Lazy Man and Money

How Much are You Spending on Your Home?

by 2 Comments

[Editor’s Note: If you were a member of my VIP Email List on Wednesday, you know that I’m giving away $100. If you missed it, perhaps you should join the list as I’ll be doing more giveaways.]

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote, Your Life or Your Home. In it, I explained that people generally work 45 years and housing expenses. It’s estimated that people spend about 1/3 of their money on their homes, which translates to 15 years of work. (It’s not exactly that simple as income typically changes throughout one’s lifetime.)

I got an email from Zillow that reminded me about this. Their press release stated research that Mortgage Payments Require Largest Share of Income Since 2009.

If you think about it, it seems obvious. How could it be any other way with the housing recovery and rising interest rates on mortgages? I suppose income could be growing faster to outpace the recovery, but income (at a nationwide average level) doesn’t usually fluctuate that much.

This is the rare case where the headline didn’t seem to tell the most interesting story. It was almost anti-clickbait.

Zillow looked at the 35 largest housing markets and gave a regional breakdown of “Share of Income Spent On Mortgage” for each. They gave averages for the past and projections for the future, but I was mostly interested in the 2018 number. Maybe I’m just in a “live for now” mood today.

I think it’s worth looking at the national numbers to get some perspective on the average. From 1985-2000 mortgages were around 21% of income. In 2018 it’s only 17%, and that’s despite growing a lot over the last 9 years to reach a high. There are other housing expenses than just mortgages, but it still seems like this is below the 1/3 (33%) estimation that I’ve seen as an average.

I immediately decided to calculate our own number. I bet most people don’t know it off the top of their head. Our income fluctuates quite a bit due blogging, dog sitting, and whatever else we’ve got going on. I picked out a reasonable average and our mortgage came out to 21.6% of income. I’m changing my name from Lazy Man to Mr. National Average (at least in this case.) That may not be a fair number as we have a 15-year mortgage and most people probably have 30-year mortgages. It would likely have been closer to 15% if we didn’t love the idea of not paying the bank for 15 years.

The regional details in the report showed how much this number can fluctuate. If you scroll towards the bottom of the chart, you’ll see two of the extremes, Indianapolis at ~12% and San Jose at over 51% of income. Of course the job situation in Silicon Valley is very different than Indianapolis. It’s no surprise that housing prices were at opposite sides of the spectrum in these two cities. However, this number is a percentage of income, which means it should be normalized for all the high tech salaries in San Jose.

If you had guess without looking at the chart, you’d think that New York City would be like San Jose. We know the housing in New York City is outrageous, right? We’ll it’s 27.7% of income, which is just 6% more than average of the US. That’s not insignificant, but I found it notable that NYC is a lot closer to Indianapolis (15% difference) than San Jose (24% difference.)

When I wrote that aforementioned VIP Email List earlier this week, I asked people for suggestions on how to improve the website. Many of them asked for more practical advice. It’s hard to know what’s practical for a diverse group of people. However, what if we used this chart to figure out if relocation could pay off for us?

I know there are a lot of factors that go into choosing where you live. However, with so much of your income tied up by this decision, it’s probably worth taking a second look and seeing what you are spending on your home and what you could be spending. It’ll make a much bigger difference than that subscription to Netflix.

Your Bedroom or Your Life

by Leave a Comment

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article Rich Chicken, Poor Chicken, which was very loosely modeled after a popular book. I’m not a fan of the author since he seems to promote pyramid schemes. (And unfortunately, Dave Ramsey seems to as well.)

I apologize for the Debbie Downer lede. I got a little off-track there. Let’s start over.

Today’s title is inspired by Your Money or Your Life. It’s a book that all my favorite and like-minded bloggers recommend as a definitive personal finance “bible.” (Disclosure: I’ve never read it. From what I’ve heard it covers the basics very, very well. After 10 years of personal finance finance blogging (and 25 years studying personal finance), I’m not sure I’d gain too much from it.)

The bedroom part needs a little explaining. Yesterday Zillow released a study that moving from a home with 2 bedrooms to 3 costs $450 more a month. That’s an average. Bozeman, Montana will differ greatly from New York City. (Zillow has a lot more information at that link.)

The key takeaway for me is that mortgages were 50% more a month for an extra bedroom. For most people, housing is the biggest expense. You can cut lattes here and there, but they are proverbial drops in the bucket. A 50% change in your biggest expense is life changing…

… life changing in either direction. If you have a 3 bedroom home that you don’t need, you could reduce it and put the savings to good use. If you were thinking of super-sizing from your 2 bedroom home, it’s worth thinking twice whether you really need that 3rd bedroom.

What would do with an extra $450? Decisions, decisions. A-ha there’s the light-bulb above my head.

It turns out that $450 a month is $5400 a year. That’s almost exactly what it takes to max out a Roth IRA. Maybe I should have titled this article your money or your retirement?

Normally, I’d walk you through the math of what $450 more a month means. Today, I’m going to live up to my moniker. Everything I’d say is here: Compound Interest is a River.

Bubbles, Bubbles, Bubbles

by 3 Comments

That title isn’t just what my wife sings while at the Bubble Lounge in San Francisco or while in a spa… it’s the topic of today’s article.

Earlier this week, I said I was going to try to be more positive. So before I get into some heavy negative stuff, I feel it’s worth reflecting how awesome life is. It’s not lost on me that I’m part of small percentage of the privileged few in a privileged country. We carry awesome computers with us that have almost any information that people want. We can tell our Amazon Echo to play Jack Johnson and instantly be happy. (Or maybe that’s just me.)

Sometimes I think the negative stuff stands out to me like a sore thumb because of the sharp contrast with all the awesomeness of everything else? What’s that phrase that people use nowadays, “first world problems”? Exactly.

I want everyone to have all the awesomeness and none of the bad stuff. And a lot of that awesomeness comes with money and financial freedom. When I see people or business taking that away from people, it makes me sad… very sad. No one likes a sad, Lazy Man.

Let’s Get to the Bubbles

I’m not really sure if these really meant the definition of “bubbles”, but that’s kind of the road I went down. One might also call it capitalism running amok without regulation… or at least “timely” regulation.

Cable Companies and Bundling

Yesterday, I wrote my experience with Cox cable/Internet pricing. In case you missed it, they seem to automatically assess a $25 fee for a declined credit card. In addition, they require products that some consumers don’t want (me in this case) to get a “bundle deal.” When that expires consumers who fail or forget to complain feel the pain of raised prices. For what it’s worth the FTC does have a page about bundled communication services, but it looks like it really isn’t a priority for them at this time.

I got several comments and not one was in support of Cox or their cable company. Many claimed that because they have a monopoly in their area (like Cox in mine) and lack choice, the pricing just keeps going up and up. I’d say that’s an example of capitalism run amok without regulation. In fact, a few people commenting openly wished regulators would step in.

In the meantime, is it wrong for Cox, or any other cable company, to make as much money as it can? It’s in the business to make money, right? If tactics that some described as “shady” makes them more money that’s just the business doing business stuff, right? I don’t agree with this thinking.

Housing Market in 2008

This is an easy and famous bubble, right? We saw housing prices go up and up. At least part of the reason was because mortgages were easy to get. And as prices of homes got higher, banks created new mortgages to keep putting people in homes. You can reduce the monthly payments on house by making offering a 50-year, interest-only mortgage.

I wonder how many people are still digging out of that mess. The condo I bought in 2005 is worth about $50,000 less than what I paid for it. That’s kind of a big deal, right?

Student Loans

I haven’t followed student loans too closely as I’m passed that age (Thanks for the scholarship, Brandeis!) and my kids are in pre-school. However, it seems to me that colleges have been regularly raising prices (similar to the home market above) and using a similar idea to the new mortgages… people will just get more financial aid.

Medication (such as EpiPens)

I’m sure you haven’t missed the news of late, but prices of medication are drastically shooting up as well. It’s rarely that the products are better or more effective. Instead we find the same kind of passing of the buck as above. In this case, insurances cover some of the cost, so the medications may not seem as expensive, but the result has been raising insurance premiums.

Multilevel Marketing Scams

I’ve covered these extensively in the past. This isn’t exactly like the above products, because you can simply choose not to buy the products, and it doesn’t hurt that like not having a home, education, internet, or medication. Instead, companies found a way to sell hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of consumers things like $45/bottle juice or $70/bottle salt water make outlandish health claims by its salesforce and bundling the purchase with a “business opportunity” in selling products via an artificially closed market.

What Can We Do?

In all these cases, I’m not exactly sure what we can do. Congress and the FTC are looking into one or more of these areas, but it seems like all they do is talk. I don’t see any meaningful action.

In the meantime, it seems we are left to fend for ourselves as best we can. We try to stay healthy to avoid rising medical costs. We say “no” to $45/juice and MonaVie goes out of business. We decide to look into ways that we can eliminate our cable package. We look schools that present better “value” rather than the very best education.

It’s not ideal, but it’s your money and in the end, you are the only one who can protect it.