And for that 2k/mo they barely make rent, can't save and are one health issue away from $100k debt. Not really a shining example of either wealth or freedom.
Data from US gov since 2000 show this (BLS, SSA), as do multiple university studies (MN, KY). And the ratio for rural areas is getting worse, more pressure, than urban.
That it varies is not interesting, lots of things have variance. The data shows its generally true.
Income to rent ratio, which is what this thread is about, varies geographically. Rent eats 30-40% of income in prestige cities like NYC or SF or LA. It's only 25% in Kansas City or Columbus.
You seem to be thinking about overall cost burden over time.
Comments
And for that 2k/mo they barely make rent, can't save and are one health issue away from $100k debt. Not really a shining example of either wealth or freedom.
Housing is expensive in our prestige cities, but that's true in much of the world.
And if you are away from the city, where the rent is less, the incmme is also less. The income:expense ratio is still steep.
That's not really true. Rent to income ratio varies quite a lot
Can you tell me where?
Data from US gov since 2000 show this (BLS, SSA), as do multiple university studies (MN, KY). And the ratio for rural areas is getting worse, more pressure, than urban.
That it varies is not interesting, lots of things have variance. The data shows its generally true.
I think you are mixing up a couple of things.
Income to rent ratio, which is what this thread is about, varies geographically. Rent eats 30-40% of income in prestige cities like NYC or SF or LA. It's only 25% in Kansas City or Columbus.
You seem to be thinking about overall cost burden over time.