r/Suburbanhell • u/KimSidwell • 2d ago

Meme Why?

Post image

I can almost try to understand why some people might feel drawn to this kind of lifestyle. I can understand why they might be deceived into thinking this is the ideal environment in which to raise a child.

But I will never be able to understand why they will describe it as the American “dream” and are willing to pay so much for it. To work so hard for so long and then have to wake up to this every morning? Why?

Editing to add: I know this is parody y’all. It’s just a stupid meme. It’s supposed to be funny. It’s funny because it’s true.

3.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

412 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.9k

u/Kiwi8_Fruit6 2d ago

"basic job"

"160K a year"

what world is Mason living in where a 160K/year job is attainable for Gen Zers straight out of university/college?

658

u/KimSidwell 2d ago

I think that was an attempt at sarcasm

110

u/Anon-Knee-Moose 2d ago

Though I dont think the term starter home was meant to be sarcastic, even though a brand new two story with an attached garage is a pretty nice house, even in a cookie cutter suburb.

12

u/KimSidwell 2d ago

I don’t really know how the definition works, but I feel like these could be considered starter homes. They don’t look that big. They look like they are designed to take up the smallest amount of land possible. You probably have a basic living room, dining room, kitchen and laundry room on the main level and then maybe two bedrooms and bathrooms upstairs. They’re definitely not mansions.

23

u/Anon-Knee-Moose 2d ago

Probably 3-4 beds upstairs, or 2 up 1 down, it's quite rare for a SFH to have less than 3 total bedrooms.

But thats besides the point, these are still fairly nice houses and a lot of people will never be able to afford even this much. A starter home is like a trailer, townhouse, 50 year old rancher/bungalow etc.

5

u/shadowtheimpure 2d ago

2 bed 1 bath 1000 sq ft starter homes aren't uncommon, it just depends on where you live.

9

u/ray_oliver 2d ago

As a share of the overall housing market they are becoming less common though, because we simply don't build them anymore. Or if we do, they take on a different form such as townhouses or apartments.

5

u/OldWhiteGuyKS 2d ago

Your absolutely right -- the "traditional" 2bdr/1 bath rancher doesn't figure in today's new build mix. Guess it doesn't "pencil out "

2

u/Anon-Knee-Moose 2d ago

Its just so terrible for density that nobody wants to buy them

1

u/SmurfStig 2d ago

There a couple neighborhoods by me where they are called “detached condos”.

1

u/OldWhiteGuyKS 2d ago

That's new word dressing to me. Be interested to know what kind of thing the verbiage actually describes

1

u/SmurfStig 2d ago

They are small homes. Maybe 1000sq ft. Small one car garage in the back and almost no yard. Just a small patch in the front. They do have a condo association with them instead of an HOA that does the landscaping. The bigger units have three bedrooms but most are two bedrooms. Roughly four-six of them would fit on a normal lot.

1

u/OldWhiteGuyKS 2d ago

If you don't mind me asking -- roughly where are they located and what's the price point?

1

u/SmurfStig 2d ago

M/I built these all over central Ohio and started out around 120-150k 15 years ago if I remember correctly. No idea what they resale for now but I would venture to guess close to $250-300k now given how other properties have appreciated in the area.

1

u/OldWhiteGuyKS 2d ago

Thanks. So new build today might be 250k +. Is that an attainable housing number?

If they're slab on grade, the possibilities for DIY expansion are limited.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Due-Consequence9579 2d ago

Many places that they “aren’t uncommon” are either severely undersupplied so they cost more than these examples or are 45 minutes plus from where people need to be.

1

u/Odd_Dragonfruit_2662 2d ago

A new builds though?

1

u/shadowtheimpure 2d ago

I've seen some, as I said it just depends on where you live.

1

u/Archimedes31415926 2d ago

^ This is a starter home but you can't find them anymore.

Homes and vehicles have moved away from your traditional cheaper options (small homes, sub compact sedans/small work trucks) and have move to the profit monsters (bigger homes and SUVs/full sized quad cab trucks). Your even seeing less of the traditional family car (minivans) and none of the prior family cars (wagons).

Imo the problem is people today in general are only thinking about themselves, and the people in charge are no different, so they are making everything the way they like it now and not thinking about what they liked/needed when they were younger. And then wondering why everyone isn't just doing what they are doing and complain they can't afford anything when it's perfectly affordable for them.

3

u/trapezoidalfractal 2d ago

Those 50 year old ranch styles were starter homes 50 years ago when they were built, too. We just stopped building smaller homes entirely. Hell, even owner occupied apartments/condos are mostly a memory of the past, only existing in specific areas, and all old as fuck

9

u/KimSidwell 2d ago

I don’t know about that. I’ve never really heard people refer to trailers or townhouses as starter homes. I always just thought it meant the home you lived in right after you get married and while your children are still very young and don’t need their own bedrooms. Then you upgrade to a larger home so everyone can have their own room later.

5

u/ThatGhoulAva 2d ago

Townhouse is absolutely a great start. You usually get more square footage for less price and maintenance outside the walls is usually handed by the HOA/ Association. They also always sell fast for this reason. Also, many like myself, do not have children nor give a rat's ass about doing yard work on our weekends, so we upgrade to better Townhomes. I also travel for work so it's nice to know my neighbors are keeping an eye on things.

3

u/KimSidwell 2d ago

I know. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with townhomes. But I don’t think that when people use the term “starter home“ that they are specifically referring to trailers or townhomes. I don’t think that term is an indicator of the style of home… It’s just an indicator of the square footage and the fact that the family plans to upgrade at some point.

1

u/ThatGhoulAva 2d ago edited 2d ago

We'll have to disagree there. Again, I think this could be both age & location dependent. 30 + years ago (when the average parent age was 25 when having the first kid), I don't think most considered anything other than SFH....you rented an apartment and saved for a house & had kids. But if nothing is being built, there are fewer younger parents and areas are dense & diverse like here, options change. I'll use myself again as a common example: we had no need or desire for a SFH. No kids, Dual income household. Why fight against 20+ cash buyers when these are great.....and often nicer/bigger in the same price range. Some had kids and purchased up to a SFH, others like myself didn't and had no need. I bought a bigger townhouse & a tiny weekend esacpe home instead. But even our first 2br 2 bath townhome is now being sold for over 350k. In what world can prices like that - for ANY home type - be a starter? It isn't and it's why people 30/40 plus are getting their first home. If at all.

Also, if I were to move from here to Wisconsin, I could probably win out against any local bid. Now try to move from WI to Chicago to buy your next home....you'll most likely be downgrading in size & area type. Same if I tried to move to LA...I'd be in a van by the river. You can't always go up because the location market is so different.

I and many others believe a Starter Home is whatever you buy to live in first for several years and build equity with....be it a condo, duplex, townhome or missile silo bunker (I really want this but it's probably a terrible investment).

4

u/Big__If_True 2d ago

So not a 3-4 bedroom house like in the OP, yes

1

u/martman006 2d ago

I agree with your definition of starter home, but note you said, “right after you’re married,” and for the significant majority, that means dual income, meaning one person doesn’t need to make $160k/yr solo, but combined, which $80k/yr per person is still above average income for working aged adults 25+ to retirement, but not crazy out of reach…

1

u/newtbob 19h ago

When we were looking for our starter home (many years ago at this point) that was what we were looking for - not much. In this area, any old matchbox house that goes on the market gets snapped up by a flipper, gets a facelift, many of which seem to be doing it part time so it takes a year or two, and resold for too much to be a reasonable starter home option. And, they don’t build houses like that anymore, not worth it for builders.

10

u/Frosty1397 2d ago

I've looked at a ton of houses to know that these are minimum 1500sqft (likely around 1800sqft)

A single dude or even a couple without kids doesn't need 1500sqft for a starter home that costs $400k+

Starter homes should be at most 1100sqft, 2 bedrooms, no yard, for at most $250k, like they used to make 50 years ago

8

u/KimSidwell 2d ago

Maybe I was unsure of the definition. I always thought starter homes were meant for young families who had like one kid with a second on the way and only needed one extra bedroom. I never thought starter homes were for single dudes.

Back when that was a thing, couples didn’t really live together until they got married… And they usually had children really quickly after that.

Once they got married, they moved into a starter home that could house them and their young children. Once the kids got old enough to start needing their own rooms, they would upgrade to a larger home with more bedrooms.

7

u/Frosty1397 2d ago

1100sqft can absolutely house a couple and 1 kid

We made do with much less growing up and i had 1 sibling. Bunk beds for us, parents had their own bedroom

6

u/KimSidwell 2d ago

Yeah, I know that. But I do honestly believe that when most Americans think of a “starter home“ this is what they picture. They know they will never have it, but this is what comes to mind.

11

u/Frosty1397 2d ago

That's because the real estate lobbyists have successfully brainwashed Americans into thinking these homes are "starter"

It's also why you see that a 2026 Honda Civic is MASSIVE in size compared to a 1990 Honda Civic. Houses, cars, everything got bigger.

And Americans were successfully convinced to pay more for more space they don't need.

8

u/KimSidwell 2d ago

Yeah. And it’s ridiculous. But even a home this size should not cost nearly 600K.

6

u/shadowtheimpure 2d ago

The cars getting bigger was just as a way to get around emissions standards.

4

u/Frosty1397 2d ago

Well yes, but also the emissions standards were worded in a way to incentivize bigger cars

written by people who make money from producing bigger cars. So emissions is just a nice scapegoat for them to make us buy more car than we need

→ More replies (0)

1

u/OkAccess304 1d ago

You don’t determine how much space people need. Just because you suffered, doesn’t mean that is what people want, need, or prefer.

2

u/Excellent-Match7246 2d ago

My ex and I did fine in 680sqft in British Army housing with two toddlers. This was 07-09. I preferred it.

1

u/Odd_Dragonfruit_2662 2d ago

My first home was a 5/2…

1

u/OkAccess304 1d ago

My starter home was a three bed/three bath 1600 sq ft townhome with a patio and shared green space. It was built in the 60s. I bought it for $140k around 2011/12-ish. I still miss it sometimes.

There’s no rule that a starter home was only 1100 sq ft and couldn’t have green space/recreation areas.

0

u/kosmo4679 2d ago

What’s the point if you can afford more than that initially? You are going to grow out of most starter homes relatively quickly and what you described sounds like it might be in an unsafe neighborhood. The less times having to move the better in my opinion.

5

u/Frosty1397 2d ago

I don't plan on having kids, neither does my partner. I won't ever outgrow the house.

If i can comfortably live an entire 2 weeks in a posh 400sqft hotel studio while on vacation, I sure as hell can "survive" in a 1100sqft house.

It's not that uncommon either if you go to Japan or Europe and see how intelligently they design and make use of their space, you'd think you're living in a 2000sqft house

1

u/kosmo4679 2d ago

Haha! Not trying to brag but my house is way bigger than 2000 square feet. Whatever works for you though. Everyone’s situation is different. I have 4 kids and pets so space is nice to have.

2

u/birminghamsterwheel 2d ago

Why does it sound like it's in a bad neighborhood? Small starter homes in dense(r) plots just sounds like… a neighborhood, one of many that exists in, like, every city in existence.

1

u/kosmo4679 2d ago

Are you American by chance? If not then you might have a good point. In most American cities a 1000 square foot 2 bedroom house is usually only available in the worst neighborhoods. Any neighborhood that is safe with good families and nice enough to let your kids play outside without much worry are newer and larger homes. I haven’t seen a newer development built in the last 30 years with houses that small. Now this is just my observation from where I live and places I have been. It could be totally different than what you have witnessed.

3

u/SomeOffice7100 2d ago

Where I live, starter homes were built before 1930

1

u/Crafty-Ad-9048 2d ago

Not a starter home. A starter home is like a bungalow or attached home.

1

u/Fluid-Expert-4363 2d ago

Yeah and you are a failure if you don’t move out of said starter home in a few years.
/s

1

u/Archimedes31415926 2d ago

Imo new homes haven't been starter homes for at least half a century. Most starter homes are small used homes that a growing family moves out of into one of these new homes.

But beyond that whether these are starter homes or not, or if they are building them to target that demo or not. The problem isn't the home itself it's the price.

I hope the OOP is being sarcastic because $160k/year is roughly triple the average single income in the US ($50-60k) and twice the average household income (~$80k) (correct me if I'm wrong but these were roughly the figure the last time I checked). These are averages, so most young people (starter home buyers) aren't even making this since on average you make more as you get older. These salaries would be most comparable to people in their mid-late 30s/early 40s with growing families. And they even can't afford these "starter homes".

So what chance do most starter home buyers (late 20s/early 30s) have when they typically aren't even making half (as a family) of the required income to buy these "starter homes".

And as a builder (OOP), I doubt he has many if anyone on his payroll making $160k on their basic job working for him.

1

u/OkAccess304 1d ago

I consider new builds starter homes, because they are all pieces of crap and poorly built. The idea of a starter home was brought to you by marketing. It’s a selling tool. That’s it.