This is the inevitable result of infinite growth. You aren’t getting a home in world class locations without being at the very top yourself. Sure other people lucked into the right place and the right time. Go buy lottery tickets. Or set down in location that is more affordable. With any luck you’ll be a multimillionaire when you’re elderly too. And the kids of the year 2060 will hate you for the dastardly plot you schemed up with your friends to ruin everything.
We’re all part of the rat race that is fucking us over. Nobody wants to flinch. So we continue to eat each other alive.
This recommends 2 to 3 years of annual income to be the price of your house
So… how many of yall are making $300k a year?
“Why do we have so many homeless?”
Well… define starter home. I got a starter for about half that in LA but I have a shared wall townhome. Not great, but if we’re talking no shared walls and a yard, ya I can see that costing more… Except I also saw those for about this price, only with like… 600sq ft? Pick you battles, but those aren’t a million even in the city.
Now, maybe the 200 cities are specific neighborhoods, like how Santa Monica isn’t technically Los Angeles since it’s got it’s own city government. Same with Beverly Hills, Bel Air, etc. You sure as hell ain’t getting a place for 1 mil there, even if it’s a small “starter home.”
All of your question are answered right at the beginning of the article:
“Zillow defines “cities” as distinct housing markets, which can include large suburbs, towns or boroughs within major metro areas. “Starter homes” are defined as properties in the bottom third of home values within a given market. That means these aren’t luxury listings — they’re the least expensive homes available in each city.”
Gotcha. So yes, it’s misleading headline, mostly for the first part since you can probably pull up 200 “cities” where you’d be nuts to find your first home. You aren’t getting your first home in Malibu, that’s just silly.
And you wonder why the young folk vote for conservatives…