• RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s a crude rule of thumb that was questionably useful when it was first promulgated, and now is entirely adrift from reality.

    • twack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s extremely difficult to pull off today, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t an appropriate figure. The “wants” and “investment” categories have effectively been wiped out for a large number of people, which isn’t a healthy and sustainable way to live long term.

      This is what the entire “living wage” argument is based on. Regular people aren’t making enough money to have a healthy budget. Well, some are just over inflating wants, but that’s not the people I’m talking about.

      • RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The notion that housing should take up a particular portion of your income is fundamentally flawed. It relies on a fixed relationship between prices of different classes of goods, when that relationship varies over place and time.

        Which situation is better: making 50k take-home and paying 15k in housing costs (30%), or making 100k and paying 50k (50%)?

        There are real problems in the housing market and overall affordability, but this statistic is like trying to measure national health by the percentage of people drinking 8 glasses a day of water.