“If you want to move to a shithole, you can get a good deal on a house” is not the persuasive argument you think it is.
EDIT: Just so you know where this person is coming from, they’ve moved on to talk about how fascism isn’t so bad from a “global perspective” and being anti-fascist is just “tribalism.”
@jordanlund already linked saying the average price for a home is 170k in Mississppi, and even that isn’t necessary to find a nice place.
My house was only $60k and it’s 1,200 sqft and 10 minutes from a hospital.
The real issue here is your entitlement. You think you’re ‘too good’ to live in places that many others do because you think you’re better than them.
Well, if you’re so much better than them then pay up, lol. The problem with you people is that you think you’re entitled to live in expensive places, but you’re not actually valuable enough to society to have a salary that can pay for them. Then you want other people to foot the bill so you can continue to have more than those living in what you deem ‘shitholes.’
You’d come across as more genuine if you just admitted it. But you won’t. Nobody wants to acknowledge their entitlement, lol.
You need to use median household income, not per capita. It’s $49,111 in Mississippi according to your source.
The ratio of home price to household income is typically between 4 and 5 in the US, so the median family should be able to afford the median house in Mississippi.
Household income is absolutely not the right metric to use here, because it’ll always be proportional to the cost of the house out of necessity.
For example, if the cost of a house goes up relative to individual income, then more people in the family need to start working more hours, and more people live with roommates.
Household income stays proportionally the same, always, but individual income shows you how much people are struggling.
No, it’s not the right metric. Which is why people don’t use it.
Imagine you make $160K and buy the nicest house you can afford with that income.
Then you get married, and your spouse makes $100K. Your household income has increased to $260K, which means you can afford an even nicer house.
Your per capita income has decreased to $130K. By your logic, you can’t afford a nicer house. In fact, with a second income you might no longer be able to afford your current house. That’s nonsense.
When multiple people live in a house they all have the opportunity to contribute to paying for it. Some may contribute a lot, some (like children) may contribute nothing. The house you can afford depends on the total amount everyone contributes, aka household income.
if the cost of a house goes up
This doesn’t make sense. The cost of a house is fixed when you buy it. It won’t ever go up while you live there.
Do those places have even remotely comparable work, laws, or amenities? Because yeah you can buy a dirt cheap house 5 mountains from the nearest city in rural Tennessee, but it’s a terrible place to live and you won’t be able to find work.
That’s not a crazy price, that’s like outskirts of reasonably sized city price.
How much was your house?
Listed for $374,000, but I had to bid up to $390,000 to get it.
Yeah, you didn’t have to spend anywhere near that much.
But you wanted to, so you did.
To buy a house where I live, that’s a bargain!
Yeah, there are plenty of other places you can live though.
“If you want to move to a shithole, you can get a good deal on a house” is not the persuasive argument you think it is.
EDIT: Just so you know where this person is coming from, they’ve moved on to talk about how fascism isn’t so bad from a “global perspective” and being anti-fascist is just “tribalism.”
That’s because it’s not my argument. You’re being reddit-brained again.
Sure sounds like your argument to me. But do tell us the non-shithole places you can live where houses are less than $300,000.
@jordanlund already linked saying the average price for a home is 170k in Mississppi, and even that isn’t necessary to find a nice place.
My house was only $60k and it’s 1,200 sqft and 10 minutes from a hospital.
The real issue here is your entitlement. You think you’re ‘too good’ to live in places that many others do because you think you’re better than them.
Well, if you’re so much better than them then pay up, lol. The problem with you people is that you think you’re entitled to live in expensive places, but you’re not actually valuable enough to society to have a salary that can pay for them. Then you want other people to foot the bill so you can continue to have more than those living in what you deem ‘shitholes.’
You’d come across as more genuine if you just admitted it. But you won’t. Nobody wants to acknowledge their entitlement, lol.
Places with median home prices under 300K and Democrats in state government:
(Since you live in IN, you don’t need me to tell you that Michigan is a pretty nice state to live in).
There are, but you can’t make a living there.
It’s all proportional.
Let’s say you want to live in a low cost of living state:
https://www.ramseysolutions.com/real-estate/cheapest-states-to-live-in
Mississippi.
OK, I don’t know why anyone would want to live there, but sure, let’s look at the numbers.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MS/BZA115221
Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2021 dollars), 2017-2021 - $26,807
Persons in poverty, percent - 19.1%
https://www.zillow.com/home-values/34/ms/
“The average Mississippi home value is $174,932.”
You aren’t buying a $175K house making $12.54 an hour. It’s not happening.
Yeah, my house was only $60k. 1,200 square foot. Wasn’t the best deal I could get, but I’m satisfied with my purchase.
I was also looking at houses in a similar price range in Mississippi.
You don’t “need” to spend ‘average price’ for a nice house. You choose to because you want the luxuries that cause the price to go up.
Good maths but do it again with median, not average
You need to use median household income, not per capita. It’s $49,111 in Mississippi according to your source.
The ratio of home price to household income is typically between 4 and 5 in the US, so the median family should be able to afford the median house in Mississippi.
Household income is absolutely not the right metric to use here, because it’ll always be proportional to the cost of the house out of necessity.
For example, if the cost of a house goes up relative to individual income, then more people in the family need to start working more hours, and more people live with roommates.
Household income stays proportionally the same, always, but individual income shows you how much people are struggling.
No, it’s not the right metric. Which is why people don’t use it.
Imagine you make $160K and buy the nicest house you can afford with that income.
Then you get married, and your spouse makes $100K. Your household income has increased to $260K, which means you can afford an even nicer house.
Your per capita income has decreased to $130K. By your logic, you can’t afford a nicer house. In fact, with a second income you might no longer be able to afford your current house. That’s nonsense.
When multiple people live in a house they all have the opportunity to contribute to paying for it. Some may contribute a lot, some (like children) may contribute nothing. The house you can afford depends on the total amount everyone contributes, aka household income.
This doesn’t make sense. The cost of a house is fixed when you buy it. It won’t ever go up while you live there.
Do those places have even remotely comparable work, laws, or amenities? Because yeah you can buy a dirt cheap house 5 mountains from the nearest city in rural Tennessee, but it’s a terrible place to live and you won’t be able to find work.
That’s not a crazy price, that’s like outskirts of reasonably sized city price.