno, $350K, because that's not the market, not taking into account the things home buyers do take into account.
If I get what you are saying, but I think you are underestimating the cost of even the suburbs in the Seattle area.
I'm really not, that was my point. I thought Aaron was underestimating what a comparable place would go for in Chicago. But that aside, I totally agree that Seattle is more expensive, of course it is, for the reasons that have been given.
But Aaron is right, we are off topic and probably only people in Seattle and Chicago care (although I am endlessly fascinated with housing talk so will have to discipline myself not to continue). ;-)
Don't mind me - not enough coffee this morning and reading comprehension failed.
But it is a fascinating topic.
It almost feels like a new normal but when I talk to an older generation like my parents and hear what their experience with housing was it is just so disproportionate. My parents lived in San Francisco and San Diego. My dad worked full time at a middle-management type job selling books after dropping out of college and my mom was part-time at a low paying job. I think combined they made something like 50k a year. But at the time a house cost 50k in that area. So a house was basically one year salary for a family where there was one major breadwinner who had sort of a middle of the road job and that was in So Cal. My wife and I are both professionals with Ph.D's and full time jobs and even a small house on the outskirts of the city is probably in excess of 5 times our annual combined salaries.
So is that the new normal or are we in one big bubble right now?0 -
0
-
Family of 3 adults, and we budget constantly, it's our staple, and yet, we still struggle! We don't have the luxury of eating out/take-out, that's maybe once a year at best. Recently, our income has made a turn for the better, soon we'll able to spend money on take-out and (healthier) groceries. Right now, we're about $100 every 1.5 weeks! Yeah, we're that broke!0
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm worried I'm boring everyone other than you and me, Aaron, but I actually figured out a better way to express what I think we are (maybe) disagreeing about.
If you say that in Seattle a family is effectively priced out if they can't afford more than $500K (perhaps well more than), I'd totally agree. That's my perception and what the search engines seem to reflect, and I trust you as a resident who has looked for properties there, too. And that is totally not true at all in Chicago, there's a huge range of housing at different price points (more if you include the 'burbs).
BUT, if you look at average prices and say that you have a nice 3 bed, 2 bath house of 1700 or 1800 sq ft a 45 min commute from the main working area/downtown, and that in Chicago an analogous house would cost $300K, that's where I disagree. An actually analogous house if you take into account distance/commuting time from work, from neighborhoods with what normally attracts city residents, that is equally safe, perhaps has similar school options, stuff like that, will really be much more. You can find a $300K house (in fact, you can find a $4900 house, but it's in Englewood and comes with a hefty unpaid water bill), but for various reasons it won't be analogous and you most likely would not see it as an option at all if you lived in Chicago. Not questioning that the Chicago house would still be less, even if the houses used were comparable, but just how much less. It's also true that someone in Chicago will have a much broader range of choices and tradeoffs.
That does not take away from the key point, which is that the middle class is largely priced out of Seattle and can find housing easily in Chicago, but having looked for a house not that long ago and knowing what you have to spend to get certain things I expect you have with place, I just think it's inaccurate to say that you have to pay X, but in Chicago could easily have the same thing for, I dunno, $350K, because that's not the market, not taking into account the things home buyers do take into account.
If I get what you are saying, but I think you are underestimating the cost of even the suburbs in the Seattle area.
I'm really not, that was my point. I thought Aaron was underestimating what a comparable place would go for in Chicago. But that aside, I totally agree that Seattle is more expensive, of course it is, for the reasons that have been given.
But Aaron is right, we are off topic and probably only people in Seattle and Chicago care (although I am endlessly fascinated with housing talk so will have to discipline myself not to continue). ;-)
Don't mind me - not enough coffee this morning and reading comprehension failed.
But it is a fascinating topic.
It almost feels like a new normal but when I talk to an older generation like my parents and hear what their experience with housing was it is just so disproportionate. My parents lived in San Francisco and San Diego. My dad worked full time at a middle-management type job selling books after dropping out of college and my mom was part-time at a low paying job. I think combined they made something like 50k a year. But at the time a house cost 50k in that area. So a house was basically one year salary for a family where there was one major breadwinner who had sort of a middle of the road job and that was in So Cal. My wife and I are both professionals with Ph.D's and full time jobs and even a small house on the outskirts of the city is probably in excess of 5 times our annual combined salaries.
So is that the new normal or are we in one big bubble right now?
I read a prescient article just before the last crash that posited that .75 - 2.5x household income are sustainable levels and when you get outside of that, correction is inevitable. The problem is that corrections take time, especially with a relatively stable workforce.
Some percentage of homeowners in Seattle, DC, Chicago, etc are still living in that .75 - 2.5x range, as they've homesteaded before the market went crazy. So they're either going to survive the bust(if they are prudent) or cash out and leave before the bottom drops out. In the meantime, you have what happened in 2003-2008, new blood/money comes in and keeps pushing the market up, not understanding that there's a very real and provable cap on costs. On the west coast and in Hawaii, it's worse because you have/had investors from Japan bolstering the market due to a misunderstanding of what real estate is actually worth, most of them learned from the last 2-3 cycles that Tokyo pricing doesn't apply in the US.
TL;DR: It's a bubble the question is how long.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm worried I'm boring everyone other than you and me, Aaron, but I actually figured out a better way to express what I think we are (maybe) disagreeing about.
If you say that in Seattle a family is effectively priced out if they can't afford more than $500K (perhaps well more than), I'd totally agree. That's my perception and what the search engines seem to reflect, and I trust you as a resident who has looked for properties there, too. And that is totally not true at all in Chicago, there's a huge range of housing at different price points (more if you include the 'burbs).
BUT, if you look at average prices and say that you have a nice 3 bed, 2 bath house of 1700 or 1800 sq ft a 45 min commute from the main working area/downtown, and that in Chicago an analogous house would cost $300K, that's where I disagree. An actually analogous house if you take into account distance/commuting time from work, from neighborhoods with what normally attracts city residents, that is equally safe, perhaps has similar school options, stuff like that, will really be much more. You can find a $300K house (in fact, you can find a $4900 house, but it's in Englewood and comes with a hefty unpaid water bill), but for various reasons it won't be analogous and you most likely would not see it as an option at all if you lived in Chicago. Not questioning that the Chicago house would still be less, even if the houses used were comparable, but just how much less. It's also true that someone in Chicago will have a much broader range of choices and tradeoffs.
That does not take away from the key point, which is that the middle class is largely priced out of Seattle and can find housing easily in Chicago, but having looked for a house not that long ago and knowing what you have to spend to get certain things I expect you have with place, I just think it's inaccurate to say that you have to pay X, but in Chicago could easily have the same thing for, I dunno, $350K, because that's not the market, not taking into account the things home buyers do take into account.
If I get what you are saying, but I think you are underestimating the cost of even the suburbs in the Seattle area.
I'm really not, that was my point. I thought Aaron was underestimating what a comparable place would go for in Chicago. But that aside, I totally agree that Seattle is more expensive, of course it is, for the reasons that have been given.
But Aaron is right, we are off topic and probably only people in Seattle and Chicago care (although I am endlessly fascinated with housing talk so will have to discipline myself not to continue). ;-)
Don't mind me - not enough coffee this morning and reading comprehension failed.
But it is a fascinating topic.
It almost feels like a new normal but when I talk to an older generation like my parents and hear what their experience with housing was it is just so disproportionate. My parents lived in San Francisco and San Diego. My dad worked full time at a middle-management type job selling books after dropping out of college and my mom was part-time at a low paying job. I think combined they made something like 50k a year. But at the time a house cost 50k in that area. So a house was basically one year salary for a family where there was one major breadwinner who had sort of a middle of the road job and that was in So Cal. My wife and I are both professionals with Ph.D's and full time jobs and even a small house on the outskirts of the city is probably in excess of 5 times our annual combined salaries.
So is that the new normal or are we in one big bubble right now?
I read a prescient article just before the last crash that posited that .75 - 2.5x household income are sustainable levels and when you get outside of that, correction is inevitable. The problem is that corrections take time, especially with a relatively stable workforce.
Some percentage of homeowners in Seattle, DC, Chicago, etc are still living in that .75 - 2.5x range, as they've homesteaded before the market went crazy. So they're either going to survive the bust(if they are prudent) or cash out and leave before the bottom drops out. In the meantime, you have what happened in 2003-2008, new blood/money comes in and keeps pushing the market up, not understanding that there's a very real and provable cap on costs. On the west coast and in Hawaii, it's worse because you have/had investors from Japan bolstering the market due to a misunderstanding of what real estate is actually worth, most of them learned from the last 2-3 cycles that Tokyo pricing doesn't apply in the US.
TL;DR: It's a bubble the question is how long.
Yeah I tend to agree. I really don't feel like trying to uproot and find new jobs in an entirely different city though, even if that were possible. Luckily we bought at a time where it wasn't too insane (maybe 3x our salary at the time) and we got a very good rate on our mortgage so we are doing okay....its just a lot for what we got. Not really planning on selling at the moment so if the bottom drops out not sure if it will really affect us at least in the short term.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm worried I'm boring everyone other than you and me, Aaron, but I actually figured out a better way to express what I think we are (maybe) disagreeing about.
If you say that in Seattle a family is effectively priced out if they can't afford more than $500K (perhaps well more than), I'd totally agree. That's my perception and what the search engines seem to reflect, and I trust you as a resident who has looked for properties there, too. And that is totally not true at all in Chicago, there's a huge range of housing at different price points (more if you include the 'burbs).
BUT, if you look at average prices and say that you have a nice 3 bed, 2 bath house of 1700 or 1800 sq ft a 45 min commute from the main working area/downtown, and that in Chicago an analogous house would cost $300K, that's where I disagree. An actually analogous house if you take into account distance/commuting time from work, from neighborhoods with what normally attracts city residents, that is equally safe, perhaps has similar school options, stuff like that, will really be much more. You can find a $300K house (in fact, you can find a $4900 house, but it's in Englewood and comes with a hefty unpaid water bill), but for various reasons it won't be analogous and you most likely would not see it as an option at all if you lived in Chicago. Not questioning that the Chicago house would still be less, even if the houses used were comparable, but just how much less. It's also true that someone in Chicago will have a much broader range of choices and tradeoffs.
That does not take away from the key point, which is that the middle class is largely priced out of Seattle and can find housing easily in Chicago, but having looked for a house not that long ago and knowing what you have to spend to get certain things I expect you have with place, I just think it's inaccurate to say that you have to pay X, but in Chicago could easily have the same thing for, I dunno, $350K, because that's not the market, not taking into account the things home buyers do take into account.
If I get what you are saying, but I think you are underestimating the cost of even the suburbs in the Seattle area.
I'm really not, that was my point. I thought Aaron was underestimating what a comparable place would go for in Chicago. But that aside, I totally agree that Seattle is more expensive, of course it is, for the reasons that have been given.
But Aaron is right, we are off topic and probably only people in Seattle and Chicago care (although I am endlessly fascinated with housing talk so will have to discipline myself not to continue). ;-)
Don't mind me - not enough coffee this morning and reading comprehension failed.
But it is a fascinating topic.
It almost feels like a new normal but when I talk to an older generation like my parents and hear what their experience with housing was it is just so disproportionate. My parents lived in San Francisco and San Diego. My dad worked full time at a middle-management type job selling books after dropping out of college and my mom was part-time at a low paying job. I think combined they made something like 50k a year. But at the time a house cost 50k in that area. So a house was basically one year salary for a family where there was one major breadwinner who had sort of a middle of the road job and that was in So Cal. My wife and I are both professionals with Ph.D's and full time jobs and even a small house on the outskirts of the city is probably in excess of 5 times our annual combined salaries.
So is that the new normal or are we in one big bubble right now?
I read a prescient article just before the last crash that posited that .75 - 2.5x household income are sustainable levels and when you get outside of that, correction is inevitable. The problem is that corrections take time, especially with a relatively stable workforce.
Some percentage of homeowners in Seattle, DC, Chicago, etc are still living in that .75 - 2.5x range, as they've homesteaded before the market went crazy. So they're either going to survive the bust(if they are prudent) or cash out and leave before the bottom drops out. In the meantime, you have what happened in 2003-2008, new blood/money comes in and keeps pushing the market up, not understanding that there's a very real and provable cap on costs. On the west coast and in Hawaii, it's worse because you have/had investors from Japan bolstering the market due to a misunderstanding of what real estate is actually worth, most of them learned from the last 2-3 cycles that Tokyo pricing doesn't apply in the US.
TL;DR: It's a bubble the question is how long.
Yeah I tend to agree. I really don't feel like trying to uproot and find new jobs in an entirely different city though, even if that were possible. Luckily we bought at a time where it wasn't too insane (maybe 3x our salary at the time) and we got a very good rate on our mortgage so we are doing okay....its just a lot for what we got.
One useful and meaningful clue is comparing rent and mortgage prices, they should be within 100% of each other. either way.
so 1000 rent 2000 mortgage or 1000 rent 500 mortgage. is a safe range. anything beyond that is a bubble clue.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm worried I'm boring everyone other than you and me, Aaron, but I actually figured out a better way to express what I think we are (maybe) disagreeing about.
If you say that in Seattle a family is effectively priced out if they can't afford more than $500K (perhaps well more than), I'd totally agree. That's my perception and what the search engines seem to reflect, and I trust you as a resident who has looked for properties there, too. And that is totally not true at all in Chicago, there's a huge range of housing at different price points (more if you include the 'burbs).
BUT, if you look at average prices and say that you have a nice 3 bed, 2 bath house of 1700 or 1800 sq ft a 45 min commute from the main working area/downtown, and that in Chicago an analogous house would cost $300K, that's where I disagree. An actually analogous house if you take into account distance/commuting time from work, from neighborhoods with what normally attracts city residents, that is equally safe, perhaps has similar school options, stuff like that, will really be much more. You can find a $300K house (in fact, you can find a $4900 house, but it's in Englewood and comes with a hefty unpaid water bill), but for various reasons it won't be analogous and you most likely would not see it as an option at all if you lived in Chicago. Not questioning that the Chicago house would still be less, even if the houses used were comparable, but just how much less. It's also true that someone in Chicago will have a much broader range of choices and tradeoffs.
That does not take away from the key point, which is that the middle class is largely priced out of Seattle and can find housing easily in Chicago, but having looked for a house not that long ago and knowing what you have to spend to get certain things I expect you have with place, I just think it's inaccurate to say that you have to pay X, but in Chicago could easily have the same thing for, I dunno, $350K, because that's not the market, not taking into account the things home buyers do take into account.
If I get what you are saying, but I think you are underestimating the cost of even the suburbs in the Seattle area.
I'm really not, that was my point. I thought Aaron was underestimating what a comparable place would go for in Chicago. But that aside, I totally agree that Seattle is more expensive, of course it is, for the reasons that have been given.
But Aaron is right, we are off topic and probably only people in Seattle and Chicago care (although I am endlessly fascinated with housing talk so will have to discipline myself not to continue). ;-)
Don't mind me - not enough coffee this morning and reading comprehension failed.
But it is a fascinating topic.
It almost feels like a new normal but when I talk to an older generation like my parents and hear what their experience with housing was it is just so disproportionate. My parents lived in San Francisco and San Diego. My dad worked full time at a middle-management type job selling books after dropping out of college and my mom was part-time at a low paying job. I think combined they made something like 50k a year. But at the time a house cost 50k in that area. So a house was basically one year salary for a family where there was one major breadwinner who had sort of a middle of the road job and that was in So Cal. My wife and I are both professionals with Ph.D's and full time jobs and even a small house on the outskirts of the city is probably in excess of 5 times our annual combined salaries.
So is that the new normal or are we in one big bubble right now?
I read a prescient article just before the last crash that posited that .75 - 2.5x household income are sustainable levels and when you get outside of that, correction is inevitable. The problem is that corrections take time, especially with a relatively stable workforce.
Some percentage of homeowners in Seattle, DC, Chicago, etc are still living in that .75 - 2.5x range, as they've homesteaded before the market went crazy. So they're either going to survive the bust(if they are prudent) or cash out and leave before the bottom drops out. In the meantime, you have what happened in 2003-2008, new blood/money comes in and keeps pushing the market up, not understanding that there's a very real and provable cap on costs. On the west coast and in Hawaii, it's worse because you have/had investors from Japan bolstering the market due to a misunderstanding of what real estate is actually worth, most of them learned from the last 2-3 cycles that Tokyo pricing doesn't apply in the US.
TL;DR: It's a bubble the question is how long.
Yeah I tend to agree. I really don't feel like trying to uproot and find new jobs in an entirely different city though, even if that were possible. Luckily we bought at a time where it wasn't too insane (maybe 3x our salary at the time) and we got a very good rate on our mortgage so we are doing okay....its just a lot for what we got.
One useful and meaningful clue is comparing rent and mortgage prices, they should be within 100% of each other. either way.
so 1000 rent 2000 mortgage or 1000 rent 500 mortgage. is a safe range. anything beyond that is a bubble clue.
Well rents are pretty high in Seattle as well so actually by that metric it might not be a bubble. Or rent is in a bubble somehow.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions