One in 4 middle-income new homeowners — twice as many as a decade before — are buying into cost-burdened situations.

The share of middle-class Americans who are buying wallet-squeezing homes has more than doubled in the previous 10 years.

Almost 30% of middle-class homeowners bought homes with monthly payments costing more than 30% of their income in 2022, an NBC News analysis of Census Bureau data found. That’s more than twice the share from 2013, with experts warning it leaves many households with less money for groceries and emergencies and less able to get ahead in the future.

That “cost-burdened” benchmark — in which a household devotes over 30% of income to housing costs — is a widely used measure of affordability for both homeownership and renting. The Census Bureau measures housing costs against it, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development has used it for decades.

  • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    130
    ·
    1 month ago

    When buying our first house in 2008 the mortgage company was pushing us to buy more by saying, “why are you purchasing this house at $197,000 when you can afford twice that?” My response was, “we’ve done the math, we can’t afford twice as much.” Never listen to a mortgage broker. They all want you to spend more so they make more.

    • homura1650@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 month ago

      I bought in 2022 and can’t imagine having that much interaction with a mortgage broker. My interaction consisted of giving them my information. Getting pre approved for a stupidly large mortgage (about twice what I could afford). Then, when I found a place to buy, they punched in the address for the “virtual appraisal” and approved the loan.

    • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 month ago

      I had the exact same experience a few years ago. A lender did some quick math within like 20 minutes of talking and was like “I think we could go ahead and lock you in at loan in the mid 600’s”

      Lmao we could never in a million years dream of affording that. Idk wtf that dude was thinking but I can’t even begin to try and figure out how I’d be able to afford that mortgage unless it was like a 3,000 year 1.08% loan or something.

    • villainy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      The amount I “qualified for” when applying for a mortgage was fucking insane. I would be completely under water if I had taken the bank up on that full amount. I assume plenty of people jump at the chance to spend huge piles of money they don’t have and will likely never have.

  • grte@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Alternative headline: “Homes buyers can comfortably afford increasingly rare.”

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 month ago

      Seriously, what a fucking disgusting headline… It reads as if the people are being irresponsible and buying things larger than they should…

      Way to blame the people for an issue that isn’t their fault…

      • Pandemanium@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 month ago

        Well, the thing is, this is exactly what led to the housing crash of '08. Back then it was because the banks were pushing people into it (and then selling the bundled loans as better rated than they were, where inside investors bet on the loans failing). If this is what’s happening now, it’s certainly because the banks are enabling it again. That would be insanely stupid of the banks after what happened in '08, but somehow we’ve gotten stuck in the stupidest timeline, so…

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 month ago

          That would be insanely stupid of the banks after what happened in '08,

          Would it be though? Leeman fell, but then we started with the “too big to fail” bullshit and gave a nice lesson to the bankers that we’ll be here to bail them out should their greed take them too far. Only Joe schmoe should suffer the consequences of their actions, not the ownership class naturally. :/

          • eRac@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            Washington Mutual didn’t get bailed out. The feds forced Chase to buy their accounts, making it less dramatic than Leeman.

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    1 month ago

    Well, yeah. We can’t afford rent either.

    Should we suffer from rent we can’t afford or a house that might one day have some value?

  • irotsoma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    1 month ago

    Because renting a home that’s barely enough to get by is even more expensive and will go up faster than inflation, so if you’re lucky you buy a house that’s barely enough to get by and wait for the day when it’s finally affordable since the payments don’t increase as much as inflation.

    • kobra@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah but repairs don’t get taken care of by a landlord. When you buy a home, you have even less monthly funds available for mortgage because you also need to be saving a little for the big repair things that come up.

      Renting allows those repair expenses to be handled by the landlord rather than the tenant. Renting is not inherently a worse decision than buying, there are pros and cons to both.

      • irotsoma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I own a small house that is 118 years old with plenty of issues, and the amount I put into repairs and maintenance is nowhere near the difference in what it would cost to rent a similar sized home in my neighborhood compared to my mortgage, taxes, and insurance. That includes a major sewage issue that required digging up and replacing the old clay pipes, something I couldn’t do myself.

        And I’ve only owned it for 3 years, so I haven’t even gotten to a point where inflation has increased rent over the mortgage payments yet, mosly because the rental market is insane in most cities due to short-term rentals and offshore investors leaving lots of properties off the market, so landlords can charge way higher rents with so little competition. In 10 years, assuming there’s not a market crash, I’ll be way better off.

        Renting only saves repair cost in the short term, spreading out those costs across time, because otherwise there wouldn’t be profit in renting. As a renter, you’re never in a position to do that saving because rent is always so much higher than mortgage cost. Even if you have to pay more for the home than the asking price like I did. I just happened to get in before the interest rate hikes is all that I benefited from.

  • cabron_offsets@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 month ago

    And most of those willing to take on the additional risk will look back at their decision positively. Shit’s not getting any cheaper.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        1 month ago

        More importantly, can you lock in a mortgage payment that won’t change much, vs. a rent that may skyrocket in the next 6 months? And sometimes a mortgage can be less than rent (although there are other costs to be considered). In our situation we were very lucky to be able to leverage money and jump on a house before things got stupid, and if we hadn’t taken that jump I’m not sure where we’d be right now since rent prices got crazy while we’re now still paying a decent monthly price.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Then there’s the unlucky few like myself who are perpetually single and stuck in a state where I spend half my income on renting someone’s garage, but a house would be almost 80% of it…

        I literally just hit an income level where I could start looking for a house and then fucking COVID ruined everything…

      • Zorsith
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Rent, where someone else is held responsible for maintenance and plumbing/electrical work and landscaping? Maintenance ain’t cheap.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 month ago

          It can be, especially if you have steady tenants.

          I know ex landlords of mine that barely had to pay out anything over the course of years, while they made 5 figures/year.

          Even as a home owner, you can have a string of luck. I have relatives with 20 year old water heaters going strong.

          • Zikeji@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            My HVAC is 25 years old and going strong. Only quirks it has is the airflow sensor needs to be blown (haha) once in the winter. Only maintenance outside of the usual I’ve done is replace the fan capacitor.

            My water heater is about 10 years old but one of the perks of my gas utility is a water heater warranty so when it comes time to replace or repair part of the cost will be covered.

        • Kit
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          Condos are a happy in-between, where the COA handles anything outside of your studs, including the roof and landscaping. My condo even has free water and the pipes and tank are maintained by the COA. Free heat too. All I need to worry about is the electrical.

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            That’s no different than paying for home maintenance as you’re just paying monthly into a pool of money to be used for repairs which is then handled by the condo board. This can also have drawbacks as that money can be mismanaged or wildly underfunded.

            In Miami, they’ve passed a law saying all condo buildings need a structural inspections and repairs after a building collapsed recently. Many of these condo owners are getting massive 5 or 6 figure bills when structural damage is discovered. This is a really bad spot to be in since you likely can’t sell the condo if the new buyer discovers that they’ll need to fork over $100k on top of the purchase price and if you don’t have the money you can be foreclosed on by the COA.

            • Kit
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              That’s a very valid point. It’s crucial to do due diligence before buying into a condo, especially in an older building.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      There’s no guarantee that it will all turn out positive, though. That’s why they call it “risk”.

      Those first few years will be the most vulnerable, as you are not paying down principal very fast. All it takes is a job loss combined with a modest short-term real estate downturn to end up underwater on their house but still needing to sell.

      But if someone is able to buy in now, maintain stable employment, and keep paying that mortgage for 5 years or so, then they will likely be better off than if they had rented all that time. How many people here can say they are confident in their job security over the next 5 years, though?

    • treadful@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Boomers are all about to die off though. So housing inventory might increase in the near future. Though investors and corporations might just fill the demand gap…

  • SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 month ago

    At least you roughly lock in a monthly rate. I was happy to not have 15% rent increases each year.

    • acchariya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      This is the real explanation. There is no more choice to rent a cheap apartment or buy an expensive house. You can live in a van maybe but that’s being outlawed in many states. My brother in law and his family are paying almost $2000/month for a shitty apartment built in the 1970s. I bet the same place will be $4000 in 10 years, and even shittier.

  • Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I get it. My wife and I just bought a home in Canada this summer and the pressure is very real. The prices just keep climbing and there is so much competition for everything that comes up on the market. Throw in periodic drops in interest rates and you feel like you have to pounce now or you’ll never get one.

    We were very fortunate that the sellers chose us specifically because of our family dynamic and the vacancy their own family was leaving in our little neighborhood of playing/communal children. We got the house at asking price and are well within our budget, but things were looking a bit grim there until fate worked itself out. People put shit-holes up for 400k and half the time people buy it anyway. If they don’t, the price drops by 15k and it’s sold the next day.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yes, because if they don’t then somebody else will and they won’t have anywhere to live.

    That’s how shortages of essential commodities work. Build more homes where people want to live and ensure businesses don’t buy them for renting.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    So a re-run of 2006-2007, but this time around there wasn’t even an actual boom preceeding this.

    • CaptSneeze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m in the US. House values in my neighborhood have doubled since 2017 (7 years). Things are the same where the rest of my family lives, 11 states away. Are we not in a boom?

      • DragonAce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        No this is another housing bubble, similar to what happened back in 2010. My house is now worth more than double what I paid for it, which is more than it was at the peak of the housing bubble right before it crashed back in 2010.

        But biggest difference this time around is the bubble has been intentionally accelerated by a handful of investment firms that have been buying up all the houses across the US for the past decade.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        The Economy is not booming, it’s only the prices of Assets such as houses that are in a bubble.

        Last time around the “wealth” (even if illusory) was spreading a lot more and causing all sorts of things to grow by feeding consumption, as well as a general feeling of prosperity (until it turned out it was illusory and the whole castle of cards fell) whilst this time around it’s pretty much only large asset owners who are actually gaining from this whilst the rest just increasingly feel poorer and more treading water ever harder merelly not to drown.

        It’s a different Economic climate and even a different feeling for most people, even if both periods share the house price bubble.

        PS: And, by the way, this is not just in the US.

  • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    Where I am, one would need to be making $29.70/hr (working 40 hours a week) to afford to only be paying 30% of their income on housing, and there aren’t many actual slums left. State minimum wage is $14/hr. Federal is $7.25/hr. The cheapest bottle of alcohol and a thin rag costs $12.95, though you can save a quarter if you rip your shirt into strips instead of using rags.

  • djsoren19@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    because 30% is an impossible amount to spend on housing anyway. If rent costs 50% of your income, then “only” spending 40% of your income on a mortgage payment is a massive step up. You’re also quite a bit less likely to have your mortgage payment suddenly increase year after year in the way that rent hikes, so getting into a slightly expensive mortgage early can pay dividends later if your wages increase annually.