Income a family of four need to live comfortably by state in the U.S.

[eljefino]

The main reason why prices are so high and rents are so high is the open border right now. With untold millions of people coming across the southern border the last few years, this is what is putting a strain on the supply and demand of housing.

If you're an American with proper ID and you're in the same pool of housing applicants as these illegal aliens who work itinerant jobs for often less-than-legal wages, you're doing something wrong.

We need more housing. Go look at who's out there actually building houses and sweating their sombreros off.

 

[eljefino]

Other countries moving away from the dominance of the dollar is gaining steam with all the printing going on. If this happens on a large scale it is going to have a huge impact on our standard of living.

Dollar today is 7.22 Yuan. Five years ago it was 7.24 Yuan.
Dollar is 0.92 Euro. Five years ago it was 0.89 Euro.

Whatever the US is doing, the other economies are doing more or less equally. There hasn't been a run from one currency to another. Maybe Europe and China are also suffering a (young) demographic collapse, pandemic, climate change, or a combination of challenges. Inflation's worse in Europe but we don't read their news.

 

[Astro14]

The only issue, if you had decent liquid assets and were a senior citizen or nearing, many experts would state one should have had their liquid assets in guaranteed funds, so the increases in the equity markets since 2019 should not have had a direct impact for seniors.

Only those “experts” who don’t understand investing would recommend that!

The old “rule of thumb” was that you should have your age in bonds (fixed income) and the rest in stocks (equities).

So, unless you’re 100 years old…

The truth is, that bonds, in general, became a terrible investment several years ago as interest rates plummeted. They had only one way to go, down, as interest rates recovered. That’s pretty much what happened.

Annuities are not for everyone, so, if that’s what you meant by “Guaranteed funds”, then, again, that’s bad advice.

So, any expert who said what you suggest above, was a fool.

 

[Pew]

And more importantly since I joined this forum "I have never drank the Kool-Aid".

Are we not making your *least* favorite flavor drink?!?!

Edited*"

 

[SC Maintenance]

The only issue, if you had decent liquid assets and were a senior citizen or nearing, many experts would state one should have had their liquid assets in guaranteed funds, so the increases in the equity markets since 2019 should not have had a direct impact for seniors.

A huge percentage of seniors continued to hold stocks in 2019 because bonds paid so little and they had learned the market always goes up and the fed has your back. Many still do. It will have the opposite affect if the market goes the other way.

 

[eljefino]

A huge percentage of seniors continued to hold stocks in 2019 because bonds paid so little and they had learned the market always goes up and the fed has your back. Many still do. It will have the opposite affect if the market goes the other way.

Yeah that's going to be a real stick-in-the-mud if that ever happens!

Bitcoin won't replace the dollar, but I wonder if a slip of SPY ever would. S&P 500 market cap is 44 trillion bucks, so imagine a currency backed not by any government, but by shares in all the corporations that run everything anyway.

 

[JeffKeryk]

The only issue, if you had decent liquid assets and were a senior citizen or nearing, many experts would state one should have had their liquid assets in guaranteed funds, so the increases in the equity markets since 2019 should not have had a direct impact for seniors.

Which is why personal finance needs to be taught from an early age.

 

[CKN]

I hear you and I:

1. Don’t know what my net pay is
2. Couldn’t tell you my gross pay exactly, just +/- $3 or 4k
3. Never seem to know if this Friday is a payday
4. Been at my job almost 14 years and the worst benefits to date

Why does my co have 50/40/30/20 year tenure left and right?

Something has to be right.

I get my healthcare since 2023 through my wife’s job, school district (thank goodness $0 deductible, 0% coinsurance, PPO, and cheap (less than $300/mo).

Thanks to my current employer, I’ve maxed out the 401k to the IRS limits 12 years in a row and continue to do so (and beyond last few years cuz of age). I guess they pay me enough. Even though I have to work in the office, I’ve had a garage space since 2019, so my precious 2006 and 2007 can remain dent free—there are vps who are waiting for a garage space. We have guys working who literally need a walker. So the only thing that makes me furious with my job? 5/7 on my team are remote workers. Only 2 of us go in.

My bro works for a Swiss insurance co. Ridiculous benefits. Ridiculous wfh. Ridiculous bonus. Ridiculous time off from day 1. Unlimited everything. Nobody is happy and they can’t retain anybody. My thoughts? So greedy.

One woman was fired last week. She had a 2nd remote work from home job with another insurance co. Imagine the gall.

My .02 ymmv

While these type of plans are not uncommon for school teachers, government employees and the like-they are an anomaly now. You won't see them much outside of large city, state, or Federal governments.
Of course-you probably know that, which is why you are on your wife's plan-instead of where you work.

 

[John105]

While these type of plans are not uncommon for school teachers, government employees and the like-they are an anomaly now. You won't see them much outside of large city, state, or Federal governments.
Of course-you probably know that, which is why you are on your wife's plan-instead of where you work.

No doubt. My work was on the best plan—huge deductible, 20% coinsurance, and I did FSA to cover the deductible (why I have so many pairs of rx sunglasses $700+).

What’s a dirty little secret imho as employers whine about health care costs? The % of their contribution, as they pass off the high price tag and blame insurance. The school district pays 88%, so no matter how much costs rise, it’s the district bearing the brunt. Vanguard in 2010 paid 90%. Some employers are essentially splitting it with employees.

Even the employers who have unlimited sick, wfh, huge bonuses, their health care isn’t too good. There’s got to be studies that show how to retain talent while lowering the costs of their benefits….

 

[CKN]

No doubt. My work was on the best plan—huge deductible, 20% coinsurance, and I did FSA to cover the deductible (why I have so many pairs of rx sunglasses $700+).

What’s a dirty little secret imho as employers whine about health care costs? The % of their contribution, as they pass off the high price tag and blame insurance. The school district pays 88%, so no matter how much costs rise, it’s the district bearing the brunt. Vanguard in 2010 paid 90%. Some employers are essentially splitting it with employees.

Even the employers who have unlimited sick, wfh, huge bonuses, their health care isn’t too good. There’s got to be studies that show how to retain talent while lowering the costs of their benefits….

And to top it off-school teachers are notoriously unhealthy-with obesity being one of the main issues.
I mean it's a sedate job-mostly.

 

[John105]

And to top it off-school teachers are notoriously unhealthy-with obesity being one of the main issues.
I mean it's a sedate job-mostly.

Seems like many are young and female. I don’t have any data, but I don’t really see too many males at least in elementary (son is 10 so I have no familiarity with the middle and high schools). I had mentioned at a parent teacher meeting how great the health care is, and truly, it sailed over all of their heads. I realized someone 25-30 doesn’t worry about it…

 

[GMFan]

My initial knee jerk reaction was that this chart is bogus. Our household makes nowhere near what the comfortable wage is in my state. We already have a modest home that is paid off. However if you want to follow the principle of no more than 25-30% of your take home for a typical home this seems frighteningly accurate.

 

[GON]

This chart states 77 percent of Americans can't afford to purchase a median priced home:

 

[fdcg27]

This chart states 77 percent of Americans can't afford to purchase a median priced home:
View attachment 219971

I wonder how this half million number was arrived at?
Actual sales prices of all homes sold? Maybe an average rather than a median figure would better reflect actual home prices across the country?
It seems as though the outlier really expensive areas would skew this number to a level that would make houses unaffordable for 3/4 of our population, but the rate of home ownership would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I wonder how this half million number was arrived at?
Actual sales prices of all homes sold? Maybe an average rather than a median figure would better reflect actual home prices across the country?
It seems as though the outlier really expensive areas would skew this number to a level that would make houses unaffordable for 3/4 of our population, but the rate of home ownership would seem to indicate otherwise.

Average would make it worse - the $40M mansions would skew it even more. Median is the proper number.

The rate of home ownership is based on people buying homes 5 years ago. Most people in my neighborhood likely could not afford the home there in now if they had to buy it today. I could, but I sure would not want to. I bought 10 years ago for half, on a mortgage interest rate that was half. My income has not doubled. In reality it likely has not even kept up with headline inflation.

 

[fdcg27]

Average would make it worse - the $40M mansions would skew it even more. Median is the proper number.

I don't think so. There are far more 200K homes sold than 40M dollar ones.

 

[John105]

Average would make it worse - the $40M mansions would skew it even more. Median is the proper number.

The rate of home ownership is based on people buying homes 5 years ago. Most people in my neighborhood likely could not afford the home there in now if they had to buy it today. I could, but I sure would not want to. I bought 10 years ago for half, on a mortgage interest rate that was half.

Agreed, we always use median in such a comparison. Example, Weston MA is $250k median, $334k average. Most towns with a median income of $250k+ are well to do, like it or not. And sure, we can do the Talking Heads comparing ourselves to the numbers, and ask ourselves, where is that large automobile? And this is not my beautiful wife. That's why the original chart can be questioned.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I don't think so. There are far more 200K homes sold than 40M dollar ones.

Well according to Forbes Average is 500K, Median is $426K. Average is higher. These are lower numbers than @GON's chart so not sure the discrepancy, but average tends to be much higher because a single $40M house makes up for 200 of the $200K houses, but sill only adds a single 1 to the denominator. So it skews the average. Median just drops a flag in the middle of the distribution so each house counts as one.

Look at it this way - there are more $40M houses than Zero$ houses.

 

[John105]

I don't think so. There are far more 200K homes sold than 40M dollar ones.

You’re exactly right. The median will show that. The average will not. That’s the reason to use median. Statistics is an exact science, it’s not like psychology where we can interpret as we see it…

 

[JeffKeryk]

The numbers do not mean much because the data population covers such a broad area.
My house in most places would be a fraction of its current value.