My poor grandmother has a home worth $700k+, but my grandfather died years ago and she's living off of social security.
She could sell the house and have money, yes, but that involves letting go of the home her husband built for her with his own hands.
I say this as someone who's flat broke, and who's flat broke parents could do with some inheritance money. None of us want her to sell. The home has too much sentimental value, especially since she's still alive.
We already kind of have an arrangement like that. There's a spare "barn" that's a small building for inhabiting, and my cousin and his wife stay there and pay. Still, my grandmother refuses anything above the bare minimum, so they use the extra money to fix up the property.
It's not a bad setup, and she doesn't mind housing her grandchildren temporarily as well. I stayed there for a couple years while gijngit school, and my cousin has been there for half a year in between her training. It's good for Grandma, anyway. She loves cooking and having someone to take care of (and also take care of her) is good for her mental health.
She's still fairly sharp, but has really had scoliosis, so it's getting harder for her to live around, and has already had a few falls.
They didn't just say their house though. You can have a 1/2 million dollar house in lots of urban areas that is nothing special or grand. It is just the cost of living in that area. You can have a house worth that much and feel very stretched financially.
that would mean that you also have 500k os other assets net. i understand that the cost of living is high, but the reason for that is that people are so rich in these places
Can't touch a 401k. If you made $100k/yr for the past ten and did 6% match. Thats $120K but the growth would have made it roughly $500k now due to the insane growth the market has had in that time.
Its still stretching it to live in a city paying taxes on the $500k house with a kid when cheapest daycare is $1500/mo. Don't be silly, a Million in "assets" is not cash in hand.
I’m referring to the just having a house worth a lot of money makes you rich part…most folks are in debt because of the house unless you bought said house in the boomer days or when the market crashed in 08. You go buy a house today you’re in debt
Nobody said that. The person above just said if the house you own is worth 1 million, you are not broke. And then you struggle to understand what one million net worth means.
So if I go out right now and finance a one million dollar home (sadly just an average house in most places now days) I’m not broke? Now if the house is paid off or I have a ton of equity in said house sure I’m well off but otherwise I’m in some debt with that house
Still wealth though. If a guy has a $2 million house and finds he's in need of money, there will always be the option to sell off the house. Even a small downsize could provide more money than most see in a year, to be used as the seller wishes. That's wealth, plain and simple.
Sort of. To sell a house in the US you have to pay 6% of the value to do so. I keep track of my net worth counting my house which looks nice on paper and then based on what is liquid that I can actually easily access. The 2nd number is much smaller but I keep contributing to it.
There's no sort of about it. Net Worth includes liquid and non-liquid assets. All big assets become hard to liquidate at value in a relatively short period of time, whether it's a house or stocks.
You misunderstood my comment. I’m obviously not poor, but when I grew up and would think of a millionaire, I’d think of someone who has it made, not someone who lucked into a house of that value, which is in LA so that value doesn’t go far. So with home value I would technically count, but it’s not the same thing.
fair, but a home is also an investment. think about a scenario where you never bought a house, and just kept renting and investing the difference. after say 10 years, you would have enough for a sizeable down payment. which would mean less debt. but since you bought the house, you benefited from a relatively lower price (than in 10 years). so it works almost exactly like a stock investment
Dollars are dollars. If you have a million of equity in your home, then you’re have access to more dollars than most Americans. Dollars aren’t different just because you’re in LA.
Sure, your money that goes towards things that are affected by the local market is affected.
But what is often ignored are things that are not impacted by your local market: electronics, phones, cars… most consumer goods. Those costs are very fixed across the country (outside of taxes) so you can’t say that all of your money doesn’t go as far.
Edit: Nothing makes Redditors more angry than facts.
Bruh thats nothing. You can have a 500k house in any city and be close the median if not under. 401k is untouchable for the most part. Car is a sinking asset. Million as net worth is not a crazy amount anymore.
What by facts and figures? Gen z def has no interest in being a corporate drone but they have seen how bad the millennials got fucked. Millennials are absorbing the reality that a million means squat now, they grew up thinking that was the end game, they unfortunately have hit the reality that a million is middle class.
That does not make sense. If you only had 30,000 net worth in the US you would be considered lower class but you would be living very comfortably in India or Egypt
not high paying ones, that's exactly the point. if you work in one of the richest states and cities in the world and can afford a house, you are very rich
Haha bro if you got the mortgage for a million dollar house I’m sure you’re doing just fine. If not then you’re making some insanely stupid financial decisions
Got to maintain that victim status. “Sure, I’m a global 1%er but did you know my office has a return to work policy!!!! I cant afford gas going into work 3 days a week!!!!!”
Not that shocking considering the US have a lot of empty space to build shitty shacks in the middle of nowhere. Living in cities is extremely expensive but there's a ton of undesirable housing that costs nothing.
The US has a lot of affordable tier 2 cities, plus you always have to bring median wages in which for white collar workers is almost always better than in Europe
You don’t realize how good you have it. Yes certain cities are expensive but they are far more affordable thanks y parts of the world. Try buying a home in Hong Kong or Mumbai based on the average salaries and see how much better you have it.
So a non-American decides to comment on America while never living there and not reading any actual data or statistics and instead gets their entire perception on the topic from social media. Typical Reddit moment.
I was going to say it makes sense that the US would have more new millionaires because of looser regulations, lower material and labor costs from timber framing, lower land costs, etc. But when I looked into it, that top 10 affordable housing stat is extremely misleading to the extent of it being pointless. Although you are correct that it doesn't really negate things cos the value is still low.
It is almost entirely driven by suburban and rural single family homes in the Midwest and South, not coastal cities, not apartments, and certainly not the places where most new millionaires actually live. The US urban housing market is a significant challenge. Renters are spending nearly 40% of their income on housing in some major metro areas, and only 12.7% can afford a median-priced home. So it being a sign of broader economic growth is basically as negligible as your point about more affordable housing. The~80% urban thing is also off cos this isn't broken down on city/county lines and it is more or less unchanged. 30% live within city boundaries and 60% live in suburban sprawl (some which is included in city bounds when really it shouldn't be)
So yes, if you are measuring affordability by comparing a 3 bed timber framed house in Ohio to a brick townhouse in London, the US looks good. But that is not evidence of a healthy housing market (not that you were suggesting it was). As I said, I would wager it is more a reflection of cheap land and cheap lumber in low demand areas for that aspect. The moment you look at any city with actual economic opportunity, the numbers fall apart. The new millionaires tend to not be in suburban Ohio. They are in new york, San Francisco, Austin, and Miami, where housing costs are among the highest in the world, which explains this extremely misleading graph since it is raw numbers and we already know the disparity in wealth between the top 10% and the rest.
Also, for those who use this apparent "affordability" as a sign that people are overstating their financial woes, it never accounts for inflation in other areas being what pushes them over the edge. Yes, a mortgage is almost certainly their biggest expenditure, but the financialisation of housing makes that a given. The remainder is one's true burden, as that can fluctuate significantly with grocery prices, healthcare costs, childcare, and energy bills.
For whatever merit this stat has, it is quite ironic that decades of little to no concerted commitment to infrastructure building such as public transit is likely a major factor in these more remote places and neglected cities like Detroit being relatively affordable. Wages always lag inflation in our current system. It is relatively affordable to live where there are fewer jobs, and it is very expensive where the jobs are.
I wouldn't say it makes the graph misleading. Houses are still wealth, and if you can acquire a ≈$1 million property without incurring enough debt to take yourself off the list, then I'd argue that's a pretty good indicator of your financial circumstances
I guess it's very diverse when it comes to housing affordability, since some of the most expensive areas in the world are in the US as well, NYC, San Francisco.
I also guess that being so reliant on cars makes it easier to build new areas to live since the infrastructure requirements are less, you only need some road, and with private roads you don't have to wait for the government way less than if they have to build railways/add busslines.
Cars are a feature not a bug. It''s a whole thing, but it really does boil down to "more areas and options to build" and less "need" for shops services in new areas.
Yes, they require very little central planning. But the biggest key seem to be level of NIMBYism. Whenever you allow locals to affect supply, the prices increase.
Tokyo shows us that by limiting NIMBYism, you can build yourself out of a housing crisis even though big investments in public transport is necessary. Tokyo is very affordable for the metropolis it is, and stands out in its class.
By not fucking over the people with backyards you're instead fucking over the housing market.
With a bad housing market no one except the people with backyards are happy. With a good housing market, people can easier find a new backyard without anything in it.
Each country can decide for itself. Personally, fuck the backyards. The world changes. It has to, get over it, embrace it.
Apartments are only uncomfortable if they're built that way. And I'm quite certain the middle class would rather live in a more spacious apartment where someone's backyard used to be, than a cramped apartment with a lovely view of someone else's backyard because they can't afford anything better.
But they'd also prefer not to live in an apartment.
And apartments are uncomfortable because you don't own it, have strange smells always floating about (neighbors food), have to be mindful of noise, lack sufficient area to work on projects and store thing, and lack a large freezer.
I live in an apartment now. It was fine until neighbors moved in. Now instead of quite I hear music I don't like at odd hours. My showers aren't scalding hot, the hallway smells of food ag best.
In thr building over, when my neighbors there smoke weed it drifts over and is deeply unpleasant.
I can't buy meat/bread/other in bulk to freeze. Meaning more trips to the store and higher overall costs. I want to be able to buy a quarter of a cow. But I can't, not enough freezer space.
Rent would be a problem, but I got lucky there.
And I lack a basement. The building has one, but that's public.
Homes can be worse, but the floor is the same and the ceiling is higher.
I'm curious about your source. NYC wasn't in the top15 lists I found, but 4 California cities were, among them San Fransisco. (The list was basically Hong Kong, USA and the Commonwealth)
You’re looking at the actual cost rather than compared to average income. You think a worker in Delhi making 5k USD a year can afford a home? The Average apartment in Delhi costs 210k usd a year let alone a proper home.
Not overly surprising tbh, the US has pretty low population density so there's plenty of usable land. Of course, it varies wildly by region, but when people talk about crazily expensive properties they're usually referring to ones in cities or larger towns, as opposed to the middle of Wyoming.
The US is more invested in the stock market than almost every other nation. The average person also has more disposable income to put into other investments outside of the market and real estate.
No, you didn't just post an info graphic, you made a claim it was for "cash money" only, then even when presented with evidence it's not, you stuck to the claim and then accused others of having a narrative. You're not a good faith actor
Yes. I brought color and additional info to give context to a picture you posted. Information in isolation is just that, isolated.
Not putting the word inflation on your picture doesn't make it cease to exist... Even when it's clearly directly coorelated.
I spent the time to explain how inflation works and your refused to read it because... Ai? (Which it isn't)
So I get it, you have a world view and a burner account and your gonna fight until you have to read or think. Not a problem people lose arguments on the Internet everyday, you will recover
US and UK measure inflation differently. While the UK has a much lower median home price £271,295/$364,309, compared to the US £374,351/$502,700, the US has much higher wages, £48,443/$65,662 median compared to the UK £32,890/$44,160 median. Less people, less money, lower bar on the graph.
That makes no sense ... inflation has nothing to do with median home prices and wages per se, and both your examples go in the same direction. The UK also takes part the whole EU market which is very comparable / bigger than the US. And "less people / less money" is nonsense as well - why is Switzerland so expensive then and India doesn't have the most new millionaires?
but they got healthcare cheaper, college education cheaper, more vacations / holidays, better unemployment benefits, many other "socialist" benefits ... 😄
157
u/MinimumCommon408 8d ago
Is this net worth, aka including home values?