Adding more fuel to the fire over the discussion around what constitutes "middle-class’ income in the U.S. but this new map from the Washington Post is worth the look. One take-away: To buy a house in San Francisco (any house), you need an annual income of $142,448.
These articles make me crazy. They are pricing the median house, not the lowest house. They really should give a range of incomes corresponding to the range of prices in the city under discussion. Checking Zillow, for example, there are a number of studios and one-bedroom condos available in the 300-500K range (which does not require an income of $142K), and even a studio around the corner from my sister’s house (in the mission) for $250K.
In Portland, an income of $60K is quite a bit more than sufficient to buy a condo on the eastside, which could cost less than 100K.
Our kids have been out of state for a while and we were aware that real estate prices elsewhere are higher, but when I looked at OP’s link, didn’t expect where we live, Pittsburgh, was the winner (if that’s the right term) with regard to salary needed to buy a house.
Whatever happened to the rule of 2.5 times income = max mortgage? I’d consider $142k to be pushing it for a 500K house unless one were putting down a substantial down payment.
We live in a suburban DC community where houses go for about $80k less than our county’s median price, and the $74k in income listed for DC would not get you into a house in our neighborhood.
I live in suburban DC and even here 30 miles out of the city, there is no way an income of $74K would buy anything where I live.
FallGirl, totally agree. DH has an hour & a quarter commute each way to work in DC, so it’s not like we are in a pricey, close-in neighborhood. Comparable houses in my parents’ community in another part of the country go for $100k.