• SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The only way I could reasonably see that is if those people bought houses when rates went up. I live in a high cost of living area and $150k would not be living paycheck to paycheck for my family (wife, 2 kids, and a dog). I guess I also don’t have expensive tastes.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Define high cost living area. Wife with 2 kids and a pet, I assume you’re going to need at least a 3 bedroom condo for a modest living arrangement.

      Where I live, southern California, the average cost for a 3br condo is $4k per month. Mortgages at this time would be way more (standard 20% down).

      Someone else estimated 150k is around 8.7k a month after taxes. So that’s already almost half your income just for a roof over your head.

      Include the expense of kids, student loans, car loans, health insurance, etc. Yeah, paycheck to paycheck isn’t unrealistic.

      Not everyone was lucky enough to be in the financial place in their life to buy a house 5 years ago.

      • bustrpoindextr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m gonna go ahead and tell you, that’s a bit high for after tax.

        I make 172/year and after tax and benefits and what not in South Carolina, I’m at 8.6 a month, which is less than the 150 estimate. So in an average tax state and making 20k less? Might be more like 7.5-8.

        Edit: granted of course, 401k contribution can change things a bunch

        • Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Fair enough. I’m sure there’s a calculator to make it easy per state. But yeah, take home is deceptive, because typically someone making that kind of income is going to have health insurance contributions, retirement contributions, social security (not technically income tax, but fair enough to deduct IMO) taken directly out of their paycheck.

          Without doing the estimates myself, either of your claims sound plausible, and even taking 8.7k as a generous estimate, it doesn’t look good.

          • bustrpoindextr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            and even taking 8.7k as a generous estimate, it doesn’t look good.

            Big facts. Worker wages need to be adjusted for the last ${years since Reagan took office and initially screwed everything up for the common American} and then we should be okay.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I live in Seattle. Like I said, I can see this being true for people who got a mortgage at 5+%. But I don’t think a third of people got houses at that rate so it would likely be closer $3k. Here the average 3br is around $3k/month.

        But you missed one large part of the headline. It’s people making $150k or more. So that includes a ton of people that make more than that. And also a ton of people not in SoCal or other HCOL areas.

    • bustrpoindextr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be fair, I live in a low cost of living area and having purchased a house this past January, if I dropped to 130k I might be paycheck to paycheck after a while. Which, granted is lower than the survey.

      This being said, my mortgage payment is only $50 more than what my rent was about to increase to, because landlords are the devil.

      I also didn’t get a big house, it was well under the national average for cost and size, very much a “starter house”. But still over 300k, because housing is a nightmare.