<<
<< A good rule of thumb for buying a house is multiply your household salary by 1.5. >>
That HAS to be wrong. Consider:
The median price for houses sold in February 2002 was around $152,000. Does that mean the median household income should be around $100K? Most households don't make that kind of money, sometimes not even near that.
A ratio of 2.5 sounds more reasonable based on my calculations, assuming you can put down 20% and don't have to service an extraordinary amount of debt. This ratio would typically induce a mortgage payment that equals about 15% of your gross income. Using the 1.5x ratio means you'd only spend 9% of your gross on the mortgage payment. You'll easily spend more for an apartment rent. Remember that most lenders use 28% mortgage-to-income as a maximum, so 15% is rather reasonable. If you CAN find a livable cheap house, go ahead and buy it, but otherwise you'll be renting forever waiting to "afford" a real house using the 1.5x benchmark.
And, of course, there are geographical differences. In my suburban zip code, there are 2 houses currently available under $150K and 95 over $150K. If I search upstate Pennsylvania, those numbers will probably flip-flop. I have to buy what's available and I can't wait until I make 100K a year to buy a house. >>
you are forgetting that lots of people dont live in houses. so the median household income of people who live in a "owned" house , should be nearer to 100k that you think. This equation still sucks, because based on it, if i want to buy a $400000 house here in southern california someday my future spouse and i would have to make like $260k a year combined.