In Seattle it is becoming common to require 4x rent in pay, some places it is at 5x. Because rent here is so high it basically dwarfs all other costs. 4-5x rent could mean a $100k job with enough left over after living expenses to max out a 401k and have entertainment funds.
Someone looking to foothold in the area and ‘just get by’ could still be able to afford rent and cheap living, not all the other stuff like going out or retirement, but get blocked by high income requirements. This leaves them with the choice of “screw you we don’t want poors” or “commute an hour plus and shift rent costs to car costs and extra pollution”.
It isn’t as simple as “they can’t afford it” when in a lot of cases you literally can but landlords are setting unreasonable bars.
I’m not sure why some places require 5x rent in income it is wildly excessive. My personal theory (based on hunches only I have found no evidence for this) is they want to only attract tenants who are less likely to leave after a year or two of 10% rent increases. They may also be trying to push gentrification by making sure only well off people enter a neighborhood, fuelling the need for more “luxury” apartments to be built and perpetuating their industry. Idk, they’re pretty tight lipped about the reasoning if someone has more insight into their motives I would love to know
The idea is they’d prefer to be picky because there’s practically infinite demand and artificially low supply. They can vet all but the most guaranteed to pay out, mitigate risk, and make more money.
Maintenance & overhead costs could mean that it’s not profitable, or barely so, which means they could be employing some strategy to cause a sale. That would give them massive funds to find more profitable & less risky endeavors.
In Seattle it is becoming common to require 4x rent in pay, some places it is at 5x. Because rent here is so high it basically dwarfs all other costs. 4-5x rent could mean a $100k job with enough left over after living expenses to max out a 401k and have entertainment funds.
Someone looking to foothold in the area and ‘just get by’ could still be able to afford rent and cheap living, not all the other stuff like going out or retirement, but get blocked by high income requirements. This leaves them with the choice of “screw you we don’t want poors” or “commute an hour plus and shift rent costs to car costs and extra pollution”.
It isn’t as simple as “they can’t afford it” when in a lot of cases you literally can but landlords are setting unreasonable bars.
That’s completely ridiculous unless they intentionally don’t want to rent… Wow…
I’m not sure why some places require 5x rent in income it is wildly excessive. My personal theory (based on hunches only I have found no evidence for this) is they want to only attract tenants who are less likely to leave after a year or two of 10% rent increases. They may also be trying to push gentrification by making sure only well off people enter a neighborhood, fuelling the need for more “luxury” apartments to be built and perpetuating their industry. Idk, they’re pretty tight lipped about the reasoning if someone has more insight into their motives I would love to know
The idea is they’d prefer to be picky because there’s practically infinite demand and artificially low supply. They can vet all but the most guaranteed to pay out, mitigate risk, and make more money.
Maintenance & overhead costs could mean that it’s not profitable, or barely so, which means they could be employing some strategy to cause a sale. That would give them massive funds to find more profitable & less risky endeavors.