NYT: In Many Cities, Rent Is Rising Out of Reach of Middle Class

[Jhhnn]

If the rent is too high, then demand should drop and there should be vacant units cutting into those evil corporations profits, yes?

I hear there's cheap property in Detroit.

Housing is a primary concern, along with food. When those prices are high, families spend less on other things- checkups, dentists, clothing, autos, entertainment, bars, restaurants, leisure of all sorts.

You know, some of it the service economy that's supposed to sustain us all in lieu of manufacturing.

 

[Mursilis]

I guess what I'm trying to drive at is, for your median wage earner, what is the new reality? Is it a cheap rental/purchase in a blighted area? Is it continuing to live with roomates well into the 30s and 40s? Or is it spending 30%30%-40% of their net income on rent?

Isn't the "new" reality still the same as the "old" reality - that is, the median wage earner moves out to the suburbs and commutes in (or teleworks)? Why is cheap housing in high-demand areas still considered an entitlement by some?

 

[glenn1]

Housing is a primary concern, along with food. When those prices are high, families spend less on other things- checkups, dentists, clothing, autos, entertainment, bars, restaurants, leisure of all sorts.

You know, some of it the service economy that's supposed to sustain us all in lieu of manufacturing.

If you choose to live somewhere crowed and expensive like NYC then you deserve to have less money to spend on other things.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Isn't the "new" reality still the same as the "old" reality - that is, the median wage earner moves out to the suburbs and commutes in (or teleworks)? Why is cheap housing in high-demand areas still considered an entitlement by some?

Because those suburbs are getting further and further out.
Most companies still don't trust workers to telework, gas prices keep rising, and commute times are increasing. Overall it is reaching the breaking point.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Why are Democrats such ignorant twats?

It's the conservatards who love painting the poor and middle class as wasteful, thoughtless and wreckless.

What, don't like what the mirror is showing you back?

 

[dmcowen674]

NYT: In Many Cities, Rent Is Rising Out of Reach of Middle Class

Just thought this was interesting, potentially a consequence of the growing rift between the wealthy and everyone else.

I'm not groussing or complaining or anything, I just see this as a quiet way the middle and working classes are adjusting to the new reality.

I was driven out of Chicago. We had a small one bedroom apartment and they kept raising the rent to the point it was taking 3/4 of my monthly income.

Moved to Indianapolis and the rent on a bigger apartment is back to half of my monthly income.

 

[Blackjack200]

Isn't the "new" reality still the same as the "old" reality - that is, the median wage earner moves out to the suburbs and commutes in (or teleworks)? Why is cheap housing in high-demand areas still considered an entitlement by some?

The point of the article is that housing is becoming more expensive compared to median wages. So no. The old reality was "less expensive". The new reality is "more expensive". Suburbs used to be seen as more desirable than city living, now that has been reversed, but that is beside the point.

My point is that if housing is getting more expensive, then households will need to adjust somehow. I'm interested in seeing how that will shake out.

 

[BoberFett]

It's the conservatards who love painting the poor and middle class as wasteful, thoughtless and wreckless.

What, don't like what the mirror is showing you back?

Fucktards like you make me want the rich to win. I really want assholes like you to suffer.

 

[Svnla]

Where I live rent rates went up over 10% within the past 2 years. A 600sq ft apartment is 1000.00 now. These apartments many of them are being taken over by management companies owned by big banks. They are rapidly renovating them and setting the new higher rental prices.

600 sq. ft. for $1K a month? I don't feel so bad about my place now, 750 sq. ft. and less than $1K a month.

 

[werepossum]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/b...30-affordability-ratio-unattainable.html?_r=0

Just thought this was interesting, potentially a consequence of the growing rift between the wealthy and everyone else.

I make a salary considerably above the median wage in my city and I live in a small apartment that I share with another guy (a lawyer), in a cheaper part of the city. There are certainly people who make what I make and live in more expensive housing, choosing to be "apartment poor" I guess.

I also own three modest houses (~1,000 sq. ft. apiece), and there are a total of 18 people living in them, spread across six nuclear families. Each of these households has multiple wage earners. (None are section 8, although I'm sure there's government assistance going on in some way).

I'm not groussing or complaining or anything, I just see this as a quiet way the middle and working classes are adjusting to the new reality.

Thanks for the interesting article and the reasonable commentary. I agree, this is one way the middle and working classes are adjusting to the new reality.

 

[Zaap]

Here in LA (and similar elsewhere I'm sure) you have clowns inviting in tons of illegal aliens and turning entire sections of the city that used to be middle class into their slave quarters.

The process actually pushes rent way UP in even the poorest neighborhoods. Even the OP touches on why: a landlord of a (taditionally) single family dwelling doesn't even want a middle class family with one or two wage earners showing up. Each child the family has is a liability- no potential income and a net drain on the bottom line. And heaven forbid a bunch of "liabilities" and only one wage earner.

You can simply jack the rent sky high, and fill the house with 5, 6, 7 or more wage earners with a much higher ratio of "earners-to-liablities" among them. A bunch of people willing to cram into the rooms will each pay an affordable share of a jacked up rent. Single family lower to middle class legal citizens traditionally aren't willing to live jammed in on top of other people, and yet as a single unit can't compete for the jacked up rent.

So they must look elsewhere... and as they create more demand wherever elsewhere happens to be, up up up goes the rent prices there as well.

But hey, feel good about it because the wealthy people across town and their political allies that sold so many dimshits here on it being a great idea to welcome in the third world with open arms... are getting their lawns manicured for 50.cents cheaper. They've turned your neighborhood into their overpriced slave quarters to house the armies of workers taking care of thier property for pennies on the dollar. The wealthy who own real estate and can now rent a $1200 house for $3000 are loving the stupidity of people as well... doubt they'll be giving it up soon. Bring on more tenants!!

Welcome to the third world the sycophants have been begging for, even claiming its a civil rights issue not to enbrace. Since we've really started to wholeheartedly embrace a sub-third world culture/mkndset in this country, I find if humorous that some of its biggest proponents are the ones whining most like stuck pigs when the third world results actually affect them.

 

[glenn1]

Here in LA (and similar elsewhere I'm sure) you have clowns inviting in tons of illegal aliens and turning entire sections of the city that used to be middle class into their slave quarters.

The process actually pushes rent way UP in even the poorest neighborhoods. Even the OP touches on why: a landlord of a (taditionally) single family dwelling doesn't even want a middle class family with one or two wage earners showing up. Each child the family has is a liability- no potential income and a net drain on the bottom line. And heaven forbid a bunch of "liabilities" and only one wage earner.

You can simply jack the rent sky high, and fill the house with 5, 6, 7 or more wage earners with a much higher ratio of "earners-to-liablities" among them. A bunch of people willing to cram into the rooms will each pay an affordable share of a jacked up rent. Single family lower to middle class legal citizens traditionally aren't willing to live jammed in on top of other people, and yet as a single unit can't compete for the jacked up rent.

So they must look elsewhere... and as they create more demand wherever elsewhere happens to be, up up up goes the rent prices there as well.

But hey, feel good about it because the wealthy people across town and their political allies that sold so many dimshits here on it being a great idea to welcome in the third world with open arms... are getting their lawns manicured for 50.cents cheaper. They've turned your neighborhood into their overpriced slave quarters to house the armies of workers taking care of thier property for pennies on the dollar. The wealthy who own real estate and can now rent a $1200 house for $3000 are loving the stupidity of people as well... doubt they'll be giving it up soon. Bring on more tenants!!

Welcome to the third world the sycophants have been begging for, even claiming its a civil rights issue not to enbrace. Since we've really started to wholeheartedly embrace a sub-third world culture/mkndset in this country, I find if humorous that some of its biggest proponents are the ones whining most like stuck pigs when the third world results actually affect them.

How ridiculously clueless do you have to be to voluntarily live somewhere with several other million people competing for the same housing, then complain about how expensive it is? I guess we now know who exactly the Greater Fool is.

 

[Zaap]

Im not the one complaining about it personally. I live in my own home. Its "value" just keeps going up as other people stupidly follow the herd and turn vast swaths of the city into someone else's slave quarters (benefitting only the wealthy who enjoy the cheap labor and increases in thier own property values and ability to jack up their rental properties sky high).

The same people whove been conned into embracing a sub-third world mindset and culture that benefits the rich most, are the ones whining loudest when they wake up in the third world.

And by the way, you're completely deluding yourself if you think the amnesty idiots don't aim to do similar EVERYWHERE they possibly can. There's huge money and political power in turning this country into the third world. Hell, most of the country has been conned into believing that we can't even feed ourselves without armies of illegal labor. That crazy mindset turns rural and argricultural regions into the third world as well.

 

[nageov3t]

I wonder who will clean their houses and raise their kids when the lower/middle class get priced out of a city and have to mass-relocate to Detroit.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you choose to live somewhere crowed and expensive like NYC then you deserve to have less money to spend on other things.

Maybe other people's choices aren't what you think they are.

Maybe they live in the city because that's where the jobs are. Last I checked, that was about 70% of the population.

Jobs are scarce out in the countryside & the ex-urbs.

 

[piasabird]

In some countries they restrict building single abode housing. It ties up too many natural resources for too few.

 

[werepossum]

Maybe other people's choices aren't what you think they are.

Maybe they live in the city because that's where the jobs are. Last I checked, that was about 70% of the population.

Jobs are scarce out in the countryside & the ex-urbs.

Jobs and family. If family ties you to an area like New York City, living in the city with a decent job and exorbitant may be a better deal than living in a low rent area and working at the 7-11 for low wages and no benefits. Also, some people truly enjoy very large cities. There are businesses and business practices which are not practical in small cities and lots of unusual people to meet.

 

[Jhhnn]

Jobs and family. If family ties you to an area like New York City, living in the city with a decent job and exorbitant may be a better deal than living in a low rent area and working at the 7-11 for low wages and no benefits. Also, some people truly enjoy very large cities. There are businesses and business practices which are not practical in small cities and lots of unusual people to meet.

Agreed.

 

[smackababy]

Because those suburbs are getting further and further out.
Most companies still don't trust workers to telework, gas prices keep rising, and commute times are increasing. Overall it is reaching the breaking point.

Except, all those things are why the prices in those areas are higher and lower. The closer you are to the business center, the more convenient it is. You pay more. If you don't want the commute to be as long, you pay more for it.

Similarly, if you don't want to pay as much, you have to sacrifice something for it, and in housing, that is size and/or location.

Nobody is entitled to a 2 minute commute, super cheap nice housing, and low gas prices. Sorry, but that is how it is.

When the "crisis" is a real crisis, the houses will be vacant.

And, paying a higher percentage of my income on housing might have very little to do with the market and more to do with my priorities. Would I like to spend 1% on housing? Sure. Is that realistic? No. Am I willing to spend 5% more for <insert convenience>? That is quite possible.

 

[Zaap]

Jobs and family. If family ties you to an area like New York City, living in the city with a decent job and exorbitant may be a better deal than living in a low rent area and working at the 7-11 for low wages and no benefits. Also, some people truly enjoy very large cities. There are businesses and business practices which are not practical in small cities and lots of unusual people to meet.

Not to mention the simplistic thinking involved. If millions of people move out of cities, they're just going to create cities elsewhere.

That's a whole different issue than the fact that people are being conned into supporting policies thst lead to insane rent hikes. The same problems creating that will follow people from the cities into the countryside as well... in fact, people need to wake up. That's the PLAN. Its hellaciously profitable + people are easily conned. That's never been a great combination.

 

[Kadarin]

600 sq. ft. for $1K a month? I don't feel so bad about my place now, 750 sq. ft. and less than $1K a month.

LOL! My old 711 sqft apartment now rents for $1969-1994/mo. When I left it a couple of years ago the rent was jacked up to $1400.

Something within just the last couple of years has been driving prices drastically upwards.

 

[glenn1]

Maybe other people's choices aren't what you think they are.

Maybe they live in the city because that's where the jobs are. Last I checked, that was about 70% of the population.

Jobs are scarce out in the countryside & the ex-urbs.

Of course people have choices, but the flip side is that those choices have consequences. It's not a moral judgment, it's simple reality that choosing to live somewhere like NYC means you will pay a lot for housing in return for the advantages of living in that location. High rents are a simple fact of life in most large cities, just like living somewhere like southern Florida means the weather will be hot and muggy quite often. Complaining about it just makes you a whiny asshole who thinks they're special and the law of supply and demand shouldn't apply to them or worse yet that others should subsidize their preferred lifestyle.

And unemployment is higher in NYC than the national rate, so it makes no difference that there's a lot of jobs in NYC since there's also more competition for them. A person is always better off moving to where a good-fitting job is if they're able than simply going to the largest metropolitan area and hoping for the best.

 

[Ventanni]

LOL! My old 711 sqft apartment now rents for $1969-1994/mo. When I left it a couple of years ago the rent was jacked up to $1400.

Something within just the last couple of years has been driving prices drastically upwards.

It's a number of things that are driving the market. I don't blame the rich, because I don't think it's the "rich out to git us" as some like to believe.

I live in Tampa; the greatest city not on a map, or so we were described when the Republican National Convention rolled through. Interestingly enough, I like it. Tampa is a port city with a strong enough rail infrastructure to support manufacturing. We also have lots...and lots...and lots of real estate, so it's been interesting to watch the rental prices change over the last few years. Since I've recently been searching for a new place to live, I've hypothesized the following reasons for the +12% average price of rent across the area:

1. Fewer people are owning homes, and more people are renting. Although there is a lot of rental property available, there is greater demand than there was two years ago. Naturally, this drives up prices.

2. Fuel prices are increasing, so more and more people are looking to shorten their commute distances. The greater Tampa area is notorious for being absolutely massive in area. We don't have the bedrock to support huge skyscrapers, so Tampa has grown outwards and not upwards. That same soil also doesn't allow for an underground rail system, and since we're right on the water, anything above-ground (like a Disney monorail) would face high corrosion rates due to the high salt content in the air (which I love!!). So as a result, you get around by car, and that's about the only choice you have. Since 2003 though, that's becoming more and more impractical to continue expanding outwards, so instead people are gravitating to the center. This, again, drives up demand, and naturally drives up prices.

3. There's a lot of renovating going on right now. A lot of places I've checked out definitely look nice. There's a lot of value added to it, so it's no surprise that landlords are looking to recoup that investment as quickly as they can.

So quick summary: More people are renting, more people are condensing, and there's more value in the rental property that was there before.

None of that is an issue, I feel, if wages increased along with the cost of living, but they aren't as a whole. I don't feel America is in decline, but simply in a transition stage of our economy. We're transitioning from a post-industrial economy to a digital economy, and a lot of the old methods of earning a living (which many of us grew up with) that could provide a reasonable income are disappearing. That doesn't mean they're gone; the United States is still the most powerful industrial base in the world. We have the best infrastructure, the best workforce, and the best financial backing of any country, but if you look at the most recent trend in company growth over the last decade, they're almost always digitally related in some way. This "new" wealth can't sustain an entire population just yet though, so for many of us, we're in transition; working hard, earning our living, and trying to find a cheap place to live.

 

[werepossum]

Not to mention the simplistic thinking involved. If millions of people move out of cities, they're just going to create cities elsewhere.

That's a whole different issue than the fact that people are being conned into supporting policies thst lead to insane rent hikes. The same problems creating that will follow people from the cities into the countryside as well... in fact, people need to wake up. That's the PLAN. Its hellaciously profitable + people are easily conned. That's never been a great combination.

Yep. I think a lot of it though is consequences of the crash, not of policy per se, as Ventanni explained.

LOL! My old 711 sqft apartment now rents for $1969-1994/mo. When I left it a couple of years ago the rent was jacked up to $1400.

Something within just the last couple of years has been driving prices drastically upwards.

Several things, and Ventanni nailed them.

It's a number of things that are driving the market. I don't blame the rich, because I don't think it's the "rich out to git us" as some like to believe.

I live in Tampa; the greatest city not on a map, or so we were described when the Republican National Convention rolled through. Interestingly enough, I like it. Tampa is a port city with a strong enough rail infrastructure to support manufacturing. We also have lots...and lots...and lots of real estate, so it's been interesting to watch the rental prices change over the last few years. Since I've recently been searching for a new place to live, I've hypothesized the following reasons for the +12% average price of rent across the area:

1. Fewer people are owning homes, and more people are renting. Although there is a lot of rental property available, there is greater demand than there was two years ago. Naturally, this drives up prices.

2. Fuel prices are increasing, so more and more people are looking to shorten their commute distances. The greater Tampa area is notorious for being absolutely massive in area. We don't have the bedrock to support huge skyscrapers, so Tampa has grown outwards and not upwards. That same soil also doesn't allow for an underground rail system, and since we're right on the water, anything above-ground (like a Disney monorail) would face high corrosion rates due to the high salt content in the air (which I love!!). So as a result, you get around by car, and that's about the only choice you have. Since 2003 though, that's becoming more and more impractical to continue expanding outwards, so instead people are gravitating to the center. This, again, drives up demand, and naturally drives up prices.

3. There's a lot of renovating going on right now. A lot of places I've checked out definitely look nice. There's a lot of value added to it, so it's no surprise that landlords are looking to recoup that investment as quickly as they can.

So quick summary: More people are renting, more people are condensing, and there's more value in the rental property that was there before.

None of that is an issue, I feel, if wages increased along with the cost of living, but they aren't as a whole. I don't feel America is in decline, but simply in a transition stage of our economy. We're transitioning from a post-industrial economy to a digital economy, and a lot of the old methods of earning a living (which many of us grew up with) that could provide a reasonable income are disappearing. That doesn't mean they're gone; the United States is still the most powerful industrial base in the world. We have the best infrastructure, the best workforce, and the best financial backing of any country, but if you look at the most recent trend in company growth over the last decade, they're almost always digitally related in some way. This "new" wealth can't sustain an entire population just yet though, so for many of us, we're in transition; working hard, earning our living, and trying to find a cheap place to live.

Excellent summary.

 

[CLite]

This isn't a bad thing. Having mega-cities like New York is stupid in this day and age. Telework and internet connectivity can and should more equally distribute worker populations across the country, and especially drive employers to areas that are less policitically stupid and more accomdative to businesses than NYC. Unless it's an absolute requirement to have an onsite presence somewhere (like a hospital) setting up shop in NYC is simply stupid from both an individual or employer basis.

Not really, many people enjoy moving to cities for a whole slew of things beyond just being close to work. I have friends that reverse commute out of the city because they love it so much. In general most of my friends/generation (30'ish) grew up in the suburbs and prefer living in more urban areas. This is part of the problem of course and why rent is skyrocketing.

Being able to walk to a grocery store, restaurant, bar, park, etc. and never having to worry about drumming up a DD or anything is quite nice.