Older millenial here.
Max I ever spent on renting was 25% of my net income, but usually it was more like 20%. Now I actually spend only 10% of my net income on my mortgage, thanks to inflation helping my income while keeping the mortgage static.
(Sure there are also taxes on top of the mortgage, but I'm also building equity. Taxes + interest is even less than 10%)
Younger generations are definitely getting screwed.
Don't accept the status quo.
Just curious about your perspective. What would you think are some good ideas on changing the status quo?
I think that outlawing real estate as investments would mean that high to medium density living spaces like apartment complexes or high rises in cities don't get built, and allowing the government to dole out who gets what properties is another recipe for disaster.
Please don't take this as confrontational, I'm genuinely trying to consider what alternatives some people are thinking about.
I think Henry George had the right idea.
Fact is, as people get more money, they want bigger homes, second homes, rental properties, etc...
It's going to be a never ending bidding war between citizens to own the most and nicest properties.
So the solution is to tax real estate at high rates, but give that money back in the form of deductibles on income tax to the middle class who live in their middle class owner occupied homes.
Another part is to let government build a huge supply of very basic, affordable housing, which then serves as a price anchor.
Basically, not outlawing homes as investment, but making them unappealing as investments.
Most developed countries had or have systems like this in place. They just need strengthening.
Tax the shit out of residential real estate investments for corporations and anything beyond the first 3 dwellings owned by individuals. Carve out exceptions for apartment complexes.
Stop corporations from owning anything other than appartments buildings full stop.
Tax the shit out of anything other than the primary residence.
I wouldn't carve out an exception for apartment complexes.
Transition apartment complexes to a condo model with HOA fees to cover all the shared upkeep and expenses. Limit HOA fees to real upkeep costs and expenses (no massive profits for a HOA management company).
My sister-in-laws first place was an apartment complex converted to condos. Her mortgage plus HOA fees where the same as the rent on a comparable apartment in he area.
When she got married, had kid, and purchased a larger place 5 years later, she got her down payment plus all of her mortgage payments back (sold it for 10% more than she bought it for).
Stop vilifying the poor, high subsidies and incentives for living in high-density housing including de-incentivizing predatory landlords, increase taxes on the rich, and a sliding scale of taxes on multiple properties with the lowest rates affecting the lowest value properties.
I was paying 400 for one bedroom in 2000. Now my apartment is 1800 which is about 60% of my income. The future is bullshit
Same hat kinda, around year 2000 I was paying $600 for a nice 2BR apartment.
I'm now paying $1600 for a 1BR in a shitty neighborhood. I make better money now but still.
I'm renewing on my current lease, taking over a 2bd for 2400 after my roommate moved out. 1bd in the same complex is going for 2200 for new renters, and its on the low end for my area. Quite frankly I don't understand how apartments are finding tenants, does everyone just coincidentally make 150k+?
33% of your income is still too fucking much for rent
My parents' mortgage in the 1980's was about 15% of our household income. Only my dad worked. It was a house large enough for a few kids, a home office, a guest bedroom, and a big basement entertainment room.
I just read a really good article about why Tokyo, one of the biggest cities in the world, is also one of the most affordable for housing and pretty much everything else. Spoiler, they don't allow boomer nimbyism and they absolutely do allow a shitload of apartment building pretty much everywhere.
I recently looked up LA and SF and then other American cities in general for the first time on Google Earth. How much you could be allergic to apartments to let that happen? It's just really incredibly weird all these houses spaced out like nothing. I'd be really utterly surprised if US cities didn't have a rent problem with such a city design.
California is weird with its zoning laws, and those cities didn't start out large, nor have they existed as large cities for very long. My guess is that as time passes, those cities will start to look more like NYC, Boston, etc., which have more apartments/condos.
And the average apartment size is 216 square feet.
Still bigger than the van I live in.
No, I sure as fuck do not. I bet it would've been nice though.
I remember only spending half my income on rent. And I'm old. But also from a high cost of living area.
All my life I have spent most of my income on housing and I am older than 35.
I make ~$1,500-$1,600 every two weeks (varies based on OT). My rent for a small one bedroom is $1,200 (utilities included). Other apartments in my town are easily $1,700+ for a barebones similar place, no utilities included.
As much as I pay for how small my place is, I still have it good compared to others in town. Other apartments I've seen have a miniscule kitchen, the only thing keeping them from being kitchenettes are the full sized appliances. I have a decently sized one for the size of my apartment.
I hate it here.
I recently had an exhaustive back and forth with a status quo warrior that said actually the poorest workers in the United States were spoiled and rich actually because the GDP was so dazzlingly high compared to other countries.
That was it. That was the entire basis of that smug asshole's argument. Rent and healthcare costs don't real. Rejoice, you ungrateful poors. 
Isn't GDP a pretty bullshit metric in general? At least outside of the narrow thing its used to measure
Mid 30s millennial here, no. I remember I could afford a 1 bedroom on my own making minimum wage in my home town, but it was something like 50% of my take-home at the time.
2/3 on my mortgage. Yay.
With any luck my income will continue to grow and this will change in the next few years.
And I’m feeling better and better about buying even if the timing was at the peak last year.
Best I can do is 50%
Huh, I only spend 25%. But then again, I rent from municipality owned housing in Sweden.
Until a decade ago, the rule of thumb was never spend more than 20% of your salary on rent. Then it changed to 25%. Now everyone's saying 33% like there's some sort of thought behind that number other than "We want more of your money"...
No
Nope! All of my rent (save for when I didn't pay for it) had always been higher than 1/3.
And I'm pretty sure that was a regulation out by governments to prevent landlords from overwhelming.
Gotta love that low wage loophole!
The maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry.
CCP began to implement the collective ownership of expropriated land through the creation of Agricultural Production Cooperatives, transferring property rights of the seized land to the Chinese state.
and then it seems that the government came in to scoop it back up, although that may have been better than what was going on in 1950s China.
he stays winning