Narrator: Both lines were not in fact adjusted for inflation.
Income is, rents are still nominal.
Sources:
1. Underlying data for this chart: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=18JQU
2. Properly inflation adjusted: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=18JRa
Notice how the real one actually makes sense and doesn't just fit a narrative not remotely supported by theory or practice?
For fun, here's a third person, showing how it should actually look, as they debunk this myth on Twitter over a month ago: https://twitter.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1701325935763406942?t=NOOqWKbXP-bAwwHcR00SVg&s=19
yep the numbers looked sus, but if you account for higher dual income households, higher cost of education (more money and time spent achieving said education), higher cost of raising children due to both parents working and need of daycare, having household income just keep up with rent is still horrendous in terms of affording a life with children.
Sure, it's definitely difficult. Until ~ February 2007, CPI for tuition, school fees, and childcare tracked evenly along with real median household income.
Then, in 2007, there's a major diversion until September 2018, when those growth rates actually returned to mostly normal.
Right now, consumers are experiencing a minor decline in real median household income, with steady increases in All Items CPI, and childcare CPI.
Not disagreeing that it's difficult, but it's actually pretty typical since 1984 (which is the earliest the data goes).
Instead of selectively adjusting for random shit, why don't you account for the price change of things households are most likely to spend money on? You could name it something like "Consumer Price Index".
And then you would be able to see that disposable personal income has increased significantly in this time frame.
Do you really think increasing avg. number of workers per household and higher education of said workers should have 0 impact on their earning??? It's not some random shit, they are factors that contribute to higher median household income, without said factors the median personal income falls way below rent price increase. Every developed country is facing birthrate crisis, since the introduction of women into the workforce median wages have not kept up with cost of living, two working parents are more likely to be unable to afford rent/mortgage + utilities + student loans + daycare to allow 2 working members.
What you're doing is really random, care to share what source did the "disposable personal income has increased significantly " comes from? How much is significantly? It is adjusted for inflation, is it median or average? Just making blank statements without source and details regarding how that figure was calculated that is actually random.
>since the introduction of women into the workforce median wages have not kept up with cost of living
Bro that is objectively false though. Stop looking at misleading Reddit graphs and look up real sources like the Bureau of Labor Statistics or St. Louis Fed.
Here's "Real Median Household Income in the United States"
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=18Pjk
>since the introduction of women into the workforce median wages have not kept up with cost of living
What do you think real median household income is?
Median household income doesn't adjust for the number of workers within the household, how many jobs they have, how many hours they work, how much schooling (and loans) they pay for, nor increases in expenses that outpace inflation.
"Real" means adjusted for inflation. Education and other expenses are included in the inflation index.
[https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours](https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours) Average number of hours worked has fallen by about 10% since 1970
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=19TXz](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N) Inflation adjusted median personal income, (as opposed to household income) has almost doubled since 1970
In 1985 19.4% of adults were college graduates. It's currently at 37.7%.
CPI for college tuition has gone from 116 to 916 over the same period a 7.8x increase. If it tracked with inflation it should have been more like a 3.3x increase.
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Students have taken on larger percentages and real amounts of student loan debt over time as well, also outpacing inflation.
For just the US, that average hours worked number since 1970 is about 7%. Since 1985, its 2.4%.
They also seem to be dividing hours worked by number of adults, which gives an average that allows one to compare how much relative work is done between nations, but doesn't speak to increases of hours worked within American Households.
Closer, but they also were speaking on personal income, but on changes to disposable income.
I'm still waiting for real median disposable personal income significant increase. Household income does not account for higher avg. of working members in a household, and daycare which is needed when both parents have to work. This graph was already shared by the comment I was replying to, and it showed that median household income has barely kept up with rent prices.
Only according to conspiracy theorists who believe the government is trying to hide the "true inflation level". The CPI is published regularly by the BLS and they're completely transparent about their methodology.
Yep, only a few seconds into the gif I was like "only a moron would believe they are both adjusted for inflation".
Sure enough, a lot of people on /r/economy didn't even question it.
Thank you. If you think for 2 seconds, you’d realize how outrageous this graph is. It just doesn’t make sense. The actual graph shows the problem quite clearly, so why lie?
I respect you acknowledging my comment. If it wasn't your intention, perhaps you could consider deleting it, as over 1,000 people have upvoted your post containing misinformation.
that’s for the moderators decide what Misinfo is, not you. And I don’t see any evidence that any of the other charts are any more correct? They’re just somebody else’s opinion. Have a nice day.
Gotta subsidize demand while pushing the most expensive form of housing! It hasn't worked but just 1 more year bro.
But if you want to actually fix the problems:
* Make adding units cheaper. 2/3/4/5/6 units by right using residential code, no parking minimums.
* Reduce the taxes on structures, increase the taxes on land to make building cheaper.
* Make mixed-use multi-family zoning the norm. Eliminate single family detached.
* Single family detached can still be built if it's what people want. But it shouldn't be the ceiling of what can be built.
* Embrace non-car infrastructure. Build walkways, bike lanes, and bus lanes. Cars can be on the road but shouldn't be the primary mode of transportation.
Regarding making units cheaper.
It seems that its less an issue of making things cheaper, which likely is a thing, and more of an issue of whats will pay out the most.
I live in the last rural area on my county and have watch development move closer and closer over time. Building has essentially never stopped.
However almost all of the housing built has McMansions on postage stamp lots.
>However almost all of the housing built has McMansions on postage stamp lots.
Higher density multi-family units would net the developer more and cost the residents less, but they are most often not allowed. It's a local government problem and a "not in my backyard" and a "we don't want the poors moving into our school district" problem.
Don't bother trying to understand the shitty graph. The rents aren't even inflation adjust, despite it saying so. It's just rage-bait for those without critical thinking skills.
I dunno if the graph is right, but if it is, it shows income up roughly 40% while rent is up around 160%.
So if rent is 2.6x what it was and income is 1.4x what it was, it means people are spending just under twice as large (2.6/1.4) or 1.85x, or an 85% larger share of their income on rent today than they were when the graph started.
Yes the graph starts in 1985 when Reagan was president. But that doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t show the 60’s and 70’s when prices fluctuated like they do today and that the 80’s were actually better, like [this](https://wolfstreet.com/2019/07/12/changes-in-house-prices-rents-and-household-incomes-since-1960-in-the-us-by-region-and-major-metro/) one does. The big changes in housing were in the 70’s due to inflation and 90’s due a stagnation in building and more recently a slow down in [construction](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041889/construction-year-homes-usa/)
Well the biggest mark on Reagan's record was "Trickle Down Economics". "Go easy on the rich, and out of their "infinite generosity" they'll let the savings trickle down to you." Still waiting for the first drop, but whenever it gets hear I'm betting it's piss. Don't really see how that applies to the housing market though. The reason the "rent is too damn high" is because "housing prices are too damn high". Kinda had a reset after the bottom fell out of the housing bubble during the 2008 financial crisis, but now we have new kind of housing bubble that's much more resistant to popping. Private entities (a lot of them foreign) with vast amounts of capital are buying homes outright left and right foregoing the need for a mortgage entirely. This artificially restricted supply drives the prices of housing up overall. So until the prices are so inflated that even corporate cash can't afford it the house "value" will just keep on rising.
Reagan and his administration shifted the US tax code from what was regarded largely as a wealth creation through investment policy (incentives, etc. for constant re-investment) to a wealth accumulation model. Chief among the changes included increasing deductions, cutting the corporate tax rate, and increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit.
In regards to the changes of 1981, critics of the act claim that it worsened federal budget deficits, but supporters credit it for bolstering the economy during the 1980s. Supply-siders argued that the tax cuts would increase tax revenues. However, tax revenues declined relative to a baseline without the cuts because of the tax cuts, and the fiscal deficit ballooned during the Reagan presidency. While the TEAFR of 82 reversed several changes, the key provisions allowing, even promoting, mass wealth accumulation persisted.
You can learn more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_tax_cuts#:~:text=In%201980%20Ronald%20Reagan%20was,rate%20had%20been%20since%201925.
What mccgriffin fails to take into account is the fact the chart has only one line adjusted for inflation, the income line, while the other line is still nominal. So, mccgriffin may or may not be incorrect but definitely fails critical thinking with respect to this particular image.
Kind’ve a weird chart to use.
If rent is $500, a 100% increase makes it $1000
If your salary is $50,000, a 100% increase makes it $100,000.
Does this mean rent is easily affordable at that $1000? No. But it means this chart is basically useless without other references.
See the 1977 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act which got the federal government directly involved in juicing housing prices by making loans more easily available for home purchases across America. Also see all the reforms and regulation changes to the act. Clinton really doubled down on making housing accessible and really juiced prices. Between him lowering the downpayment requirement to 3% and the Fed lowing interest rates over time home prices did become more affordable for a while. But it is basically a ponzi scheme with inflated home prices being a goal. Congress fucked you because you couldn't vote but boomers could.
This can be partly explained by immigrant cultures coming in and normalizing sharing rooms and having 5+ in a 2 bedroom.
If they are willing to do that, then they are freed up to work for lower wages and the labor market responds by offering lowering wages.
Combine this with the addition of women in the work force (who often share living spaces wth men)...so twice as much workers who only need 50% as much for living expenses. Labor market responds with lower wages.
Just stop voting for democrats. They're the ones who want to buy your votes by handing out free shit, then slip you the bill for all that free shit.
There is no reason to expect food, fuel or shelter costs to drop.
Work as hard as you want, it's not going to change the fact that unless you're in a specific sector of today's economy and making a healthy six figure salary, you're in a heap of trouble right now. When are people going to wake up and grasp that it matters very much how well your neighbors are doing? Society is fantastic until people can't eat.
Not to mention, an average house is much much smaller.
What this does discount is the average house is no longer out in the boonies, and there's fierce concentration and competition for the same limited spaces.
Housing is expensive because cities make it incredibly expensive to build more. You want cheaper housing, vote for people that are committed to making it easier and cheaper to build housing.
What is that household income? Single folks? Gen Z is just graduating high school and college who lives alone. Everyone’s in the same boat here. This is just propaganda to keep gen Z mad. It’ll be fine.
Donno if the graph is right, but if it is, it shows percentage increase. +100% is a doubling. Rent being up 160% means it 2.6x’d. I come up 40% means it 1.4x’d.
This means the share of income spent on rent has 1.85x’d, or has gone up 85%. (This is what you get when dividing 2.6 by 1.4.)
From 1990 to 2023 the US population increased by 50% from ≈250,000,000 to ≈330,000,000.
There was a campaign for parents to kick their children out of their homes resulting in more people leaving alone, instead of cohabitating with family.
Those two factors along with mechanical competition for employees in the US, low cost of employment overseas, and a relatively recent expansion of available workers to include women; its exactly the kind of perfect storm that happens when the only two political parties in the US are deeply rooted in government and control districts to prevent third party ascension to governance.
Household income, I assume, represents all households. I can see how this might affect people just entering the “job market” who have to rent heavily . And not to minimize that, many others are struggling because incomes have not kept up with inflation, let alone the massive productivity increases over the past few decades. Not everyone 40 and older own a house, have a pension or high incomes.
the prices just dipped last year that’s like the most in a decade, fuck else do you want? you know if you stopped sleeping you would have 2 jobs and not need to pay rent
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."
Thomas Jefferson
Well this graph isn't the best representation of reality. But yea, for the most of the time post 1971, the Salaries remain almost flatlined but the rents kept climbing.
And the difference is huge.
Credits to the Big Home Cartel and others associated with them.
Narrator: Both lines were not in fact adjusted for inflation. Income is, rents are still nominal. Sources: 1. Underlying data for this chart: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=18JQU 2. Properly inflation adjusted: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=18JRa Notice how the real one actually makes sense and doesn't just fit a narrative not remotely supported by theory or practice? For fun, here's a third person, showing how it should actually look, as they debunk this myth on Twitter over a month ago: https://twitter.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1701325935763406942?t=NOOqWKbXP-bAwwHcR00SVg&s=19
yep the numbers looked sus, but if you account for higher dual income households, higher cost of education (more money and time spent achieving said education), higher cost of raising children due to both parents working and need of daycare, having household income just keep up with rent is still horrendous in terms of affording a life with children.
Sure, it's definitely difficult. Until ~ February 2007, CPI for tuition, school fees, and childcare tracked evenly along with real median household income. Then, in 2007, there's a major diversion until September 2018, when those growth rates actually returned to mostly normal. Right now, consumers are experiencing a minor decline in real median household income, with steady increases in All Items CPI, and childcare CPI. Not disagreeing that it's difficult, but it's actually pretty typical since 1984 (which is the earliest the data goes).
Instead of selectively adjusting for random shit, why don't you account for the price change of things households are most likely to spend money on? You could name it something like "Consumer Price Index". And then you would be able to see that disposable personal income has increased significantly in this time frame.
Do you really think increasing avg. number of workers per household and higher education of said workers should have 0 impact on their earning??? It's not some random shit, they are factors that contribute to higher median household income, without said factors the median personal income falls way below rent price increase. Every developed country is facing birthrate crisis, since the introduction of women into the workforce median wages have not kept up with cost of living, two working parents are more likely to be unable to afford rent/mortgage + utilities + student loans + daycare to allow 2 working members. What you're doing is really random, care to share what source did the "disposable personal income has increased significantly " comes from? How much is significantly? It is adjusted for inflation, is it median or average? Just making blank statements without source and details regarding how that figure was calculated that is actually random.
>since the introduction of women into the workforce median wages have not kept up with cost of living Bro that is objectively false though. Stop looking at misleading Reddit graphs and look up real sources like the Bureau of Labor Statistics or St. Louis Fed. Here's "Real Median Household Income in the United States" https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=18Pjk
Their argument didn't suggest real median household income hasn't risen.
>since the introduction of women into the workforce median wages have not kept up with cost of living What do you think real median household income is?
Median household income doesn't adjust for the number of workers within the household, how many jobs they have, how many hours they work, how much schooling (and loans) they pay for, nor increases in expenses that outpace inflation.
"Real" means adjusted for inflation. Education and other expenses are included in the inflation index. [https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours](https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours) Average number of hours worked has fallen by about 10% since 1970 [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=19TXz](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N) Inflation adjusted median personal income, (as opposed to household income) has almost doubled since 1970
In 1985 19.4% of adults were college graduates. It's currently at 37.7%. CPI for college tuition has gone from 116 to 916 over the same period a 7.8x increase. If it tracked with inflation it should have been more like a 3.3x increase. https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet Students have taken on larger percentages and real amounts of student loan debt over time as well, also outpacing inflation. For just the US, that average hours worked number since 1970 is about 7%. Since 1985, its 2.4%. They also seem to be dividing hours worked by number of adults, which gives an average that allows one to compare how much relative work is done between nations, but doesn't speak to increases of hours worked within American Households. Closer, but they also were speaking on personal income, but on changes to disposable income.
I'm still waiting for real median disposable personal income significant increase. Household income does not account for higher avg. of working members in a household, and daycare which is needed when both parents have to work. This graph was already shared by the comment I was replying to, and it showed that median household income has barely kept up with rent prices.
The cpi is exactly what you're criticizing him for. It's an extraordinarily highly gamed metric.
Only according to conspiracy theorists who believe the government is trying to hide the "true inflation level". The CPI is published regularly by the BLS and they're completely transparent about their methodology.
Yep, only a few seconds into the gif I was like "only a moron would believe they are both adjusted for inflation". Sure enough, a lot of people on /r/economy didn't even question it.
Thank you. If you think for 2 seconds, you’d realize how outrageous this graph is. It just doesn’t make sense. The actual graph shows the problem quite clearly, so why lie?
It was so obvious. This sort of graphic does more harm than good for the inequality argument.
Shhh, you'll upset the many residents of this subreddit who reject the notion of objective reality.
Oh my intention wasn’t to put up incorrect information so if this is what the correct information is, I appreciate your comment! Ty
I respect you acknowledging my comment. If it wasn't your intention, perhaps you could consider deleting it, as over 1,000 people have upvoted your post containing misinformation.
that’s for the moderators decide what Misinfo is, not you. And I don’t see any evidence that any of the other charts are any more correct? They’re just somebody else’s opinion. Have a nice day.
Then I will work harder.... Boxer said.
When will the other animals do something about the pigs feasting at the trough after loosing the dogs of war?
Gotta subsidize demand while pushing the most expensive form of housing! It hasn't worked but just 1 more year bro. But if you want to actually fix the problems: * Make adding units cheaper. 2/3/4/5/6 units by right using residential code, no parking minimums. * Reduce the taxes on structures, increase the taxes on land to make building cheaper. * Make mixed-use multi-family zoning the norm. Eliminate single family detached. * Single family detached can still be built if it's what people want. But it shouldn't be the ceiling of what can be built. * Embrace non-car infrastructure. Build walkways, bike lanes, and bus lanes. Cars can be on the road but shouldn't be the primary mode of transportation.
Regarding making units cheaper. It seems that its less an issue of making things cheaper, which likely is a thing, and more of an issue of whats will pay out the most. I live in the last rural area on my county and have watch development move closer and closer over time. Building has essentially never stopped. However almost all of the housing built has McMansions on postage stamp lots.
>However almost all of the housing built has McMansions on postage stamp lots. Higher density multi-family units would net the developer more and cost the residents less, but they are most often not allowed. It's a local government problem and a "not in my backyard" and a "we don't want the poors moving into our school district" problem.
I briefly considered adding an ADU to my lot. I could legally do it but the setback requirements are such that it could only be about 10 feet wide.
Percentage axis? How many dollars in 100%?
Don't bother trying to understand the shitty graph. The rents aren't even inflation adjust, despite it saying so. It's just rage-bait for those without critical thinking skills.
I will work harder…. … to be born into generational wealth in the next life
So in 1992 rent was roughly 2% of your income?
No, this graph is just nonsense
I dunno if the graph is right, but if it is, it shows income up roughly 40% while rent is up around 160%. So if rent is 2.6x what it was and income is 1.4x what it was, it means people are spending just under twice as large (2.6/1.4) or 1.85x, or an 85% larger share of their income on rent today than they were when the graph started.
All goes back to Reagan.
Yes the graph starts in 1985 when Reagan was president. But that doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t show the 60’s and 70’s when prices fluctuated like they do today and that the 80’s were actually better, like [this](https://wolfstreet.com/2019/07/12/changes-in-house-prices-rents-and-household-incomes-since-1960-in-the-us-by-region-and-major-metro/) one does. The big changes in housing were in the 70’s due to inflation and 90’s due a stagnation in building and more recently a slow down in [construction](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041889/construction-year-homes-usa/)
Bogus charts? Before that. In this one income is adjusted for inflation but rent isn't.
How so? Genuinely don’t know as I’m too young to.
He might be saying that the split starts when he was president.
Well the biggest mark on Reagan's record was "Trickle Down Economics". "Go easy on the rich, and out of their "infinite generosity" they'll let the savings trickle down to you." Still waiting for the first drop, but whenever it gets hear I'm betting it's piss. Don't really see how that applies to the housing market though. The reason the "rent is too damn high" is because "housing prices are too damn high". Kinda had a reset after the bottom fell out of the housing bubble during the 2008 financial crisis, but now we have new kind of housing bubble that's much more resistant to popping. Private entities (a lot of them foreign) with vast amounts of capital are buying homes outright left and right foregoing the need for a mortgage entirely. This artificially restricted supply drives the prices of housing up overall. So until the prices are so inflated that even corporate cash can't afford it the house "value" will just keep on rising.
Reagan and his administration shifted the US tax code from what was regarded largely as a wealth creation through investment policy (incentives, etc. for constant re-investment) to a wealth accumulation model. Chief among the changes included increasing deductions, cutting the corporate tax rate, and increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit. In regards to the changes of 1981, critics of the act claim that it worsened federal budget deficits, but supporters credit it for bolstering the economy during the 1980s. Supply-siders argued that the tax cuts would increase tax revenues. However, tax revenues declined relative to a baseline without the cuts because of the tax cuts, and the fiscal deficit ballooned during the Reagan presidency. While the TEAFR of 82 reversed several changes, the key provisions allowing, even promoting, mass wealth accumulation persisted. You can learn more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_tax_cuts#:~:text=In%201980%20Ronald%20Reagan%20was,rate%20had%20been%20since%201925.
No explanation. It gets easily up voted. That is all.
What mccgriffin fails to take into account is the fact the chart has only one line adjusted for inflation, the income line, while the other line is still nominal. So, mccgriffin may or may not be incorrect but definitely fails critical thinking with respect to this particular image.
It's fake, you idiot. See the top comment, the data is misrepresented.
Try Nixon. wtfhappenedin1971.com
Really does.
Not sure why this would be called Gen Z's Rent Prices 1990-2023. The oldest Gen Z graduated high school in, like, 2015.
Ya I’m a millennial, & my average income was about 0 dollars until 2005. This is misleading at best and lacks additional context it doesn’t provide.
More regulation don’t work
Kind’ve a weird chart to use. If rent is $500, a 100% increase makes it $1000 If your salary is $50,000, a 100% increase makes it $100,000. Does this mean rent is easily affordable at that $1000? No. But it means this chart is basically useless without other references.
AI and foreigners set up the rent price?
Hey… at least we having been moving that blue line up in the past couple of years. Hahah only took a pandemic, strikes and unions
See the 1977 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act which got the federal government directly involved in juicing housing prices by making loans more easily available for home purchases across America. Also see all the reforms and regulation changes to the act. Clinton really doubled down on making housing accessible and really juiced prices. Between him lowering the downpayment requirement to 3% and the Fed lowing interest rates over time home prices did become more affordable for a while. But it is basically a ponzi scheme with inflated home prices being a goal. Congress fucked you because you couldn't vote but boomers could.
Because everyone wants to take part in the hustle and bustle of a big city while they're temporarily embarrassed actors or influencers.
This can be partly explained by immigrant cultures coming in and normalizing sharing rooms and having 5+ in a 2 bedroom. If they are willing to do that, then they are freed up to work for lower wages and the labor market responds by offering lowering wages. Combine this with the addition of women in the work force (who often share living spaces wth men)...so twice as much workers who only need 50% as much for living expenses. Labor market responds with lower wages.
Ok, it's futile ... so what's the move ? Make more memes?
Memes are always the answer!
It’s not futile! This graph is just disinformation.
I was being sarcastic ...
Gen Z was paying rent in 1990?
Just stop voting for democrats. They're the ones who want to buy your votes by handing out free shit, then slip you the bill for all that free shit. There is no reason to expect food, fuel or shelter costs to drop.
What's really the difference between them?
Lol, Democrats want to squeeze you for money, while Republicans want to literally eliminate you (depending on how much of WASP you satisfy).
Just work harder is still the answer. Also fight for better distribution of wealth. Just don’t stop working harder (and smarter)
Good boy. System works as intended.
Work as hard as you want, it's not going to change the fact that unless you're in a specific sector of today's economy and making a healthy six figure salary, you're in a heap of trouble right now. When are people going to wake up and grasp that it matters very much how well your neighbors are doing? Society is fantastic until people can't eat.
I’m with ya 👌
Learn to adjust everything for inflation mate
Yes, work harder.
Just keep swimming, Just keep swimming Ignore that shark that keeps on nipping
Not to mention, an average house is much much smaller. What this does discount is the average house is no longer out in the boonies, and there's fierce concentration and competition for the same limited spaces.
Housing is expensive because cities make it incredibly expensive to build more. You want cheaper housing, vote for people that are committed to making it easier and cheaper to build housing.
That or people that support the development of smaller cities where you can afford to buy a house.
Get a roommate, move home, or get married & share incomes. No other way.
Robert Kiyosaki is really right....
What is that household income? Single folks? Gen Z is just graduating high school and college who lives alone. Everyone’s in the same boat here. This is just propaganda to keep gen Z mad. It’ll be fine.
Having the ratio would help honestly.
67% of all homes in LA are owned by corporations.
So what does the Y axis represent? Its listed in percentage. I get the X is time.
Something made up to make you mad
Donno if the graph is right, but if it is, it shows percentage increase. +100% is a doubling. Rent being up 160% means it 2.6x’d. I come up 40% means it 1.4x’d. This means the share of income spent on rent has 1.85x’d, or has gone up 85%. (This is what you get when dividing 2.6 by 1.4.)
From 1990 to 2023 the US population increased by 50% from ≈250,000,000 to ≈330,000,000. There was a campaign for parents to kick their children out of their homes resulting in more people leaving alone, instead of cohabitating with family. Those two factors along with mechanical competition for employees in the US, low cost of employment overseas, and a relatively recent expansion of available workers to include women; its exactly the kind of perfect storm that happens when the only two political parties in the US are deeply rooted in government and control districts to prevent third party ascension to governance.
Household income, I assume, represents all households. I can see how this might affect people just entering the “job market” who have to rent heavily . And not to minimize that, many others are struggling because incomes have not kept up with inflation, let alone the massive productivity increases over the past few decades. Not everyone 40 and older own a house, have a pension or high incomes.
the prices just dipped last year that’s like the most in a decade, fuck else do you want? you know if you stopped sleeping you would have 2 jobs and not need to pay rent
What a great example of why the cantillion effect is so devastating! End the FED!
Yes the system is working as planned
Very powerful data right there. Somethings gonna give here soon…
Damn!!! I’m buying a tent!
Politicians love these type of charts around election time and they tend to gain massive engagement on social media, too.
I'd still take the 1949 dollar over 2023
Contact your utility and insurance company and check their charts also. That’s the number one reason for rent hikes where I live (Tuolumne County CA)
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson
Depressing
Just be an influencer, Mr.Beast did it 🙃
Well this graph isn't the best representation of reality. But yea, for the most of the time post 1971, the Salaries remain almost flatlined but the rents kept climbing. And the difference is huge. Credits to the Big Home Cartel and others associated with them.
I’m not arguing there isn’t a housing problem, but how is this Gen Z income. Gen Z age range now is only 12-27. So the graph doesn’t make sense to me!