The 10 most affordable and most expensive US cities to buy a house
The data backs this up: Nationwide, just 35% of homes are affordable to the average homebuyer - down from 60% in 2022. Affordability has dropped since the pandemic because house prices and mortgage rates rose in tandem. Both remain elevated due to chronic underbuilding and broad economic uncertainty.
But trends vary widely by market: In some cities, homes sell within a week for well above asking; in others, they typically sit for two months or longer. Regardless, with homeownership increasingly out of reach, more Americans are instead turning to renting - including six-figure earners in cities like San Francisco and Orlando.
So where can buyers and sellers find the best deals? Redfin Real Estate ranked the 10 cheapest and 10 most expensive housing markets in the U.S., based on median home prices and local incomes.
The most affordable cities to buy a house in 2025
The most expensive cities to buy a house in 2025
Rust Belt cities have the most affordable housing
If you're looking for an affordable house, start your search in the Rust Belt. Cities like Detroit, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh top the list of the cheapest places to buy a house in the U.S.
Around two-thirds of homes in these metros are affordable for households earning the median income - a stark contrast to cities like San Francisco, where the share of affordable homes is in the single digits. Home prices in the Rust Belt are roughly 50% lower than the national median, due in part to decades of population loss and disinvestment that kept prices low.
But that's starting to change. Affordable prices and renewed investment are drawing buyers back, supercharging local housing markets and pushing prices up across the region. In Rochester, for instance, house prices have increased by $27,000 in the past year - nine times the national increase.
Today, seven of the 10 cheapest housing markets in the country are in the Rust Belt, but that affordability edge may shrink unless local incomes rise to match prices.
Meanwhile, pandemic boomtowns that saw prices soar between 2020 and 2022 are now seeing the sharpest declines.
California owns the nation's most expensive housing markets
If you're buying a house in California, expect to pay a premium. The state is home to the six most expensive U.S. markets - including San Francisco, San Jose, and Anaheim - where prices top $1 million. Los Angeles is the least affordable city in the nation to buy a house, where just 1% of homes are affordable to locals.
Statewide, the typical house in California sells for $860,000 – $100,000 more than second-place Hawaii. Even with some of the highest average wages in the nation, Golden State residents struggle to afford housing.
Still, some markets are seeing signs of demand. San Francisco and San Jose - the most expensive metros in the country - saw among the most homebuyer competition earlier this year. But overall, high prices and limited affordability will likely keep many consumers on the sidelines.
Not every expensive market tells the same story. Cities like Boise and Tacoma also rank among the least affordable, but not because house prices are sky-high. Instead, they're unaffordable because local incomes are relatively low. True affordability happens when housing costs align with what people earn.
When will housing affordability improve?
High home prices have kept a growing number of people out of the housing market, but relief is coming. With so few active buyers, sellers are now sitting on nearly $700 billion of unsold homes, many of which take over a month to sell. This growing supply and demand imbalance is expected to push prices down by 1% by the end of the year, which could help some buyers reenter the market as wages rise.
Still, affordability could dip further in some metros in the coming years, especially those with the largest gaps between prices and wages. A recent study found that Montana and California are expected to have wider affordability gaps by 2030.
If you're a buyer or seller trying to navigate today's market, there are four things to keep in mind:
Listings are risingPrices are easingBuyers are cautiousMarkets vary widely
Buyers should take their time and negotiate, and sellers should price strategically and be open to concessions. Connect with a great agent who can educate you about your local market, like whether it's a buyer's or seller's market. No matter if you live in an affordable or expensive city, it's still possible to buy or sell with confidence.
Methodology
Rankings are based on housing affordability among the 91 largest U.S. metropolitan areas ("cities"). Data comes from Redfin through May 2025.
Redfin ranked cities on the share of home listings that were affordable to someone making the local median income. A home was considered "affordable" if its corresponding monthly payment was no more than 30% of median monthly earnings, assuming a 20% down payment, typical taxes and fees, and a 30-year mortgage.
This story was produced by Redfin Real Estate and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
© Stacker Media, LLC.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
15 minutes ago
- Business Insider
There's a good chance you're making a simple mistake when it comes to money, Vanguard says. How to make sure you're not missing out on any gains.
There's a good chance "your money could be making a lot more money," says Kate Byrne, Vanguard's head of Cash Plus distribution. With short-term interest rates still relatively high, it's a great time to earn essentially risk-free, inflation-beating returns on your cash. But a majority of Americans are missing out on these easy gains, Byrne told Business Insider. According to a Vanguard survey of 1,011 respondents published in March, at least 57% of Americans are earning less than 3% a year on their cash savings. Eight percent said they have their savings in physical cash, meaning they're yielding nothing; 16% are earning less than 1%; and 33% are earning 1%-3%. This suggests that even if savers are aware enough to move their money to an account or product with a higher interest rate than the standard checking or savings account — the annual yield on which is under 0.5% — they're still not capitalizing on the highest-yielding products on the market. "If it's below 3% you should be looking," Byrne said. "You should be finding a vehicle that has a better rate than that, and also has the features you need, whether that's FDIC insurance or the ability to move money seamlessly." High-yield savings accounts, certificates of deposit, and money market rates can vary by institution, length of deposit, and the amount deposited. Money-market funds, which hold cash equivalents like ultra low-risk short-term Treasurys, are more liquid than other products CDs, for instance, often force investors to pay a penalty if they pull their money out before the maturity date. Here are examples of some money market accounts — which you can invest in through a brokerage account with a firm like Charles Schwab or Fidelity — yielding above 4% as of August 1, according to Bankrate: The Vanguard survey data showed that 60% Americans feel they don't fully understand the interest-rate landscape and how it affects their savings. "Not only are they sort of not even clear on what APY is and how it affects their savings, but, likely because they're not clear on it, they're earning less than they could be in a more high-yielding product," Byrne said, referencing the common acronym for annual percentage yield. Young savers are less likely to understand interest rates and more likely to be missing out on returns, the data also shows. Sixty-seven percent of Gen Z savers are earnings less than 3%. Among millennials, that number is 59%. Byrne said that savers often miss out on these returns because switching banks or moving money to different accounts isn't top of mind. "You would be shocked at the number of people who are still in the bank account they opened up when they were in college or even high school, because they needed somewhere to put that first paycheck," Byrne said. "And then inertia kicks in and you've got bills connected to it, and life just moves really fast and many things seem more important." It's unclear how long cash-equivalent investments will continue to deliver strong returns. Short-term interest rates, which track closely with the fed funds rate, are expected to come down in September and later this year. Markets are placing a 99% chance that the Federal Reserve will slash rates by 0.25% next month. Still, with the fed funds rate between 4.25% and 4.5%, returns should remain above the inflation rate, which was 2.7% year-over-year in July.
Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Social Security is 90. Can It Be Saved for Future Generations?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. August 14 marks Social Security's 90th anniversary - an achievement underscored by both its longevity and the scale of its impact. Social Security was created during the Great Depression to provide financial security for Americans. Signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 14 1935, as part of the New Deal, it established a federal safety net funded through payroll taxes. It initially offered retirement benefits for workers aged 65 and older, with later expansions adding disability insurance and survivor benefits. The program's goal was to reduce poverty among the elderly and stabilize the economy by ensuring a basic income. More than 73 million Americans now receive benefits from the program, making it one of the most significant pillars of the nation's social safety net. But its future is far from secure. According to the latest report from the Social Security Trustees, the program's two trust funds - the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) funds - are projected to reach insolvency by 2034. At that point, benefits would be funded solely through incoming payroll taxes, triggering an automatic cut of around 21 percent unless Congress acts. This is not the first time Social Security has faced a funding cliff. In the early 1980s, the trust funds were similarly close to depletion. Lawmakers responded with reforms that included faster payroll tax increases, a gradual rise in the retirement age, and taxation of some Social Security benefits. Those measures extended the program's life, but four decades later, a new crisis looms. Today, as the crunch point sits less than a decade away, three distinct approaches have been tabled by lawmakers. Composite image created by Newsweek. Composite image created by Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty The Fair Share Act Introduced by Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse and Brendan Boyle, the Fair Share Act is aimed at shoring up Social Security and Medicare by targeting the highest earners. The bill would require taxpayers with incomes over $400,000 to pay Social Security taxes on all wage, self-employment, and investment income above that threshold. Under the current system, most taxpayers pay Social Security taxes on all their income - but because of the $160,200 wage cap, wealthier Americans stop contributing once they pass that amount in earnings. "This legislation would significantly extend Social Security solvency and would extend Medicare solvency by an estimated 20 years," Whitehouse and Boyle said. Tax attorney Nik Agharkar, owner and managing member of Crowne Point Tax, called the Fair Share Act "the clearest path to achieving long-term solvency" of the three options, noting that it could fund the program for 75 years. "Since the proposals made in the Fair Share Act increase taxes on our highest earners, which reverses decades of erosion to our payroll tax bases, while leaving middle- and lower-income workers untouched, it would likely be considered the most 'fair,' but certainly high-earners would disagree," Agharkar told Newsweek. A New Investment Fund A bipartisan offering comes from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine. Their plan would create an additional investment fund separate from the existing trust funds. Unlike Social Security's current assets - which are invested exclusively in special-issued U.S. government bonds - the new fund would diversify into stocks, bonds, and other investments to secure higher returns. The proposal envisions an up-front $1.5 trillion investment to give the fund 75 years to grow. During that time, the Treasury would temporarily provide the cash needed, to be repaid once the new fund matures and begins supplementing payroll tax revenue. "There is a nationwide appetite to implement a bipartisan, commonsense plan like ours," Cassidy and Kaine wrote in a Washington Post op-ed. "Waiting until the Social Security Trust Fund is on the eve of crisis would have difficult and preventable consequences. Congress should seize the moment." Michael Montgomery, a political scientist at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, said this approach could represent the political middle ground. "Because it neither takes from future beneficiaries - something Democrats will oppose - nor requires high earners to contribute more - something Republicans will oppose - Cassidy-Kaine may be 'just right' for addressing Social Security and Medicare funding if our profoundly-divided Congress has the will to act," Montgomery told Newsweek. Raising the Retirement Age Another idea comes from the Republican Study Committee, which in March 2024 proposed "modest adjustments" to the retirement age for future retirees to reflect rising life expectancy. While not an official administration policy, the group includes 170 GOP lawmakers, among them allies of President Donald Trump. The committee said current seniors and those near retirement would not be affected. But analysis by the Congressional Budget Office shows that raising the age to 69 - up from the current 67 - could cut lifetime benefits by up to 13 percent for anyone born after 1971. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has said it would only close 35 percent of the funding gap, meaning that if implemented, it would need to be used in tandem with other policies to make a meaningful impact. Political "Goldilocks" Michael Montgomery framed the three proposals as a "political 'Goldilocks' scenario," and that political realities remain a significant barrier in a "deeply divided Congress." The Fair Share Act's reliance on higher taxes for the wealthy could likely face stiff resistance from Republicans, while the investment fund requires a massive one-time outlay that could be politically unpalatable in Congress. Raising the retirement age, while less costly in budget terms, could be politically toxic given its impact on working-class Americans. Nik Agharkar cautioned that none of the options are ideal. "We should do more to get Congress to increase spending on Social Security through budget negotiations," he said, warning that political gridlock could push the issue to the brink. How Do Americans Feel? Social Security is often referred to as the "third rail" of American politics due to its enduring popularity. So it comes as no surprise that Americans want a say in how to fix the funding crisis. A July 2025 survey from The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), one of the nation's largest nonpartisan seniors groups, shows that the most popular solution, backed by 50 percent of respondents, is eliminating the cap on earnings subject to payroll taxes, like in the Sheldon-Whitehouse proposal. Other favored options include creating a fast-track process for Congress to vote on Social Security legislation (38 percent), increasing the payroll tax rate (31 percent), and applying the 6.2 percent tax to investment income for high earners (29 percent). More drastic or market-linked proposals received far less support: only 19 percent backed investing payroll taxes in stocks or other assets, 18 percent supported raising the retirement age to 70, and just 1 percent favored reducing cost-of-living adjustments.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows Urban Areas Where Home Prices Are Increasing Most
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Home prices climbed in 75 percent of U.S. metropolitan areas in the second quarter of 2025 compared to a year earlier, according to a new report by the National Association of Realtors (NAR). These increases are happening even as inventory surges across the country and demand is made sluggish by historically elevated mortgage rates, sky-high prices, and growing economic uncertainty. But the latest figures show a slowdown in the pace of price growth across the country. In the first quarter of the year, as many as 83 percent of U.S. metros reported annual increases in home prices—8 percent more than in the second quarter. Only 5 percent of metros reported double-digit increases between April and June, down from 11 percent between January and March. What Is Happening in the US Housing Market? Home prices have skyrocketed all across the country since the pandemic, when a homebuying frenzy unleashed by low mortgage rates clashed with a chronic lack of inventory. The median sale price of a typical U.S. home was $446,766 in June, according to Redfin, up 1 percent from a year earlier, but 44 percent from June 2020. While there is still a significant shortage of homes compared to what Americans would need, inventory has been growing in recent months. There are now over 2 million homes for sale nationwide. This recent surge happened partly because more sellers stopped waiting for mortgage rates to go down and returned to the market this year, and partly because many of these listings are taking longer to sell or are remaining unsold due to the ongoing affordability challenges faced by buyers. The current imbalance between sellers and buyers in the U.S. market is putting downward pressure on home prices. Even if they have not significantly come down yet—at least not at the national level—buyers have acquired more negotiating power and sellers are being forced to slash prices to make their properties more attractive. Where Have Home Prices Climbed the Most, and Why? Despite the current dynamics at play in the U.S. housing market, there are still markets that are resisting the price correction that is already ongoing in places like Austin, Texas, or Tampa, Florida, which became particularly overheated during the pandemic. "Home prices have been rising faster in the Midwest, due to affordability, and the Northeast, due to limited inventory," said NAR Chief Economist Lawrence Yun in the report. "The South region—especially Florida and Texas—is experiencing a price correction due to the increase in new home construction in recent years." These are the top 10 U.S. metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) with the biggest year-over-year median price increases for single-family homes in the country as of the second quarter of the year: Toledo, Ohio (10.5 percent) Jackson, Mississippi (10.5 percent) Nassau County-Suffolk County, New York (9.6 percent) New Haven-Milford, Connecticut (9 percent) Reading, Pennsylvania (8.3 percent) Springfield, Missouri (8.2 percent) Akron, Ohio (8.1 percent) Montgomery, Alabama (7.9 percent) Cleveland-Elyria, Ohio (7.8 percent) Rochester, New York (7.8 percent) In some of these cities, prices are growing because the supply of homes for sale remains limited. In others, like Toledo, prices are shooting up as a result of increased demand due to their relative affordability. At the national level, the median single-family home price grew 1.7 percent year-over-year in the second quarter of the year to $429,400. It was a record high, even as the pace of this growth slowed down significantly from the first quarter of the year, when the median single-family home price was up by 3.4 percent from 2024.
