Where we failed is that $120k was supposed to be a middle-class income when living costs this much. The fact the median is 63k is a sign that all the excess value has been sucked out of the masses and funneled into the coffers of the billionaire class.
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
685 points (96.5% liked)
News
23645 readers
4200 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
100% this. It's not that costs rose as much as it's that salaries didn't increase.
In the late 70s around 23% of US corporate revenues went to pay salaries. By 2012 that had fallen to 7% - in other words, just before neoliberalism really took off almost 1/4 of the money workers spent buying goods from US companies was almost directly back in workers' pockets, whilst by 2012 less that 1/14 of what workers spent buying goods from US companies ended back in workers' pockets.
All that excess money that doesn't get recycled back to workers anymore has got to be pooling somewhere.
Wow, now that's a hell of a statistic! Got a nice reference for it so I can read more?
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
The link gives great context to the article. Thank you.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I honestly don't even know why this upsets me so much. I am 50 and all set. I don't have children and barely any debt. I never considered myself particularly patriotic but somehow this whole thing gets under my skin. I guess it sours my achievements and fruits of decades of struggle (it took three generations of planning and hustle to get us out of poverty). It's like being a kid having a birthday party at Chuck E Cheese by yourself while all your friends are locked outside and you can see them through the glass windows.
Because you have empathy for others, it's a good thing.
It gets under my skin because the west was on the right trajectory; improving wealth equality, quality of life, work life balance, etc — Then Capitalists killed all those gains using Conservatism, Neoliberalism, and a bastardised version of Libertarianism — just to enrich a tiny percentage the human population and return the rest of humanity to feudalism.
Why should they own all the gains from humanities collective efforts, when all of us have a rightful claim to a share of those gains?
In the early 1900s we had huge fights for labor. Strikes yes, but also some literal armed fights.
We won a lot. They conceded a lot.
But they've eroded those wins, little by little, for a century or so.
This is what will ALWAYS happen when you live in a system explicitly designed to extract profit from workers and reward greed. It cannot be reformed. It cannot be controlled. It will always slide backwards into this. We need a different system altogether.
Yup, we could be creating an amazing life for more people - and damaging the environment less while we are at it; but instead "we" keep doubling down in the other direction
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wanting other people to have what you have, without your struggle, is an opinion we need more of.
Especially when we have a society with a huge number of people who think that if you're poor, you deserve it.
What gets me is, a lot of the POOR people say that about POOR people.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Here's what happened in a nutshell.
Lyndon Johnson had great plans for the US, but wanted to win the Vietnam War with one huge push. That quickly turned into a giant quagmire. LBJ and later Nixon, ordered bombing of the North. That meant the US factories were working 24/7. Nice for factory owners and union workers, but LBJ was paying for it with paper money because he didn't want to raise taxes. Ironically, Nixon ran for President as an anti inflation and pro peace candidate.
Nixon and Kissinger doubled down on the bombing and inflation started to spiral. Also, those factories were getting a bit worn down. Unable to met the deamnd for the bombing and supply foreign markets the US ceded local steel making to Germany and Japan. This is going to bite the US in the ass when the Arab Oil boycott hits. US steel is much more oil dependant than the newer factories, so suddenly Toyotas and VWs are the hot cars, and US manufacturing takes a huge hit.
Carter tried to control inflation and cut oil use, but got kicked out over the Iran hostage mess. Reagan came in and cut taxes for the rich. This increased the debt, but gave the economy an unrealistic jolt.
tl dr. In 1960, minimum wage was $1.00/hour. The average house was $11,000.00 and $1 million was considered a vast fortune.* Middle class meant a High School graduate with a Union job supporting a family of four.
By the time Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr were done, 'middle class' was two college degrees supporting the house and $1 million was what a rich guy paid for a party.
- In case anyone tells you that $1 million is 1960 would be $10 million today, tell them that in 1960, $100,000 would buy a mansion in Beverly Hills.
The massive difference in the purchasing power of what the Official Inflation Figures tell us - when we used them to adjust an amount of money at a past date for inflation over the years and get a supposedly equivalent present day amount - is the same salary now as in 1960, shows just how fake Official Inflation Figures are.
The reason for Official Inflation Figures being so much bullshit and always on the understating inflation side, is because the lower the Inflation used in calculating the Official GDP figures, the higher that latter figure gets.
All that talk of GDP Growth in the last few decades is the product of some very consistent (and hence likely purposeful) understating of the Inflation so that the Maths used to produce the Real (i.e. Official) GDP output a higher number hence politician can proudly declare GDP is growing strongly.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
https://www.rd.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fact-sheet/508_RD_FS_RHS_SFH502Direct.pdf
the federal government will loan you the money for the house at below market rates, and if their rate is still too expensive, they can give you a deferment.
my effective interest rate today is 1%.
please take money from the federal government.
fuck the banks.
Lots of sellers will prefer cash or regular loans so your application is very likely to be last in line. Plus the applications are much, much more complicated and mortgage applications are already a bitch. But then it's usually a once in a lifetime experience and may be the only option for a lot of people do this is more of a heads up than an attempt to discourage anyone from applying.
load more comments
(11 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
Smith explained how, just a few years ago, $60-$70K a year would have been sufficient to qualify for a home.
Yeah, no. It was more than a few years ago.
I think that this has been trouble since 2007. Financial institutions went from giving lots of home loans to only giving corporations and the elite loans.
2007 was 4 years ago.
checks math
Everything checks out here
I don't have a full Orlando market research report but pre-pandemic (2018) you could get a house in my neighborhood (Davenport) for $265k-325k. In 2024 the starting price is ~$650k. In 2018 I bought a house (Orlando) for my aunt to live in for $150k. After buying the little bungalow, I saw the rest of that neighbohood get gobbled up by investment funds and now it is almost completely rentals. The current comps have it at $325k.
Homes were dirt cheap from 2009 until about 2013, but everyone was broke. Prices were reasonable from 2014 to maybe 2018 (maybe). The post lockdown boom and investment fund buying spree has been insane.
load more comments
(2 replies)
This happened because people were lulled into voting for the very people who gave their fair share of corporate profits to the rich. Looking at you, Republicans, especially Ronald Reagan.
You can argue that Democrats inability to support the working class and unions helped to kill the American dream. “Both sides” are capitalists.
Hell, Clinton essentially adapted Reaganism for the Democratic Party.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
A friend was looking at getting a home lately and I offered to look into co-signing with them, so we gave our information to see what they would qualify for. With both of our details, they offered them a home loan of something like $100k, really not even enough to get anything that's on the market now except for the worst crack houses possible. I then looked at what would be possible if I just applied by myself and if I applied for a home loan for a place that I would rent out. Not sure if it was considered a business loan, but I wouldn't be the occupant, it would be an investment property for me. Suddenly, by myself, I qualified for a $300k loan, same loan agency, just different terms. I do have great credit, so maybe that helped, it's just weird how they come up with the numbers sometimes. Like you would think two people together would qualify for more than what a single person would qualify for.
What happened is that the other person apparently has absolutely terrible credit, so holy hell don't cosign with him!
I mean, operated as an investment property they have near certainty you will have a stable income source (the tenant) so it makes sense that the loan value is higher. You're guaranteed to have the income of the rent checks and just as likely all your other potential income on top of that. You actually can afford higher mortgage payments in that situation -- and substantially so.
Which is a strong, strong, strong argument why all cities which have housing shortages (basically all cities) should be exercising policies that discourage non-owner-occupied properties.
load more comments
(7 replies)
TL;DR: Americans now need to make $120K a year to afford a typical middle-class life and qualify to purchase a home. Minimum.
Maybe in the middle of nowhere America. Meanwhile my wife and I make well above that in Los Angeles and we can't afford the monthly on a two bedroom house in a sketchy neighborhood.
SF Bay Area, $125k a year, I gave up on buying a house. I'll just inherit my parents' when they die, thanks.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
Good thing investment "firms" are buying up all the rental properties, right, guys? Neofeudalism for the win!
load more comments
(2 replies)
This is what happens when most people think the disparity in wealth should grow.
It does.
Mr Realtor can blame his own industry for a good portion of the problem.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Just a reminder that high prices are a markets signal to build more.
Let people build housing, is it too much to ask for?
All the housing in the world won't matter if the same 10 people are buying everything up. Supply isn't our problem.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
Smith explained how, just a few years ago, $60-$70K a year would have been sufficient to qualify for a home.
"Most people are carrying student loan debt, which is at an all-time high, and the average payment in the country is $500 a month for your college degree. [There are] some people I'm seeing in my comment section saying ‘$500, I wish, it was $1,200 a month for me’," said Smith.
"If you are someone who bought a house before 2020 and you have it paid off or you have a 3% interest rate, you are not burdened by the housing costs like the 2024 adults are now," the relator said, explaining how debt, especially college debt, housing costs and childcare are burdening millennials and Gen Zers starting their lives.
It’s scary how everything seemed to change so fast, yet the ingredients for this very situation have been simmering for some time. It’s no coincidence that since student loans ballooned it didn’t take much for the dominoes to really begin to fall and have drastic effects on everything else downstream.
load more comments
(2 replies)
If you want the results of the American dream the only way to do so is crime. Probably always been true, but boy is it truer than ever now.
I achieved the American dream by leaving America.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Yet disability pays $11k a YEAR that'sthe same as $5.42/hour.
The US government would rather disabled people just not exist. From their perspective, nobody on disability creates shareholder value, therefore you are subhuman. And non-disabled humans to them are cattle.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Note that the source of this opinion piece is TikTok. The salary needed for a middle class existence varies wildly from city to city.
I'm in Salt Lake City, for example, and a recent article has the necessary salary to afford a home around $140,000/year. I moved here in part because it was a much cheaper alternative to D.C. and the minimum salary to own a home is still $140,000.
load more comments
(22 replies)
view more: next ›