$100k is almost double the average income of single mothers (of ANY education level) though, and, again on average, more than a third of their income go towards childcare.
Add the fact that someone with 4 children would pay MORE than average in childcare and other expenses including ridiculously high rent and there REALLY isn’t enough left over to ever afford a house anywhere but the least desirable parts of the least desirable states.
I’m not being sexist, you’re downplaying the ongoing national emergency of deep systemic poverty.
$100k is almost double the average income of single mothers (of ANY education level) though, and, again on average, more than a third of their income go towards childcare.
Implying people buy houses in cash does not make you seem knowledgeable about the housing market.
Not owning a house does not mean you’re in poverty.
I did no such thing. Your income and credit score determine whether you’ll get approved for a mortgage though and if you don’t have enough of the former to keep the latter good, you ain’t getting it.
Not owning a house does not mean you’re in poverty.
Never implied that either. The reverse tends to be true though: being in poverty usually means not being able to afford a house.
I did no such thing. Your income and credit score determine whether you’ll get approved for a mortgage though and if you don’t have enough of the former to keep the latter good, you ain’t getting it.
Yes and this hypothetical person has the income to secure a mortgage. I know because I made less than $100k when I bought my house for about the same as in this example.
Even in the invented example you have, this all still works, so I’m not seeing the issue
Most people shouldn’t be homeowners, and making it tougher to secure funding is a good thing and prevents housing crashes.
I know because I made less than $100k when I bought my house for about the same as in this example.
Good for you, but most single mothers couldn’t afford to do that and your “evidence” is purely anecdotal. I’m guessing you live somewhere with very low property prices and/or susidized childcare if you’re indeed a single mom.
Most people shouldn’t be homeowners
Says who? What gives you the right to determine whether people should be allowed to own their home rather than be rent gouged for their entire adult lives?
making it tougher to secure funding is a good thing
It sure as hell isn’t! See the aforementioned rent gouging. In the roughly 20 years since moving from my parents’ homes, I’ve paid several times more in rent than a decent house or condo plus taxes would have cost.
Because I never had and probably never WILL have that much at the same time, either up front or through a loan, though, I’m going to pay more for modest apartments over my lifetime without ever owning one than rich people pay for a very nice house. It’s called a poor tax and it’s not a fair or otherwise good thing.
prevents housing crashes.
No it doesn’t. Housing crashes are caused by real estate speculation going wrong, not poor people owning their homes.
The sunprime mortgage crisis wasn’t about poor people getting loans. It was about banks and other financial institutions gambling with the ownership of that debt and other overvalued assets until the jenga tower inevitably toppled.
good credit, which literally anyone can have on a long enough timetable
That’s categorically false. There’s tens of millions of Americans literally stuck in crushing poverty no matter what they do or don’t do. Just because you’ve been luckier than that doesn’t mean that your experience is universal.
the money just doesn’t work the way you think it does.
The amount of georgraphical space in the areas in which people want to live.
Condo owners, sure.
The sunprime mortgage crisis wasn’t about poor people getting loans. It was about banks and other financial institutions gambling with the ownership of that debt and other overvalued assets until the jenga tower inevitably toppled.
Ludicrously lax mortgage loaning guidelines were the cause of that toxic debt. If you weren’t an adult at the time you should watch The Big Short. Actually even if you were, because it’s also just a good movie.
The amount of georgraphical space in the areas in which people want to live.
Condo owners, sure.
First of all, I never said that home ownership had to be single family houses. That was YOUR assumption.
Second of all, while I agree as a general rule that it’s better to conserve space by building more dense residential properties, most liveable land is hoarded by rich people. Confiscating the unneeded land of rich people to build affordable housing is one of the few if not the only legitimate application of eminent domain laws.
Ludicrously lax mortgage loaning guidelines were the cause of that toxic debt
No, ludicrously draconian enforcement when people missed a single payment was what made it toxic. The banks being stuck with a bunch of unpaid small mortgages would never had caused anywhere near as much damage as what ACTUALLY happened.
If you weren’t an adult at the time you should watch The Big Short
I was and I have. The big short isn’t about how poor people shouldn’t get loans. It’s about how banks shouldn’t give poor people loans with predatory terms and then gamble the entire economy on defaulted on debt and other junk assets bundled as prime assets becoming worth more.
Actually even if you were, because it’s also just a good movie
Most livable land is not desirable because it’s rural. You can buy a house in a rural part of my state for 80k. You won’t, because it isn’t desirable.
My in-laws’ home would sell for a whopping 120k right now if you wanna live in a town of 300 in rural Wisconsin.
It’s about how banks shouldn’t give poor people loans with predatory terms
It’s the same picture.
No, ludicrously draconian enforcement when people missed a single payment was what made it toxic
Banks did everything they could to keep people in homes because repossessed homes weren’t selling. My dad didn’t pay his mortgage for almost 2 years lol.
Nobody’s saying that anyone’s stupid (though you’re certainly being very obtuse right now and probably deliberately so), but you can’t budget yourself out of basic barebones living expenses.
That’s not stupidity or anything to do with gender, that’s a greed-based system stacked against single mothers and other marginalized groups.
And I likewise hope that some day you’ll learn that the statistically likely happens more often than individual exceptions and as such should be treated as the default basis of any serious discussion about a topic at large.
Assuming incompetence or financial difficulties based on gender, race, or age is a form of prejudice.
As is assuming she could only have achieved it through luck.
The single mother in question was outbid by an investment firm busy commodifying housing. Any other assumptions about her financial situation are just soft bigotry, but Viking can’t admit that barely a flaw to himself because then he wouldn’t be a morally perfect internet champion of the downtrodden.
I’m sorry, but it IS hard to understand. No one in this chain said she was poor BECAUSE she is a woman. Just that she is poor, just like a single father would be…
…and the argument has been “well they could budget” vs “you can’t budget yourself out of this shit, it’s reality for these people”. And by “these people” they don’t mean “women”, but “people who have to take care of multiple children with one income”
Honestly, this whole thread is YOU ranting about genders, everyone else is talking socio-economic status. THAT’S why is hard to understand.
Viking commented she could be in a position to buy a house out of luck, be it a lottery or, presumably, inheritance.
I comment, half seriously, that he’s ignoring that she could just have a good education and a decent paying job, to which he considers an appropriate response to be “uuuuuhmmm AKSHUALLY most single moms are poor.”
Thank you for proving you’re just engaged in team picking nonsense, and didn’t understand the conversation, like everyone else other than Viking, whose ego simply can’t admit his assumptions display prejudice.
He seems like he’s in the right place, I’m sure he’ll figure it out one day, or at least do a better job with real people and not hypotheticals.
With any luck, one day you’ll also be able to read a statement as it is and stop getting mad at strawmen.
Did you even realize that the link viking used was for single PARENTS, not mothers?
Most single PARENTS are poor.
FFS the projection in this comment is strong. Just re-read your last 3 paragraphs, and switch ‘viking’ with ‘dragon’. Maybe one day you will be able to look past your sexisim and read content for what it is.
You can afford a house in most states on about $100k. She’s just a single mom, don’t assume she doesn’t have a solid education.
Sexists in here, smh.
$100k is almost double the average income of single mothers (of ANY education level) though, and, again on average, more than a third of their income go towards childcare.
Add the fact that someone with 4 children would pay MORE than average in childcare and other expenses including ridiculously high rent and there REALLY isn’t enough left over to ever afford a house anywhere but the least desirable parts of the least desirable states.
I’m not being sexist, you’re downplaying the ongoing national emergency of deep systemic poverty.
You’re feeding a troll or an idiot, either way it’s not worth it
True.
Man, I make $100k and I can’t afford a $350k home. It’s too much with student loans and property taxes; not that begrudge taxes but it’s a factor.
Implying people buy houses in cash does not make you seem knowledgeable about the housing market.
Not owning a house does not mean you’re in poverty.
I did no such thing. Your income and credit score determine whether you’ll get approved for a mortgage though and if you don’t have enough of the former to keep the latter good, you ain’t getting it.
Never implied that either. The reverse tends to be true though: being in poverty usually means not being able to afford a house.
Yes and this hypothetical person has the income to secure a mortgage. I know because I made less than $100k when I bought my house for about the same as in this example.
Even in the invented example you have, this all still works, so I’m not seeing the issue
Most people shouldn’t be homeowners, and making it tougher to secure funding is a good thing and prevents housing crashes.
Good for you, but most single mothers couldn’t afford to do that and your “evidence” is purely anecdotal. I’m guessing you live somewhere with very low property prices and/or susidized childcare if you’re indeed a single mom.
Says who? What gives you the right to determine whether people should be allowed to own their home rather than be rent gouged for their entire adult lives?
It sure as hell isn’t! See the aforementioned rent gouging. In the roughly 20 years since moving from my parents’ homes, I’ve paid several times more in rent than a decent house or condo plus taxes would have cost.
Because I never had and probably never WILL have that much at the same time, either up front or through a loan, though, I’m going to pay more for modest apartments over my lifetime without ever owning one than rich people pay for a very nice house. It’s called a poor tax and it’s not a fair or otherwise good thing.
No it doesn’t. Housing crashes are caused by real estate speculation going wrong, not poor people owning their homes.
The sunprime mortgage crisis wasn’t about poor people getting loans. It was about banks and other financial institutions gambling with the ownership of that debt and other overvalued assets until the jenga tower inevitably toppled.
Forgot to address this, but it’s not anecdotal that someone with X income can afford a mortgage at Y+X. That’s math.
Assuming good credit, which literally anyone can have on a long enough timetable, the money just doesn’t work the way you think it does.
That’s categorically false. There’s tens of millions of Americans literally stuck in crushing poverty no matter what they do or don’t do. Just because you’ve been luckier than that doesn’t mean that your experience is universal.
Right back at you.
Lol I love when kids from rich families LARP like they know what being poor looks like.
The amount of georgraphical space in the areas in which people want to live.
Condo owners, sure.
Ludicrously lax mortgage loaning guidelines were the cause of that toxic debt. If you weren’t an adult at the time you should watch The Big Short. Actually even if you were, because it’s also just a good movie.
First of all, I never said that home ownership had to be single family houses. That was YOUR assumption.
Second of all, while I agree as a general rule that it’s better to conserve space by building more dense residential properties, most liveable land is hoarded by rich people. Confiscating the unneeded land of rich people to build affordable housing is one of the few if not the only legitimate application of eminent domain laws.
No, ludicrously draconian enforcement when people missed a single payment was what made it toxic. The banks being stuck with a bunch of unpaid small mortgages would never had caused anywhere near as much damage as what ACTUALLY happened.
I was and I have. The big short isn’t about how poor people shouldn’t get loans. It’s about how banks shouldn’t give poor people loans with predatory terms and then gamble the entire economy on defaulted on debt and other junk assets bundled as prime assets becoming worth more.
Finally something we 100% agree on 😁
Most livable land is not desirable because it’s rural. You can buy a house in a rural part of my state for 80k. You won’t, because it isn’t desirable.
My in-laws’ home would sell for a whopping 120k right now if you wanna live in a town of 300 in rural Wisconsin.
It’s the same picture.
Banks did everything they could to keep people in homes because repossessed homes weren’t selling. My dad didn’t pay his mortgage for almost 2 years lol.
It is a really great flick/book, for sure.
Ok sexist who thinks this hypothetical mother is too stupid to properly budget her bid on a house.
Nobody’s saying that anyone’s stupid (though you’re certainly being very obtuse right now and probably deliberately so), but you can’t budget yourself out of basic barebones living expenses.
That’s not stupidity or anything to do with gender, that’s a greed-based system stacked against single mothers and other marginalized groups.
Someday I hope you have the ability to understand the difference between a data point about large groups and individual circumstance.
And I likewise hope that some day you’ll learn that the statistically likely happens more often than individual exceptions and as such should be treated as the default basis of any serious discussion about a topic at large.
https://lemm.ee/comment/5190752
This is the kind of person whose mindset matches yours, the bigot of the lowered expectations.
Be better, fam.
Found a book you might be interested in. Make your outfit match your statements.
I hear that industry has some problems with sexism itself, no wonder you have it on hand, it must be work material.
Person 1: “She couldn’t get this much money”
Person 2: “Here are ways she actually could”
Person 3: “SEXIST!”
This is so ridiculous conversation
I do love when the people disagreeing with me prove they don’t have the slightest idea what’s going on.
So WHAT is it, then?
If someone said “single FATHER of 4”, then would this conversation not be sexist?
Because I honestly don’t get it.
Assuming incompetence or financial difficulties based on gender, race, or age is a form of prejudice.
As is assuming she could only have achieved it through luck.
The single mother in question was outbid by an investment firm busy commodifying housing. Any other assumptions about her financial situation are just soft bigotry, but Viking can’t admit that barely a flaw to himself because then he wouldn’t be a morally perfect internet champion of the downtrodden.
It’s really not that hard to understand.
I’m sorry, but it IS hard to understand. No one in this chain said she was poor BECAUSE she is a woman. Just that she is poor, just like a single father would be…
…and the argument has been “well they could budget” vs “you can’t budget yourself out of this shit, it’s reality for these people”. And by “these people” they don’t mean “women”, but “people who have to take care of multiple children with one income”
Honestly, this whole thread is YOU ranting about genders, everyone else is talking socio-economic status. THAT’S why is hard to understand.
Viking commented she could be in a position to buy a house out of luck, be it a lottery or, presumably, inheritance.
I comment, half seriously, that he’s ignoring that she could just have a good education and a decent paying job, to which he considers an appropriate response to be “uuuuuhmmm AKSHUALLY most single moms are poor.”
Thank you for proving you’re just engaged in team picking nonsense, and didn’t understand the conversation, like everyone else other than Viking, whose ego simply can’t admit his assumptions display prejudice.
He seems like he’s in the right place, I’m sure he’ll figure it out one day, or at least do a better job with real people and not hypotheticals.
With any luck, one day you’ll also be able to read a statement as it is and stop getting mad at strawmen.
Did you even realize that the link viking used was for single PARENTS, not mothers?
Most single PARENTS are poor.
FFS the projection in this comment is strong. Just re-read your last 3 paragraphs, and switch ‘viking’ with ‘dragon’. Maybe one day you will be able to look past your sexisim and read content for what it is.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator