Be very careful about claims like "the number of people <X> is the highest its ever been".

This is often true, including in this case, because of the growing population.

The percent of Americans who had cost burdened rent (>30% of income) is lower than it was a decade ago.

April 12, 2026 - 11:54 UTC

11
0
126
This is actually something that the data almost exists for that Iā€™d like to see someone good at wrangling it work on. We have census data for city/county percent of household spending different percent ranges of income on rent
0
0
1
Agree but also true in other direction - eg total union membership
1
0
2
In that case, absolute #s do matter for some forms of capacity, but not for other forms of strength/results
0
0
0
Similarly people who are "making the most they've ever made"--that will be true for a lot of people just because of nominal inflation.
1
0
2
Sure (but generally people make this claim after adjusting for inflation).
1
0
13
Wait I thought it was close to 50% for rent burdened?
2
0
2
30% is burdened, 50% is "severely burdened"
1
1
7
That's conditional on being a renter household -- the household level homeownership rate is ~65% and homeowner cost burdens are lower so you end up with closer to 33%ish for the full population
1
0
6
Lower by like 2%...
0
0
0
Round 73 of ppl insisting that all social science is wrong and we should instead trust individuals to report accurately about their lives.

I'm convinced that eating out and other quality of life things have consumed increases in income and people don't appreciate where their new money is going.
1
0
1
Like I did grow up poor and I don't think the people Robert and others know who are struggling lived on pasta and canned tomato soup mixed together called "slop" or anything.
0
0
0
Presidential candidates/winners talking about getting "the most votes ever" make me want to shove them in a pool
0
0
1
(I don't think this suggests that the housing market is particularly healthy. I think it suggests "cost burden" isn't a useful metric.)
6
1
73
Like a huge amount of damage is people not moving because they donā€™t want to lose a favorable situation, or living with other people to share costs. Which can be a problem when you are say a woman trying to leave an abusive relationship.
0
0
3
Isnā€™t this kind of an ā€œum, actuallyā€ point rather than a meaningful distinction? Like there is a problem in housing markets and costs, itā€™s just not technically the ratio to income, but the impact on peopleā€™s lives is still real. It feels like thereā€™s more overlap than disagreement
1
0
0
Looks like about a decade of decline followed by years of increases after 2020
1
0
0
to me that chart reads the way a lot of economic indicators over time do, definitely not as bad as the Great Recession but going in the wrong direction post COVID
0
0
1
Seems like the only useful metrics are ones that confirm your point of view
2
0
0
Among what is missing is whether an ability to transition to homeownership for lower costs. Also, separate issue, but housing CPI on homeowner side ignores that people have fixed rate mortgages, so wonā€™t match up with timing reality, people donā€™t buy homes every year.
1
0
0
Inevitable counterpoint to this statistic.

It's certainly one way to keep rent burden low.
1
0
0
This graph stops at 2020 (it declined since then).
0
0
0
for shits and giggles, maybe you should put this in a two-axis chart, current one on the left, nominal # of rent burdened households on the right axis
1
0
1
"a two-axis chart"
0
0
17