An economist says buyers looking for starter homes are in for a "wild goose chase".
This means that a first-time homebuyer needs to earn an annual salary of around $64,500 — which is over $10,000 higher than the average wage of Americans aged 25-34 — and up 13% from $57,222 a year ago.
That’s the average nationwide. What really happens is in small rural town houses go for closer to 150-200k but nobody can afford them anyway because wages are awful in those towns. Then in major cities your wages are higher but congratulations, entry level housing is 300-500k or more.
I hate headlines like this. I bought my first home (a townhome condo) for 500k, which was cheap because of a major street. 243k is laughable in California where both pay and price are significantly higher than podunk parts of the country. Plus the house pictured would easily be 1.5 million to 3 million here. Basically, fuck this article.
Speaking of average (or preferably median, I hope they meant median) wages in the US, same problem, although worse. 64k in Cali isn't too unusual, but most out of state folks I know earn closer to 30k. And if they are indeed looking at averages, its heavily skewed towards the super wealthy. Again, fuck this article.
I wonder how the average price can be so low. My entry-level house was more than that, and I bought it ten years ago at the end of the Great Recession, when houses had just finished losing a ton of value.
It does rightly point out the problems on the supply-side, but avoids any real discussion of zoning ordinances and significant shortages of workers in construction. It mentions the increases in lending rates, but only as a historical aside and does not link it to Federal Reserve Bank policy.
Also, it recommends diversifying your investment portfolio by investing in commercial real estate, which AFAIK is a dumpster fire of untenanted office spaces.