• NecroParagon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If I keep paying the current $1200 a month to my landlord it’ll eventually trickle down to me. No doubt!

      Then with that revenue, I’ll buy my first house!

      In reality, I’m almost 28 and I have no delusions about home ownership. Just like retirement!

        • NecroParagon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Broseph they’ve been raising my rate since I moved in several years ago. My rate used to be $925. My brother rented a studio near my area for $1200 at that time, I have a 2 bed 1 bath unit with plenty of space. The shitty thing is that I’m more or less trapped here. I appreciate deeply I haven’t been priced out of my home, but there’s nowhere to go. And believe me, I want out of here. I guess at least I’m grateful there’s some agencies not entirely committed to totally fucking their clients.

          I’m grateful to have a stable roof over me these past years, especially considering my past, but I recognize I may be in a more favorable area in general in regards to rent prices. Shit’s rough. I wish you the best. But right now this is taking up near 35% of my income. I’d rather have the two floors plus basement even if the place is falling apart compared to having a studio somewhere. And they’d make me pay to apply and have to do a credit check. All they did here was confirm I had an income. I consider myself lucky now, though I was sour in the past.

  • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    Zillow is a part of the problem. With all the data collected and only a few companies, prices are conveniently increasing at extreme rates. It is not just cities; land and rural areas are increasing at high rates.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Speaking of which, zillow’s stupid “zestimate” is worthless. Any assclown can put their house up for way too high a price and the zestimate will automatically jump up to match.

      Apparently the value is whatever the seller says it is, even if the home has been on the market for over a year (either continuously or repeatedly taken off and put on, I guess to reset the time on market).

  • Rooskie91@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This…is hard to believe. I’ve been looking around non-major US cities, and even some major cities, and the starter homes are around 200-500k.

    That’s still fucked for a starter home but a million??? That’s the average home price in Honolulu and NYC lol.

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      i was going to say its avg in the west coast blue area. 200-500k is “cheap”

    • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It literally sounds super fake.

      I can’t find a single major city without 200k to 350k homes lol

      It takes like 30 seconds to check what starter homes cost in any city, yet people will believe this shit instead of just go look.

      Edit: this is the “source” https://www.zillow.com/research/million-dollar-start-home-2025-35100/

      Just 1 chart with literally zero further info, no published actual data of where these numbers came from, how they calculated them, how they gathered the data.

      Why do people fall for empty garbage articles like this so easy. I wish we collectively called this out more.

      If a person posts an article citing another article, instead of just the original article, they should get fuckin blasted for it and downvoted to hell.

      Post. Original. Sources.

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        As someone who has lived in and priced out homes in major US cities, I find this article to be accurate.

      • Aphelion@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Try looking in San Francisco, or any city in the entire Bay Area. You won’t find a 500sq ft shack for less than $800k.

        • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          3 seconds of looking and I found five houses under 500k. Two of them genuinely look pretty decent too tbh, not even rough looking homes.

      • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Doesn’t sound super fake if you are looking for a place with what I think are pretty reasonable basic characteristics of comfort and security.

        House that can accommodate a small family not in a higher than average crime area, does not require fix up maintenance that those of us working long hours will never have time to do or can’t afford to have done, has been well cared for and doesn’t feel gross. I’m not talking luxury homes here, I’m just talking about something that you would at least look forward to coming home to.

        When I see all these people buying these homes, I’m just shocked at how they have either accrued so much wealth or are so comfortable with so much debt.

        It’s pretty tough out there right now.

        • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “When I eliminate all the homes that normal people would classify as a starter home, I can’t find any starter homes!”

          “Wait to buy a starter homes you are telling me I can’t live in a rich gentrified white neighborhood, I might have a black guy for a neighbour? That just won’t do!”

          “Sorry anything not within 5 blocks of a Starbucks can’t possibly count as a starter home”

          This is what people sound like when they talk about “safety” and “crime rates” and “starter homes” in the same sentence.

        • desktop_user [they/them] @lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          approximately half of homes have to be in higher than average crime areas, if there’s nothing wrong with the home it can just be purchased and rented out by a megacorp immediately, wealth accumulates over time so that selling a house will provide about enough to buy house and have lower average monthly cost than renting.

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well… define starter home. I got a starter for about half that in LA but I have a shared wall townhome. Not great, but if we’re talking no shared walls and a yard, ya I can see that costing more… Except I also saw those for about this price, only with like… 600sq ft? Pick you battles, but those aren’t a million even in the city.

    Now, maybe the 200 cities are specific neighborhoods, like how Santa Monica isn’t technically Los Angeles since it’s got it’s own city government. Same with Beverly Hills, Bel Air, etc. You sure as hell ain’t getting a place for 1 mil there, even if it’s a small “starter home.”

    • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      All of your question are answered right at the beginning of the article:

      “Zillow defines “cities” as distinct housing markets, which can include large suburbs, towns or boroughs within major metro areas. “Starter homes” are defined as properties in the bottom third of home values within a given market. That means these aren’t luxury listings — they’re the least expensive homes available in each city.”

      • taiyang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Gotcha. So yes, it’s misleading headline, mostly for the first part since you can probably pull up 200 “cities” where you’d be nuts to find your first home. You aren’t getting your first home in Malibu, that’s just silly.

  • conicalscientist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the inevitable result of infinite growth. You aren’t getting a home in world class locations without being at the very top yourself. Sure other people lucked into the right place and the right time. Go buy lottery tickets. Or set down in location that is more affordable. With any luck you’ll be a multimillionaire when you’re elderly too. And the kids of the year 2060 will hate you for the dastardly plot you schemed up with your friends to ruin everything.

    We’re all part of the rat race that is fucking us over. Nobody wants to flinch. So we continue to eat each other alive.

  • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Just don’t live in a city geez

    Edit: Yes, my quest for downvotes is successful.

    I aim to be karma neutral on the fediverse and had a pretty good day I need to counteract.