"Apartment in a moderate-cost area is about $70,000-$100,000/year."

Are we saying apartment rental is between 5 and 8 thousand dollars a month? What is the definition of this moderate cost area??

Back to the original post I think there are several statistics that apply to different geographical areas or demographics in the same post, leading us to conclusion that half the continent is out on the street, and demonstrating risk of back of the napkin calculations on policy decisions, even if we assume good will and honest effort :-/

He's arguing below that about 50% of the US population is homeless, which is not even close to accurate.

In the Netherlands, you aren’t taxed on your primary residence, but all other wealth has an approximately 2% annual wealth tax. This makes it challenging to accumulate wealth through any means other than a primary residence, which was many of my coworkers’ primary way of saving.

Granted, they also have mandatory pensions, which can give you a good income in retirement, but that’s different than wealth accumulation

Bullshit. American unemployment pays consdeirably more than UK unemployment. Throw on food stamps and housing assisitance on there, and the US might still be below the more generous European countries, but you definitely have a safety net.

> unlike in Europe... So owning your home is a big part of having something to retire on and pay bills

So what, like the UK? And Ireland? And argaubly all of Europe east of Germany and in Scandinaivia, all places where home ownership is comparable or greater than the US?

UK unemployment (called Jobseeker's Allowance) is up to £90.50/week. $115.30 in dollars.

Also your math is off: even at your $4200/mo estimate, that's $50,400/yr, nowhere near your "not too far off" $60k. And that puts it at 30%-50% below the $70k-$100k range, which makes that range laughably inaccurate.

That would mean you are paying $2k a month in tax and insurance?!

That doesn't even pass a minimum-effort sniff test. I live in one of the most expensive cities in the country, and I'm in your quoted range for a 4-bedroom condo.

My sibling lives in a more affordable, but desirable, area and spends a little less than half of what I spend a year, for a single-family home with a good-sized yard that's more than twice the size of my condo. (And they bought last year when interest rates were high.)

Your own stats don't even make sense. You claim it costs $70k-$100k/yr for housing, but that to afford a home, a family needs to make $107k/yr? That doesn't make sense. If housing costs that much, that family needs to make north of $200k/yr to afford it.

Where are you getting this information?

A big problem with renting is the capriciousness of the rental market in many places, which you can't solve with "basic math". That plus the availability of the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage in the US means that rental costs can be much more unpredictable than buying. Some people will -- very reasonably -- pay a bit more for peace of mind. And that's before we get into the topic of no-fault evictions, and how that can wreck a family's housing situation, sometimes with not too much notice.

Renter protections in the US are not great compared to in many other places, and that can make renting unpredictable and more "costly" in other ways.

(I still don't agree with GP's thinking or math, but I don't think you're arguing against what they actually said.)

No way that's correct.

- it invented numbers (they were erroneous) - it told me that given the nature of LLMs he cannot name his sources nor give me a link to it.

This make your statement quite unlikely. Can you link us to the stats directly?

Not sure if I would call all of those moderately priced areas, either. Some of those at least are the most expensive in the country.

So 50% of the US are homeless?

It happens. It's disgusting when it does. It IS a problem.

But it's not happening to half the country. That's nonsense. And when you say nonsense, it keeps others from taking the problem seriously.

I agree that homelessness is a problem, but you appear to be arguing in bad faith. If 50% of the US actually "can't afford housing", we'd have $170M people living in tents, and that is demonstrably not the case.

I would believe a claim that states that a large portion (maybe 50%, maybe more, maybe less) of the country are facing financial insecurity that makes them feel like their housing situation is precarious. But that wasn't the claim put forth upthread.

Can you clarify? Because I'd find it hard to believe that half of Americans are literally homeless. It might make more sense if you're referring to home-owners.

> around 50% of Americans make $70,000 or more annually.

Wait a second. "50% of Americans making X or more" means X is the median. Does that imply a ton of people are working more than one job?

I don't see how that computes. The internet suggests that, on the high end, a family will spend around $10,000 on home repairs, maintenance, and insurance, which is in line with my experience. So almost $100,000 in yearly property taxes for a typical family home? Not a chance.

I suspect you are thinking of buying a home rather than owning a home, but homes are bought with wealth, not income, so an income figure here doesn't make much sense if that is, in fact, what you are thinking of. If that is not what you are thinking of, I, for one, don't understand what you are trying to say. This figure doesn't seem to have any applicability.

Most people in the US will say they own their home even if they have a significant mortgage against it. You can be upset that people are not using the word correctly, but that's kinda pointless.

What do you mean by this? In the US, over 60% of people have a mortgage [1], which almost always means it's coming from some percentage of their income. When you get a home loan, the banks only real concern is your credit score and income. Anecdotal, but I don't know a single person that doesn't have their monthly mortgage scaled to their income, since I don't know a single person under 60 without a mortgage that's coming from their income.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/percent-homeowners-have-mortgag....

A mortgage is the rental of wealth. It is independent of the home. But, even if we want to conflate them for the sake of discussion, it is still dependent on many variables that does not round to a single number. The rent on a $20,000 mortgage is quite different to the rent on a $200,000 mortgage. Two buyers buying identical homes for identical prices, but who come with different amounts of wealth, will have very different rental payments. A single number is meaningless, even if we assume 100% of people are paying mortgage rent.

But, as you point out, ~40% of the people don't have a mortgage, and therefore have no such cost to begin with. The idea that they also need $107K doesn't make any sense.

That still feels like a fair over-estimated amount to me, but I think that's what they were getting at. (It could also be a figure of the amount needed to qualify for a mortgage on a place with some amount of downpayment.)

HN love to look down on ChatGPT, yet are willing to hide behind it when it’s convenient.