this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
1299 points (99.6% liked)
Work Reform
17406 readers
485 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can’t even buy a house for $1m where I live. So not rich.
Yeah, millionaire status is rapidly becoming meaningless. Lots of people who have a mortgage will probably be millionaires when they pay it off, but they can't buy anything for it because they still need a roof over their head.
I think 10 million now is the million of the past. Call it inflation. It's entirely driven by ridiculous housing prices (which are mysteriously not counted in inflation figures).
Put 5 randos in a room and one is a millionaire on paper.
It means nothing to be a millionaire if you include house car etc.
You can’t “spend” those items.
can with a heloc, but that's just me being pedantic
I am old enough to remember when a simple savings account at the bank was 5% interest, no minimum balance. Now grabbing a high yield account of 3.5% is doing well for the average person, and requires a high balance to qualify for that "incredible" rate.
Yes but a mortgage was 11%.
Now housing was still affordable then, so…
Housing was affordable and wages hadn't fully flatlined, so a single income family could still possibly pay that mortgage, even pay extra against the rate, and support a family. Definitely a lot more than one single rate number, lots of things are broken.
I would absolutely take the interest rates of the 1980s with the housing prices of the 1980s.
Decamillionair
Owning a house doesn't protect you at all. Every decade or so there's a real estate bubble that pops, you lose all your equity, and you have to start over.
Also try not paying your taxes, or your HOA, and you'll quickly find out that you don't really own your home, you're still paying someone to keep it, or the court will forcibly remove you. And if a squatter moves in, they can stay, and you're paying for the right for them to stay there.
That's if you consider a house a store of wealth.
I consider it a place to live that compared to everything gets cheaper every year. By the time my mortgage is paid off all I have to pay is maintenance and property taxes. Which are a fraction of rent. If we assume things stay proportional, rent for a similar property per month is around $1,200. My property taxes are $2,800. Double that for a yearly average maintenance cost. That's 466 a month. You can't even get a used sedan for that much a month let alone a place to live
Also in 0 states can a squatter move in to an owner occupied home and claim squatters rights. Only an issue if the property is vacant
I was shocked to learn that the average homeowner in the US lives in their house for only 7 years. I think it’s due to the nature of how huge the country is and that something as simple as a job change means you have to move across the country and sell your house. There’s also the culture of always upgrading.
I grew up in a place where you usually buy once and live there forever, so equity isn’t really too important. But then again it’s a more centralized way of living where you can stay in place for most of your life.
I wonder how much of this is a question of what average is being used. It's the old median vs mean problem.
Elon Musk and a hundred homeless people are in a room. By the mean, the average person in that room is a billionaire. By the median, the average person is homeless.
I'm really curious whether that 7 year average figure is based on the median or mean. Because I could see it being really skewed by young people in their twenties that move around a lot.
Those people tend to rent and not own though.
Sure. But I think the seven year figure is how often people "on average" move, not just how often people sell and buy new homes.
I did a quick search and apparently it’s around 12 years in 2024 now.
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/what-is-the-average-length-of-home-ownership.html
So this is actually only counting people who bought a home and moved out later, not just people moving in general.
I bought land with this mentality. Permanently reducing my costs and investing in off-grid infrastructure to make retirement cheaper.
I think it’s also the culture of seeing real estate as an investment. People buy houses planning on selling after they’ve lived there. I personally don’t think I can tolerate the risk of using equity as leverage for paid off land, because then there’s a risk the bank will take it. I’d rather leverage things I can live without if the bank takes it for whatever reason.
As with all things finance, depends on where. $1m in San Francisco means you can’t afford a home. $1m in Sicily is a great life.
Canada?