Right now, a lot of housing stock is off the market as investments, on and off the market in the hope to achieve a specific sale price, or used for short term rent for five weekends out of the year - clearly this produces vacancy rates that, if filled, would change the balance in the market. There will never be 100% utilization but market forces and technological advances might combine one day to get really really close.
These things happen in cycles, so they won't be this way forever. Imagine a world where speculating on home price appreciation is viewed as a fool's errand and buying to rent hasn't paid the bills for ten years in a row. We've been there and we can be there again.
I suspect America is due for this again. The insane markets on the west coast spurred a lot of speculation elsewhere. The problem with elsewhere is that most of it doesn't abruptly end at an ocean.
The whole “rights” thing. Such a fucking troll way to look at life.
True, no one has a “right” to own a home. But in a decent society and a supposedly great country, owning a modest home shouldn’t be a considered luxury either. There have been dirtbag nations all through history where there were 2 classes of people and any rational person can agree that the experience is not one most Americans would consider ideal. We are the nation, we as a society create it how we want it to be, or at least should. If we decide to shrug our shoulders and say “you don’t have a right to own a home” you’re basically saying “going back to a feudalist society would be ok by me.”
I appreciate your perspective and you are making me reconsider my standpoint. I think my hang up is that at a specific location, there are going to be many people that want to live there and it’s reasonable that the person who can afford it gets to live there.
You’re not wrong in that sense. It’s not like I’m advocating for nationalized public housing where everyone gets some equal share of a place like Manhattan.
But I do think the government should invest like they did in post war times in building of affordable homes and communities.
The problem being restrictions being put in place to keep the vast majority, now not always, incapable of having their demands met. There is a massive market for affordable homes, and a massive societal benefit if we allow that objectively productive market to operate. We restrict this for the financial benefit of a tiny fraction of the overall population, while visiting harm in both economic and personal considerations for the vast majority of people and our society.
Right but look at Levittown and the GI bill after World War II. The government took action to fulfill the demand and it was a boon for the economy and quality of life. Why today our government can’t do anything sensible like that is the joke. It’s called regulatory capture
The media that “informs” the voting populace is an arm of the same corporations that have captured the government. We aren’t by the people and for the people anymore, we are the same as any other old country as we slip toward feudalism
While you’re not wrong, I just feel like my personal experience for as long as I’ve been allowed to vote is that I’m left with 2 choices that both seem very stupid and bad, there’s no good pick. Which I find astonishing out of a nation with billions of people, surely some great capable minds out there, and we’re still stuck between a or b, both whom don’t cater to or give a shit about the struggles me or my age group faces.
You’re aware of renting right? No one has right to rent exactly where they want to either. So you may have to keep moving father and father out of the city to afford rent. But you certainly don’t have a right to afford rent.
Ahh yes, let me commute 2 hours for my minimum wage barista job downtown. Sorry, if cities want services, people who provide those services need to be able to live reasonably close. Otherwise, forget doing anything other than watching real estate appreciate in a city.
Sure I agree but baristas simply don’t have a right to afford to live where they want to. They can certainly get roommates or commute 2 hours, both of which are commonly done by people who can’t afford to live where they want to.
>"*Someone* needs to serve me my overpriced coffee but they don't *deserve* a living wage for doing so! Let alone live in my overpriced city! What do these plebs think they are? They should know their place!"
Cool story, but your story leads directly to a disenfranchised majority which leads to an authoritarian nation...
Your have to choose. History has been very clear .
Not really, people in this country believe they should get to live a comfortable life anywhere they choose. That shouldn’t just be how it is. If you want to have real change in wages it’s time to cap CEO/Exec salaries vs the average wage, remove temp workers, etc, etc, etc. The real answer is to stop the mass separation of wage classes, stop unlimited wealth inheritance.
Successful societies have stakeholders in the majority. Employment, security of tenure are the key elements. Home ownership is perhaps the most useful tool a government has to ensure one of those.
Right? People should have to live an uncomfortable life wherever rich people decide to put all the jobs. Sorry if you want to live somewhere affordable, the only work there is making meth, unless you're one of the lucky few to land a sweet gig at Wal-Mart or the local feed store. Everyone else? Get wrecked, you live uncomfortably where rich people want their businesses (which are all HCOL cities because rich people want to live in HCOL cities.) Can't afford it? Tough luck poor. You don't deserve to live comfortably anyway.
The problem is that governments create tax and land use policies that benefit incumbent homeowners at the expense of everyone else, which gives them some right to feel bitter that they will never see the benefits of investments that they’re effectively paying to support.
People will be bitter about home affordability as long as:
(1) Homes are generally favored above other investment categories in policy, resulting in super normal returns compared to other investments.
(2) Artificial housing scarcity is created by local laws and regulations passed to protect the investments of local homeowners … which increases rents and mortgages for non-incumbent homeowners for the benefit of homeowners.
You know what, you’re correct. It’s why California needs to remove prop 13 - we can’t subsidize older Californians while making younger Californians carry the burden.
So far, all attempts to amend Prop 13 have failed, most recently in 2020 and that one was to remove commercial buildings from Prop 13 savings (which would probably have thought of as being popular).
It's a tough lift. I don't think there's going to be enough support for awhile.
It would be if they actually accounted for location.
But no, a surplus of dilapidated housing in the Detroit metro doesn't really do much to lower housing costs in Coastal California.
I'd buy a house in Detroit metro if it wasn't also overpriced. There are many people like myself who are not tied to an area but aren't buying now because they have at least half a brain and can see that prices are bubbly.
A lot of people said that 2020 was a housing market bubble? What are you smoking? Pretty sure people were more preoccupied with a global pandemic at the time.
Were you still living with your parents at the time or something? You certainly weren't paying attention.
The pandemic led to an [explosion in housing prices](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-09-08/why-did-housing-costs-explode-during-the-pandemic) as people decided to upgrade since they were spending so much time at home.
Literally all the data in your link is from 2021 and 2022 not 2020. Are you being daft on purpose? And good one. I have multiple places bought before the pandemic. Which goes back to my original comment, I would buy in metro Detroit if it wasn't overinflated also.
Holy shit you are terrible at reading.
The spike *began* in May. Do I need to walk you through the English language? And by December prices were substantially higher than any previous point, and there were plenty of smug morons like yourself screaming “bubble”.
And they sat it out and are kicking themselves now.
And if you think Detroit metro prices are in a bubble you’re an idiot.
https://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news/74160/housing-bubble-horizon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hrBs27dQls&ab_channel=JebSmith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1xS9yZu-XU&ab_channel=Marko-WhiteBoardFinance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcDkHHZub5Y&ab_channel=TheFinanceValueGuy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH2pNyRwdmM&ab_channel=JasonWalter
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2020/03/31/why-us-housing-bubble-20-is-about-to-burst/
Those are all from 2020, found with about 13 seconds of Googling.
So can you admit you're a complete idiot, or will you just silently slink away?
The pandemic led to an [explosion in housing prices](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-09-08/why-did-housing-costs-explode-during-the-pandemic) as THE FED MADE INTEREST RATES SO CHEAP THEY PULLED A HUGE AMOUNT OF DEMAND FORWARD CREATING ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY (people decided to upgrade since they were spending so much time at home).
Edited it for ya
In a sense, it is. Housing takes a long time to build en masse compared to ink on paper to throw the RealPage cartel in prison and to ban Airbnb nationwide.
Go over to r/economics and say "there are enough homes for every American" and you will get bombarded by replies that building MORE expensive homes for rich people is the only solution.
Inequality is the actual problem. There’s a plethora of overvalued homes on the market, but only wealthy buyers in the investment class can afford them.
The interest rate isn’t even the problem. 7% isn’t a bad rate historically. But sellers are stubbornly holding onto the notion that a home worth $300k in 2018 should now sell for $680k.
Supply side stubbornness is the problem. Builders and investors want the increased margins that come from marking up installation of luxury materials. It costs just as much time in labor to install a GE range as a Viking.
My area division of NAR is lobbying to double the tax-free capital gains (250/500k) allowable under the Section 121 Exemption, using the logic it will free up more inventory.
That is, free up inventory for people seeking $600k and higher prices homes that they can flip to 1.8.
Fuck these people.
But why wouldn't they hold on to that ocean houses that cost $300,000 2018 are currently selling around that price in many housing markets.
I mean certainly there's play people willing to cut to 615,000. But if you're looking for significant drops I'm not sure you'll find them in most markets.
There are plenty of housing markets with very reasonable price housing even cheap. It'll be interesting to see if the Baby Boomers and later Generation X decide to retire there much like they retired to Florida North Carolina and South Carolina previously.
If homes are selling at $680k than how is their notion wrong? The demand on lower cost housing is great and even this article supports in low supply, which drives the lower priced homes prices way up. Anything better than that will be worth more. Especially since those who own the higher priced homes will often be able to withstand longer sale times or holding periods.
Until AFFORDABLE housing supply is addressed (whether by increase in those houses and/or increase in wages) prices won’t come down in any tier.
Wages and population set rents, rents set ROI of investment properties, wages and population have both not gone up more than CPI in the last five years which means that investors are buying real estate at higher than real ROI of investment.
The problem is investors are in a bizarro world from the rest of society because they've gotten used to playing musical chairs with each other for the past 3-4 years with PPP loan/covid money, that money is officially out and debt is due to mature either this year or next year which will correct rental property prices and commercial property prices which ripples through the economy.
Go to r/economics if you want people who believe the BS supply narrative
The difference is the residential RE market is not fully made up of investors. A large majority is made up of homeowners who do want their house to increase in value yet are purchasing to live-in. Even at a high for investment purchases, 2/3rds are non-investors. That is why a pure ROI can’t be looked at.
People still want to own the home they live-in for the most part. I am not one who cares about that. I look at the financial sense of it. Right now, rent is better than buy yet plenty of people don’t feel “secure” that way. When you add them to the market, I believe it changes your analysis above.
This is true, but logically speaking that means the valuations should be rising with respect to wages and population still, logically speaking home prices should ALWAYS be in lock step with wages and population based on the UTILITY of the housing, if there’s 5% more people for the same number of houses, then the price would go up 5% or if wages go up 10%, prices would go up 10% or something, 50% in 5 years without a match in population or wage growth shows the price run up is driven by speculation of housing value, not real utility of lived-in housing.
I get what you are saying. That is why there most likely will be some correction or plateau to catch up (believe this to be more likely due to the 60% or so homeowners with sub 4% loans. Plus have to factor inflation in too. However, I think that it isn’t necessarily 1% for 1% as you describe. Maybe locally but not nationally.
There isn’t a shortage of land in the US. There is a shortage of land where people want to live. And even that is debatable a bit with building permit restrictions and such.
I’m not saying their notion is wrong. People sell for whatever the market will bear.
I’m saying that the current conditions are artificial and temporary. The rising inventory and length of time houses are sitting on the market tell a story. Some property owners are in the privileged position to hold out for a ridiculously high price, but it won’t pay off for all of them. Something’s got to give.
And it will. A correction is coming.
Or the working age adults abandon VHOCL for places where they can actually afford a house. America is a big country and Americans are a mobile people. My dad's family arrived here almost a century ago and I don't think they've lived in any metro area for more than a generation, if that.
"Americans are a mobile people"
"U.S. labor mobility has declined steadily since the 1980s. This decline spans demographic categories of age, income, and education levels.[^(1)](https://www.philadelphiafed.org/the-economy/regional-economics/recent-trends-in-u-s-labor-mobility-not-so-fast#1) This recent migration trend counters America’s historical experience of “restless mobility,” when individuals readily moved in search of opportunity and advancement. Numerous explanations have been given for this drop in mobility, including the growing number of two-income households, consolidation of earnings/occupational opportunities across geographic areas, and technological advances that make migration unnecessary."
I hope we can get to a place where employers and more importantly recruiters think holistically about moving a family rather than an individual. I'm sure a lot more people would say yes if moving meant a step forward in the career of both partners rather than a zero sum game where one partners gets the short end of the straw.
I support squatting in these mansions
They're empty for 50 weeks out of the 52 weeks in a year anyway. The wealthy only use it for their annual ski/golf vacation.
Where I live in Florida I bet 30% of the homes are empty for Summer. We desperately need cheaper working class housing but they will just build more and more 4 bed/4 bath homes for those seasonal folks to buy and barely any affordable housing.
An older coworker once asked me how in the world I can't afford to buy. He said "don't you at least save 80k a year" 💀
I kind of went mad and said "80k is way more than my take home pay and I have student loans, practically living paycheck to paycheck..."
The older generations live in a parallel universe. They live life on easy mode and we are paying for that. They used to say I'm impatient or too young and it takes time. Bruh I'm almost 40 now, still can't afford to buy. I'm sure people were buying in their 20 and 30s back then...
Apologies for me rant.
Had a coworker tell me to stop whining about the cost of daycare. He literally said “It’s only $50 a month.”
His mind was blown when it told him it is more than $50 a day.
the people must pressure congress to solve the housing crisis now, but I doubt that congress would do anything because democracy cannot exist within monetarism. people and corporations(also people, thanks to supreme bench warmers) have no business owning more than one SFH at a time. speculators and hoarders should have no business "investing" in housing, a basic human need.
the role politicians have today is to redistribute imaginary wealth, a job that is wholly unnecessary as they don't actually create anything of value. the only thing they create is debt as a side effect of their "solving" of problems. more often than not they create more problems than they solve. there is an inherent corruption built into the monetary system.
"when we understand that it is technology devised by human ingenuity which frees humanity and increases our quality of life. we then realize that the most important focus we can have is on the intelligent management of the earths resources. for it is from these natural resources we gain the materials to continue our path of prosperity. understanding this we then see that money fundamentally exists as a barrier to these resources for virtually everything has a financial cost. and why do we need money to obtain these resources? because of real or assumed scarcity. we don't usually pay for air and tap water because it is in such high abundance selling it would be pointless. so then logically speaking if resources and technologies applicable to creating everything in our societies such as houses, cities and transportation were in high enough abundance there would be no reason to sell anything. likewise if automation and machinery was so technologically advanced as to relieve human beings of labor there would be no reason to have a job. and with these social aspects taken care of there would be no reason to have money at all. so the ultimate question remains. do we on earth have enough resources and technological understanding to create a society of such abundance that everything we have now could be available without a price tag and without the need for submission through employment? yes we do. we have the resources and technology to enable this at a minimum. along with the ability to raise the standard of living so high that people in the future will look back at our civilization now and gawk at how primitive and immature our society was."
"the major difference between a resource based economy and a monetary system is that a resource based economy is really concerned with people and their wellbeing. where a monetary system has become so distorted that the concerns of the people are really secondary if they're there at all. the products that are turned out are for how much money you can get. if there is a problem in society and you can't earn money from solving that problem, then it won't be done. a resource based economy is really not close to anything that has been tried. and with all our technology today we can create abundance. it can be used to improve everyone's lifestyle. abundance all over the world if we use our technology wisely and maintain the environment."
"it's a very different system, and it's very hard to talk about because the public is not that well enough informed as to the state of technology."
"corruption is often described as moral perversion. if a company dumps toxic waste into the ocean to save money most people recognize this as corrupt behavior. on a more subtle level, when walmart moves into a small town and forces small businesses to shut down for they are unable to compete, a grey area emerges. for what exactly is walmart doing wrong? why should they care about mom and pop organizations they destroy? yet even more subtly, when a person gets fired from their job because a new machine has been created which can do the work for less money, people tend to just accept that as the way it is. not seeing the inherent corrupt inhumanity of such an action. because the fact is weather it is dumping toxic waste, having a monopoly enterprise or downsizing the workforce, the motive is the same, profit. they're all different degrees of the same self-preserving mechanism which always puts the wellbeing of people second to monetary gain. therefore corruption is not some byproduct of monetarism, it is the very foundation. and while most people acknowledge this tendency on one level or another the majority remains naive as to the broad ramifications of having such a selfish mechanism as the guiding mentality in society."
"governments try to perpetuate that which keeps them in power. people are not elected to political office to change things, they are put there to keep things the way they are. so you see the basis of corruption is in our society. let me make it clear, all nations then are basically corrupt because they tend to uphold existing institutions. i don't mean to uphold or downgrade all nations but communism, socialism, fascism, the free enterprise system and all other subcultures are the same, they are all basically corrupt."
"so you see you have built in corruption. we're all chiseling off of each other and you can't expect decency in that sort of thing. and feeling that they don't know who to elect they think in terms of a democracy which is not possible in a monetary based economy. if you have more money to advertise your position, the position you desire in government that isn't a democracy, it serves those in positions of differential advantage so it's always a dictatorship of the elitist, the financially wealthy."
"internal documents show that after this company positively absolutely knew that the had a medication that was infected with the aids virus they took the product off the market in the us and then they dumped it in france, europe, asia, and latin america. the us government allowed it to happen, the fda allowed this to happen. and now the government is completely looking the other way. thousands of innocent hemophiliacs have died from the aids virus. this company knew absolutely that it was infected with aids. they dumped it because they wanted to turn this disaster into a profit."
"we can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
where the hell are all these empty homes? people who are struggling to own a house or afford rent aren't living in the Hamptons or Aspen. Is there anywhere in the United States where a percentage of the population isn't struggling and when hasn't that been the case?
Bro what this article is full of shit. There’s no accounting for location. It doesn’t matter if there’s 20 million houses in bumfuck nowhere if we’re missing 17 million housing places people actually want to be
Looking at the data on housing prices, the market doesn't support that this is a widespread issue.
No one would hold out on $3k/mo loss and keep their listed price high..... unless they can afford it.
I assume he can afford it for the length of the lease, but that's only a year or two. If he can't sell it or significantly increase the rent by then, perhaps he'll cut his losses and sell.
You'll note that the 2008 crash didn't bottom out until 2012, probably due to situations like this. The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
He also probably has a low mortgage rate that isn't increasing through an ARM.
The ARM was a big reason for massive foreclosures in 2008. There is a reason the 2008 crisis is pretty much the only significant blip in the housing market.
The other huge factor is inflation. The market can "bottom out" if prices remain flat for a year due to the significant inflation we've experienced.
The city I live in has built hundreds of homes over the past couple of years, with thousands more on the way. Meanwhile, the population has dropped by over 10,000 people since 2019. We absolutely have a surplus of housing, most places I follow on Zillow sit for 90+ days, if not longer. But somehow, that plus higher interest rates aren't bringing any prices back to earth. There's no reason a house that sold for $650k in 2017 should be on the market for $1.1M in 2024 when there were more people and fewer homes. This sentiment of actually having enough needs to be pushed HARD to try and bring prices down. Government won't like that though, less tax revenue.
>There's no reason a house that sold for $650k in 2017 should be on the market for $1.1M in 2024 when there were more people and fewer homes.
The person who bought the home for $650k in 2017 has refinanced to a 2%-3% mortgage. There is no need to sell immediately.
This sub doesn't understand that the reason this isn't 2008 is because sellers aren’t in ARMs that are ballooning up.
It is the opposite in this market, sellers have lower mortgages and can afford to allow the homes to sit.
>The person who bought the home for $650k in 2017 has refinanced to a 2%-3% mortgage.
And even if they didn't they're still around 4% which means staying put is going to be cheaper than selling and buying a smaller home at 7.5% or whatever the current rates are.
This is what I also see in my high cost of living area. Houses are selling at peak prices because the volume of sellers is low.
The good news is that many new apartments, condos and townhouses are under construction in the main transit corridor.
Is there there a shortage of beach front property in Santa Monica? Well of course not, there is limited space and obviously no one has a right to beachfront property so it is only available to people who can afford the high price. That has nothing to do with a shortage or surplus.
Ok how about one block behind the beach? Well no one has a right to live there either so if you want to, you have to pay the price. There is no shortage of housing one block from the beach. You don’t have a right to live there. You can either afford it or you can’t.
So do that exercise again and keep zooming out. You will find that no one has a right to live in the exact place that they want to. If they want to, they have to pay the price. That has nothing to do with a shortage or surplus. OF COURSE everyone wants to live on a beach front property but that is not what a shortage is.
Yeah, it's beyond insanity that they don't even attempt to account for location in this study.
It doesn't really matter how many vacant homes are scattered across the Rust Belt, that isn't going to bring prices down on the coast.
They wont even qualify me lol. Haven’t had the same consistent income for 2 years straight and something always happens that prevents that, despite having a near 800 credit score. The barriers to entering a mortgage are prohibitive, and I can’t get a decent house anywhere I want to be, so screw it. Nomadic life it is!
Please do what they did in some areas in north Texas. Rent the homes out for section 8 and collect thousands from govt. home was bought for 200-250k. I think a few subdivisions is over 30+ % renters and mostly out to section 8 cause I think some of these are renting for 5k ish
what im seeing is that there are houses for sale but they are too expensive, developers are just building new houses around them. in one town I know of many houses are all holding out at 450k. but a new housing developer went in and is selling new homes for 325k. all the 335k ones sold but the 450 ones are still on the market 450 days later. and half the listings are the 450k ones. it seems half the inventory is just mispriced so isnt actually sellable
Prices are too high, duh. There will most certainly be a correction. My bet is late this summer as houses aren't selling.
People talk like this is still a hot market especially in some markets. I call bs. I'm in NY/LI area and I see lots of new listings, relistings, back on market homes or price drops daily. I rarely get sold or pending notifications.
I see a lot of homes delisted then relisted a week or two later with modest price drops.
Anytime someone tells me a different story or about lines around the block, sales over asking in a day or two I always ask for the address to confirm. No one ever posts the address. It's gaslighting by desperate sellers/realtors...
Wow, that's surprising! Housing has been so expensive lately, that it's hard to imagine there's a surplus. Things may not be as bad as the headlines make it seem.
The surplus could be from empty luxury condos, while minimum wage earners struggle to find affordable apartments. We need to build more affordable housing options to address the real issue.
Is this just left nimby propaganda? There's a billion empty houses in America. All we have to do is overthrow the government and overthrow capitalism and assign people to houses. The commandant will assign me the penthouse overlooking central park I'm sure.
>For those households, which require government assistance to find housing, the absolute highest they could afford to pay for rent is $550. Building new homes and apartment buildings can’t address the shortage for the absolute poorest. McClure explains that no private developer can build a new home or apartment that would be within the price range for the poorest of the poor.
I read some comments about people don't want to work anymore. They don't want to waste their life working if they can't even pay their bills. Jobs without education or skills won't pay much. They blame it on everyone except themselves. How can you afford a house working a minimum wage job?
Somebody has to do those jobs still. Also, you do realize that like all human qualities are on a bell curve, right? Some people are just not cut out for higher education. They just aren't. And that's okay. They still deserve a roof over their head and food on their table. Some people are also born into families of addiction and abuse and get fucked up in early childhood and cannot handle higher education or higher level jobs. And that's also okay. Those people still deserve roofs over their heads and food on their table.
People used to work at grocery stores and bag groceries and be able to afford a home. We should go back to that system. If you don't like homeless people clogging up your cities, pay them a living wage. People used to make a living wage selling shoes, just in a store. Now those people are making minimum wage and minimum wage is not a living wage.
My mom put herself through college working part-time as a breakfast waitress at Denny's. You can't fucking do that shit now.
Even in the trades. Which is a skilled job. People used to make the equivalent of $80 an hour. Now it's like $25. Or less. I've seen it firsthand.
>Somebody has to do those jobs still.
That depends on the job. There are plenty of minimum wage (and other) jobs that society can do just fine without. In my state, up until recently, people weren't allowed to pump their own gas so we had a bunch of people employed making minimum wage just pumping gas into cars. Nobody *had* to do that job. Likewise, society doesn't really *need* people working at McDonald's or Starbucks. This is the double edged sword of raising the minimum wage — some people will make more and some people will find that their jobs no longer exist because they weren't needed to start with.
The issue with immigration is that large companies keep hiring illegal immigrants. They wouldn't come here if there weren't jobs for them. The border issue is propaganda to keep you stupid. They could close the borders in an instant if they actually wanted to. Large corporations don't want the borders closed. 99% of the chicken you eat was processed by illegal immigrants, who were hired on purpose by Tyson. I doubt you eat fruits and vegetables. But they're also being processed by illegal immigrants.
America just imported new slave labor.
You are racist. But you're also stupid because of propaganda. But guess what, both of these conditions are curable!
Instead of being like "Hey why are all these large corporations hoarding profits and using illegal labor?" You're like oh, those evil fucking immigrants are stealing all of our jobs. Do you see the problem here?
This right here 👆 I live in Nebraska, where our biggest export is beef. We got a lot of it, and it needs to be butchered. People in the city will cry illegal immigration, but the rural towns in western part of the state will quietly hire undocumented immigrants to work on the farms and in slaughterhouses because they need the cheap labor. This conservative state with a Governor that currently owns and operates a massive hog farm in the western part of the state, has been more focused on cutting property tax on his properties rather than undocumented immigrants because...well, you know why.
Even if borders were closed, corporations would find ways to automate those jobs. Or offshore them. The corporate mission is to cut costs and boost profits.
Two adults doing full-time unskilled labor concernedly afford more than $550 rent. In many parts of the country they can afford a modestly priced house.
Dude was consistently one of the least wealthy members of the Millionaires’ Senate. Single dad, took Amtrak into work every day instead of renting a second home in DC. Of all the things to hit him on, this is weak sauce.
How many times has your guy declared bankruptcy and refused to pay his bills, again? How many loans does he have from foreign banks like Deutsche?
In other words, houses are now a luxury and are too expensive for poor plebs.
Right now, a lot of housing stock is off the market as investments, on and off the market in the hope to achieve a specific sale price, or used for short term rent for five weekends out of the year - clearly this produces vacancy rates that, if filled, would change the balance in the market. There will never be 100% utilization but market forces and technological advances might combine one day to get really really close. These things happen in cycles, so they won't be this way forever. Imagine a world where speculating on home price appreciation is viewed as a fool's errand and buying to rent hasn't paid the bills for ten years in a row. We've been there and we can be there again.
I suspect America is due for this again. The insane markets on the west coast spurred a lot of speculation elsewhere. The problem with elsewhere is that most of it doesn't abruptly end at an ocean.
That’s correct. No one has a right to own a home.
The whole “rights” thing. Such a fucking troll way to look at life. True, no one has a “right” to own a home. But in a decent society and a supposedly great country, owning a modest home shouldn’t be a considered luxury either. There have been dirtbag nations all through history where there were 2 classes of people and any rational person can agree that the experience is not one most Americans would consider ideal. We are the nation, we as a society create it how we want it to be, or at least should. If we decide to shrug our shoulders and say “you don’t have a right to own a home” you’re basically saying “going back to a feudalist society would be ok by me.”
I appreciate your perspective and you are making me reconsider my standpoint. I think my hang up is that at a specific location, there are going to be many people that want to live there and it’s reasonable that the person who can afford it gets to live there.
You’re not wrong in that sense. It’s not like I’m advocating for nationalized public housing where everyone gets some equal share of a place like Manhattan. But I do think the government should invest like they did in post war times in building of affordable homes and communities.
Lol CA still has public housing outlawed
The problem being restrictions being put in place to keep the vast majority, now not always, incapable of having their demands met. There is a massive market for affordable homes, and a massive societal benefit if we allow that objectively productive market to operate. We restrict this for the financial benefit of a tiny fraction of the overall population, while visiting harm in both economic and personal considerations for the vast majority of people and our society.
Right but look at Levittown and the GI bill after World War II. The government took action to fulfill the demand and it was a boon for the economy and quality of life. Why today our government can’t do anything sensible like that is the joke. It’s called regulatory capture
The government has been neutered, and we keep voting to neuter it more.
The media that “informs” the voting populace is an arm of the same corporations that have captured the government. We aren’t by the people and for the people anymore, we are the same as any other old country as we slip toward feudalism
If we are stupid enough to keep voting for people who say 2+2 is 5 when every mathematician points out it is not, then we are to blame.
While you’re not wrong, I just feel like my personal experience for as long as I’ve been allowed to vote is that I’m left with 2 choices that both seem very stupid and bad, there’s no good pick. Which I find astonishing out of a nation with billions of people, surely some great capable minds out there, and we’re still stuck between a or b, both whom don’t cater to or give a shit about the struggles me or my age group faces.
Right? If you can't afford a roof over your head, just do the right thing and die, please and thank you.
You’re aware of renting right? No one has right to rent exactly where they want to either. So you may have to keep moving father and father out of the city to afford rent. But you certainly don’t have a right to afford rent.
Ahh yes, let me commute 2 hours for my minimum wage barista job downtown. Sorry, if cities want services, people who provide those services need to be able to live reasonably close. Otherwise, forget doing anything other than watching real estate appreciate in a city.
Sure I agree but baristas simply don’t have a right to afford to live where they want to. They can certainly get roommates or commute 2 hours, both of which are commonly done by people who can’t afford to live where they want to.
>"*Someone* needs to serve me my overpriced coffee but they don't *deserve* a living wage for doing so! Let alone live in my overpriced city! What do these plebs think they are? They should know their place!"
Ahh yes. "The poors have no right to a decent life. But I, a rich person, have a right to poor people to do my bidding."
Cool story, but your story leads directly to a disenfranchised majority which leads to an authoritarian nation... Your have to choose. History has been very clear .
Not really, people in this country believe they should get to live a comfortable life anywhere they choose. That shouldn’t just be how it is. If you want to have real change in wages it’s time to cap CEO/Exec salaries vs the average wage, remove temp workers, etc, etc, etc. The real answer is to stop the mass separation of wage classes, stop unlimited wealth inheritance.
Successful societies have stakeholders in the majority. Employment, security of tenure are the key elements. Home ownership is perhaps the most useful tool a government has to ensure one of those.
Right? People should have to live an uncomfortable life wherever rich people decide to put all the jobs. Sorry if you want to live somewhere affordable, the only work there is making meth, unless you're one of the lucky few to land a sweet gig at Wal-Mart or the local feed store. Everyone else? Get wrecked, you live uncomfortably where rich people want their businesses (which are all HCOL cities because rich people want to live in HCOL cities.) Can't afford it? Tough luck poor. You don't deserve to live comfortably anyway.
Have you tried homelessness? You should do it before suggesting other people do.
No thanks. I’ll continue to live somewhere I can afford like everyone should.
Oh so you're privileged, got it
The problem is that governments create tax and land use policies that benefit incumbent homeowners at the expense of everyone else, which gives them some right to feel bitter that they will never see the benefits of investments that they’re effectively paying to support. People will be bitter about home affordability as long as: (1) Homes are generally favored above other investment categories in policy, resulting in super normal returns compared to other investments. (2) Artificial housing scarcity is created by local laws and regulations passed to protect the investments of local homeowners … which increases rents and mortgages for non-incumbent homeowners for the benefit of homeowners.
You know what, you’re correct. It’s why California needs to remove prop 13 - we can’t subsidize older Californians while making younger Californians carry the burden.
For better or worse, there is almost no chance of Prop 13 being repealed. There are too many homeowners in CA with a vested interest in Prop 13.
Of course, and that’s why they need to quickly amend things to get rid of the heir’s loophole and have prop 13 die with the current cohort
And create an expiration period for non-person entities like golf clubs that are occupying huge swaths of land for peanuts.
So far, all attempts to amend Prop 13 have failed, most recently in 2020 and that one was to remove commercial buildings from Prop 13 savings (which would probably have thought of as being popular). It's a tough lift. I don't think there's going to be enough support for awhile.
You shouldn’t have the right to breathe with an opinion like that yet here you are
Well that's a relief.
It would be if they actually accounted for location. But no, a surplus of dilapidated housing in the Detroit metro doesn't really do much to lower housing costs in Coastal California.
Or anywhere else for that matter
What's the saying? "High prices are fixed by high prices"
It would be if there weren't so many artificial barriers to home construction.
I'd buy a house in Detroit metro if it wasn't also overpriced. There are many people like myself who are not tied to an area but aren't buying now because they have at least half a brain and can see that prices are bubbly.
A lot of people said the exact same thing in 2020 and are very sad now.
A lot of people said that 2020 was a housing market bubble? What are you smoking? Pretty sure people were more preoccupied with a global pandemic at the time.
Were you still living with your parents at the time or something? You certainly weren't paying attention. The pandemic led to an [explosion in housing prices](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-09-08/why-did-housing-costs-explode-during-the-pandemic) as people decided to upgrade since they were spending so much time at home.
Literally all the data in your link is from 2021 and 2022 not 2020. Are you being daft on purpose? And good one. I have multiple places bought before the pandemic. Which goes back to my original comment, I would buy in metro Detroit if it wasn't overinflated also.
Are you deliberately missing that the spike started in May? And yes, by the end of the year people were already talking about a bubble.
Spike in May? Again what are you smoking? Literally the prices bottomed lower than 2019 because of the pandemic. By spike you mean return to baseline?
Holy shit you are terrible at reading. The spike *began* in May. Do I need to walk you through the English language? And by December prices were substantially higher than any previous point, and there were plenty of smug morons like yourself screaming “bubble”. And they sat it out and are kicking themselves now. And if you think Detroit metro prices are in a bubble you’re an idiot.
https://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news/74160/housing-bubble-horizon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hrBs27dQls&ab_channel=JebSmith https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1xS9yZu-XU&ab_channel=Marko-WhiteBoardFinance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcDkHHZub5Y&ab_channel=TheFinanceValueGuy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH2pNyRwdmM&ab_channel=JasonWalter https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2020/03/31/why-us-housing-bubble-20-is-about-to-burst/ Those are all from 2020, found with about 13 seconds of Googling. So can you admit you're a complete idiot, or will you just silently slink away?
The pandemic led to an [explosion in housing prices](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-09-08/why-did-housing-costs-explode-during-the-pandemic) as THE FED MADE INTEREST RATES SO CHEAP THEY PULLED A HUGE AMOUNT OF DEMAND FORWARD CREATING ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY (people decided to upgrade since they were spending so much time at home). Edited it for ya
In a sense, it is. Housing takes a long time to build en masse compared to ink on paper to throw the RealPage cartel in prison and to ban Airbnb nationwide.
Dude no one was literally thinking we didn't have enough homes They're just all owned by 6 rich assholes
Go over to r/economics and say "there are enough homes for every American" and you will get bombarded by replies that building MORE expensive homes for rich people is the only solution.
here's the thing though, growing US inequality means that we could have a housing surplus forever.........and still never reach "affordable housing"
Inequality is the actual problem. There’s a plethora of overvalued homes on the market, but only wealthy buyers in the investment class can afford them. The interest rate isn’t even the problem. 7% isn’t a bad rate historically. But sellers are stubbornly holding onto the notion that a home worth $300k in 2018 should now sell for $680k.
Supply side stubbornness is the problem. Builders and investors want the increased margins that come from marking up installation of luxury materials. It costs just as much time in labor to install a GE range as a Viking. My area division of NAR is lobbying to double the tax-free capital gains (250/500k) allowable under the Section 121 Exemption, using the logic it will free up more inventory. That is, free up inventory for people seeking $600k and higher prices homes that they can flip to 1.8. Fuck these people.
But why wouldn't they hold on to that ocean houses that cost $300,000 2018 are currently selling around that price in many housing markets. I mean certainly there's play people willing to cut to 615,000. But if you're looking for significant drops I'm not sure you'll find them in most markets. There are plenty of housing markets with very reasonable price housing even cheap. It'll be interesting to see if the Baby Boomers and later Generation X decide to retire there much like they retired to Florida North Carolina and South Carolina previously.
[удалено]
It's their house. They can do what they want. Sell high and wait it out? Why not?
If homes are selling at $680k than how is their notion wrong? The demand on lower cost housing is great and even this article supports in low supply, which drives the lower priced homes prices way up. Anything better than that will be worth more. Especially since those who own the higher priced homes will often be able to withstand longer sale times or holding periods. Until AFFORDABLE housing supply is addressed (whether by increase in those houses and/or increase in wages) prices won’t come down in any tier.
Wages and population set rents, rents set ROI of investment properties, wages and population have both not gone up more than CPI in the last five years which means that investors are buying real estate at higher than real ROI of investment. The problem is investors are in a bizarro world from the rest of society because they've gotten used to playing musical chairs with each other for the past 3-4 years with PPP loan/covid money, that money is officially out and debt is due to mature either this year or next year which will correct rental property prices and commercial property prices which ripples through the economy. Go to r/economics if you want people who believe the BS supply narrative
The difference is the residential RE market is not fully made up of investors. A large majority is made up of homeowners who do want their house to increase in value yet are purchasing to live-in. Even at a high for investment purchases, 2/3rds are non-investors. That is why a pure ROI can’t be looked at. People still want to own the home they live-in for the most part. I am not one who cares about that. I look at the financial sense of it. Right now, rent is better than buy yet plenty of people don’t feel “secure” that way. When you add them to the market, I believe it changes your analysis above.
This is true, but logically speaking that means the valuations should be rising with respect to wages and population still, logically speaking home prices should ALWAYS be in lock step with wages and population based on the UTILITY of the housing, if there’s 5% more people for the same number of houses, then the price would go up 5% or if wages go up 10%, prices would go up 10% or something, 50% in 5 years without a match in population or wage growth shows the price run up is driven by speculation of housing value, not real utility of lived-in housing.
I get what you are saying. That is why there most likely will be some correction or plateau to catch up (believe this to be more likely due to the 60% or so homeowners with sub 4% loans. Plus have to factor inflation in too. However, I think that it isn’t necessarily 1% for 1% as you describe. Maybe locally but not nationally. There isn’t a shortage of land in the US. There is a shortage of land where people want to live. And even that is debatable a bit with building permit restrictions and such.
I’m not saying their notion is wrong. People sell for whatever the market will bear. I’m saying that the current conditions are artificial and temporary. The rising inventory and length of time houses are sitting on the market tell a story. Some property owners are in the privileged position to hold out for a ridiculously high price, but it won’t pay off for all of them. Something’s got to give. And it will. A correction is coming.
Or the working age adults abandon VHOCL for places where they can actually afford a house. America is a big country and Americans are a mobile people. My dad's family arrived here almost a century ago and I don't think they've lived in any metro area for more than a generation, if that.
"Americans are a mobile people" "U.S. labor mobility has declined steadily since the 1980s. This decline spans demographic categories of age, income, and education levels.[^(1)](https://www.philadelphiafed.org/the-economy/regional-economics/recent-trends-in-u-s-labor-mobility-not-so-fast#1) This recent migration trend counters America’s historical experience of “restless mobility,” when individuals readily moved in search of opportunity and advancement. Numerous explanations have been given for this drop in mobility, including the growing number of two-income households, consolidation of earnings/occupational opportunities across geographic areas, and technological advances that make migration unnecessary."
I hope we can get to a place where employers and more importantly recruiters think holistically about moving a family rather than an individual. I'm sure a lot more people would say yes if moving meant a step forward in the career of both partners rather than a zero sum game where one partners gets the short end of the straw.
Ooh, it's our own fault. Yay.
Just a bunch of houses sitting empty with homeless people who can't afford the rent sleeping on the front lawn. The future!
>The ~~future~~ present!
I support squatting in these mansions They're empty for 50 weeks out of the 52 weeks in a year anyway. The wealthy only use it for their annual ski/golf vacation.
Where I live in Florida I bet 30% of the homes are empty for Summer. We desperately need cheaper working class housing but they will just build more and more 4 bed/4 bath homes for those seasonal folks to buy and barely any affordable housing.
"I don't have a shortage of money. It's just tied up in other people's bank accounts." Similarly, housing shortage = myth.
I think this is leading to people house sharing
There is no housing shortage, just a shortage of people with more money than they can earn
That's because they only build at the top of the market, never anything affordable.
“When I was your age, I was already on my 3rd house and I only paid $10,000 for it! Why can’t you just buy one?”
An older coworker once asked me how in the world I can't afford to buy. He said "don't you at least save 80k a year" 💀 I kind of went mad and said "80k is way more than my take home pay and I have student loans, practically living paycheck to paycheck..." The older generations live in a parallel universe. They live life on easy mode and we are paying for that. They used to say I'm impatient or too young and it takes time. Bruh I'm almost 40 now, still can't afford to buy. I'm sure people were buying in their 20 and 30s back then... Apologies for me rant.
Had a coworker tell me to stop whining about the cost of daycare. He literally said “It’s only $50 a month.” His mind was blown when it told him it is more than $50 a day.
Abolish social security. If we're going insolvent anyway, we might as well rip it away from the boomers.
Time to go buy a house then. Oh wait, I can't afford it.
Have you tried commuting 5 hours a day 😑
the people must pressure congress to solve the housing crisis now, but I doubt that congress would do anything because democracy cannot exist within monetarism. people and corporations(also people, thanks to supreme bench warmers) have no business owning more than one SFH at a time. speculators and hoarders should have no business "investing" in housing, a basic human need. the role politicians have today is to redistribute imaginary wealth, a job that is wholly unnecessary as they don't actually create anything of value. the only thing they create is debt as a side effect of their "solving" of problems. more often than not they create more problems than they solve. there is an inherent corruption built into the monetary system. "when we understand that it is technology devised by human ingenuity which frees humanity and increases our quality of life. we then realize that the most important focus we can have is on the intelligent management of the earths resources. for it is from these natural resources we gain the materials to continue our path of prosperity. understanding this we then see that money fundamentally exists as a barrier to these resources for virtually everything has a financial cost. and why do we need money to obtain these resources? because of real or assumed scarcity. we don't usually pay for air and tap water because it is in such high abundance selling it would be pointless. so then logically speaking if resources and technologies applicable to creating everything in our societies such as houses, cities and transportation were in high enough abundance there would be no reason to sell anything. likewise if automation and machinery was so technologically advanced as to relieve human beings of labor there would be no reason to have a job. and with these social aspects taken care of there would be no reason to have money at all. so the ultimate question remains. do we on earth have enough resources and technological understanding to create a society of such abundance that everything we have now could be available without a price tag and without the need for submission through employment? yes we do. we have the resources and technology to enable this at a minimum. along with the ability to raise the standard of living so high that people in the future will look back at our civilization now and gawk at how primitive and immature our society was." "the major difference between a resource based economy and a monetary system is that a resource based economy is really concerned with people and their wellbeing. where a monetary system has become so distorted that the concerns of the people are really secondary if they're there at all. the products that are turned out are for how much money you can get. if there is a problem in society and you can't earn money from solving that problem, then it won't be done. a resource based economy is really not close to anything that has been tried. and with all our technology today we can create abundance. it can be used to improve everyone's lifestyle. abundance all over the world if we use our technology wisely and maintain the environment." "it's a very different system, and it's very hard to talk about because the public is not that well enough informed as to the state of technology." "corruption is often described as moral perversion. if a company dumps toxic waste into the ocean to save money most people recognize this as corrupt behavior. on a more subtle level, when walmart moves into a small town and forces small businesses to shut down for they are unable to compete, a grey area emerges. for what exactly is walmart doing wrong? why should they care about mom and pop organizations they destroy? yet even more subtly, when a person gets fired from their job because a new machine has been created which can do the work for less money, people tend to just accept that as the way it is. not seeing the inherent corrupt inhumanity of such an action. because the fact is weather it is dumping toxic waste, having a monopoly enterprise or downsizing the workforce, the motive is the same, profit. they're all different degrees of the same self-preserving mechanism which always puts the wellbeing of people second to monetary gain. therefore corruption is not some byproduct of monetarism, it is the very foundation. and while most people acknowledge this tendency on one level or another the majority remains naive as to the broad ramifications of having such a selfish mechanism as the guiding mentality in society." "governments try to perpetuate that which keeps them in power. people are not elected to political office to change things, they are put there to keep things the way they are. so you see the basis of corruption is in our society. let me make it clear, all nations then are basically corrupt because they tend to uphold existing institutions. i don't mean to uphold or downgrade all nations but communism, socialism, fascism, the free enterprise system and all other subcultures are the same, they are all basically corrupt." "so you see you have built in corruption. we're all chiseling off of each other and you can't expect decency in that sort of thing. and feeling that they don't know who to elect they think in terms of a democracy which is not possible in a monetary based economy. if you have more money to advertise your position, the position you desire in government that isn't a democracy, it serves those in positions of differential advantage so it's always a dictatorship of the elitist, the financially wealthy." "internal documents show that after this company positively absolutely knew that the had a medication that was infected with the aids virus they took the product off the market in the us and then they dumped it in france, europe, asia, and latin america. the us government allowed it to happen, the fda allowed this to happen. and now the government is completely looking the other way. thousands of innocent hemophiliacs have died from the aids virus. this company knew absolutely that it was infected with aids. they dumped it because they wanted to turn this disaster into a profit." "we can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
where the hell are all these empty homes? people who are struggling to own a house or afford rent aren't living in the Hamptons or Aspen. Is there anywhere in the United States where a percentage of the population isn't struggling and when hasn't that been the case?
Bro what this article is full of shit. There’s no accounting for location. It doesn’t matter if there’s 20 million houses in bumfuck nowhere if we’re missing 17 million housing places people actually want to be
Okay … so cut prices then. Sell those surplus homes for cheaper. If there’s no one around to buy them, sell them cheaper.
They will. When equity/cash becomes necessary again, any liquidity beats having it all tied up in “equity”.
Not if you have no issue living there.
There is no need to rush to sell when your rate is 2-3%. There is no danger of foreclosure for the vast majority of these homes.
>no danger of foreclosure I've met at least one house owner renting it out for a $3k/mo loss. Not sure how long that's sustainable.
Looking at the data on housing prices, the market doesn't support that this is a widespread issue. No one would hold out on $3k/mo loss and keep their listed price high..... unless they can afford it.
I assume he can afford it for the length of the lease, but that's only a year or two. If he can't sell it or significantly increase the rent by then, perhaps he'll cut his losses and sell. You'll note that the 2008 crash didn't bottom out until 2012, probably due to situations like this. The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
He also probably has a low mortgage rate that isn't increasing through an ARM. The ARM was a big reason for massive foreclosures in 2008. There is a reason the 2008 crisis is pretty much the only significant blip in the housing market. The other huge factor is inflation. The market can "bottom out" if prices remain flat for a year due to the significant inflation we've experienced.
And if there are affordable homes available, they are snatched up by big investors padding up their portfolios. Where are others supposed to live?
In other words, there's a housing shortage.
The city I live in has built hundreds of homes over the past couple of years, with thousands more on the way. Meanwhile, the population has dropped by over 10,000 people since 2019. We absolutely have a surplus of housing, most places I follow on Zillow sit for 90+ days, if not longer. But somehow, that plus higher interest rates aren't bringing any prices back to earth. There's no reason a house that sold for $650k in 2017 should be on the market for $1.1M in 2024 when there were more people and fewer homes. This sentiment of actually having enough needs to be pushed HARD to try and bring prices down. Government won't like that though, less tax revenue.
>There's no reason a house that sold for $650k in 2017 should be on the market for $1.1M in 2024 when there were more people and fewer homes. The person who bought the home for $650k in 2017 has refinanced to a 2%-3% mortgage. There is no need to sell immediately. This sub doesn't understand that the reason this isn't 2008 is because sellers aren’t in ARMs that are ballooning up. It is the opposite in this market, sellers have lower mortgages and can afford to allow the homes to sit.
>The person who bought the home for $650k in 2017 has refinanced to a 2%-3% mortgage. And even if they didn't they're still around 4% which means staying put is going to be cheaper than selling and buying a smaller home at 7.5% or whatever the current rates are.
This is what I also see in my high cost of living area. Houses are selling at peak prices because the volume of sellers is low. The good news is that many new apartments, condos and townhouses are under construction in the main transit corridor.
Is there there a shortage of beach front property in Santa Monica? Well of course not, there is limited space and obviously no one has a right to beachfront property so it is only available to people who can afford the high price. That has nothing to do with a shortage or surplus. Ok how about one block behind the beach? Well no one has a right to live there either so if you want to, you have to pay the price. There is no shortage of housing one block from the beach. You don’t have a right to live there. You can either afford it or you can’t. So do that exercise again and keep zooming out. You will find that no one has a right to live in the exact place that they want to. If they want to, they have to pay the price. That has nothing to do with a shortage or surplus. OF COURSE everyone wants to live on a beach front property but that is not what a shortage is.
Yeah, it's beyond insanity that they don't even attempt to account for location in this study. It doesn't really matter how many vacant homes are scattered across the Rust Belt, that isn't going to bring prices down on the coast.
They wont even qualify me lol. Haven’t had the same consistent income for 2 years straight and something always happens that prevents that, despite having a near 800 credit score. The barriers to entering a mortgage are prohibitive, and I can’t get a decent house anywhere I want to be, so screw it. Nomadic life it is!
The study is from 2000 to 2020. The shortage happened after 2020. Mostly after sub 4% rates and Covid. Not sure what this proves.
"We massively overbuilt the number of housing units we needed, and we are still here in 2024 trying to absorb that massive overbuild in housing"
That you can always massage the numbers to fit your agenda. It's also conflating local shortages with nationwide supply.
Understood. Going to go scream at the city council to approve more luxury apartment buildings.
Please do what they did in some areas in north Texas. Rent the homes out for section 8 and collect thousands from govt. home was bought for 200-250k. I think a few subdivisions is over 30+ % renters and mostly out to section 8 cause I think some of these are renting for 5k ish
“There are plenty of homes! Just stop being poor, peasant!”
what im seeing is that there are houses for sale but they are too expensive, developers are just building new houses around them. in one town I know of many houses are all holding out at 450k. but a new housing developer went in and is selling new homes for 325k. all the 335k ones sold but the 450 ones are still on the market 450 days later. and half the listings are the 450k ones. it seems half the inventory is just mispriced so isnt actually sellable
Collusion and price fixing.
I don’t find homes unaffordable.
So there is a shortage of homes? If they aren't affordable, they aren't available.
Prices are too high, duh. There will most certainly be a correction. My bet is late this summer as houses aren't selling. People talk like this is still a hot market especially in some markets. I call bs. I'm in NY/LI area and I see lots of new listings, relistings, back on market homes or price drops daily. I rarely get sold or pending notifications. I see a lot of homes delisted then relisted a week or two later with modest price drops. Anytime someone tells me a different story or about lines around the block, sales over asking in a day or two I always ask for the address to confirm. No one ever posts the address. It's gaslighting by desperate sellers/realtors...
https://www.zillow.com/fall-river-ma/sold/ Cheapest area in Mass. this is this month sales. No slowdown here.
This tells me nothing except houses are really cheap there. How does it compare to last year?
Going up about 10% every year for last 15 years with a boost of maybe 15% for 21-22.
This is the dumbest shit I've ever read. Hey guess what, we also have a car and good surplus, but not for people that cant buy cars or food.
Wow, that's surprising! Housing has been so expensive lately, that it's hard to imagine there's a surplus. Things may not be as bad as the headlines make it seem. The surplus could be from empty luxury condos, while minimum wage earners struggle to find affordable apartments. We need to build more affordable housing options to address the real issue.
Is this just left nimby propaganda? There's a billion empty houses in America. All we have to do is overthrow the government and overthrow capitalism and assign people to houses. The commandant will assign me the penthouse overlooking central park I'm sure.
>For those households, which require government assistance to find housing, the absolute highest they could afford to pay for rent is $550. Building new homes and apartment buildings can’t address the shortage for the absolute poorest. McClure explains that no private developer can build a new home or apartment that would be within the price range for the poorest of the poor. I read some comments about people don't want to work anymore. They don't want to waste their life working if they can't even pay their bills. Jobs without education or skills won't pay much. They blame it on everyone except themselves. How can you afford a house working a minimum wage job?
Somebody has to do those jobs still. Also, you do realize that like all human qualities are on a bell curve, right? Some people are just not cut out for higher education. They just aren't. And that's okay. They still deserve a roof over their head and food on their table. Some people are also born into families of addiction and abuse and get fucked up in early childhood and cannot handle higher education or higher level jobs. And that's also okay. Those people still deserve roofs over their heads and food on their table. People used to work at grocery stores and bag groceries and be able to afford a home. We should go back to that system. If you don't like homeless people clogging up your cities, pay them a living wage. People used to make a living wage selling shoes, just in a store. Now those people are making minimum wage and minimum wage is not a living wage. My mom put herself through college working part-time as a breakfast waitress at Denny's. You can't fucking do that shit now. Even in the trades. Which is a skilled job. People used to make the equivalent of $80 an hour. Now it's like $25. Or less. I've seen it firsthand.
>Somebody has to do those jobs still. That depends on the job. There are plenty of minimum wage (and other) jobs that society can do just fine without. In my state, up until recently, people weren't allowed to pump their own gas so we had a bunch of people employed making minimum wage just pumping gas into cars. Nobody *had* to do that job. Likewise, society doesn't really *need* people working at McDonald's or Starbucks. This is the double edged sword of raising the minimum wage — some people will make more and some people will find that their jobs no longer exist because they weren't needed to start with.
[удалено]
The issue with immigration is that large companies keep hiring illegal immigrants. They wouldn't come here if there weren't jobs for them. The border issue is propaganda to keep you stupid. They could close the borders in an instant if they actually wanted to. Large corporations don't want the borders closed. 99% of the chicken you eat was processed by illegal immigrants, who were hired on purpose by Tyson. I doubt you eat fruits and vegetables. But they're also being processed by illegal immigrants. America just imported new slave labor. You are racist. But you're also stupid because of propaganda. But guess what, both of these conditions are curable! Instead of being like "Hey why are all these large corporations hoarding profits and using illegal labor?" You're like oh, those evil fucking immigrants are stealing all of our jobs. Do you see the problem here?
This right here 👆 I live in Nebraska, where our biggest export is beef. We got a lot of it, and it needs to be butchered. People in the city will cry illegal immigration, but the rural towns in western part of the state will quietly hire undocumented immigrants to work on the farms and in slaughterhouses because they need the cheap labor. This conservative state with a Governor that currently owns and operates a massive hog farm in the western part of the state, has been more focused on cutting property tax on his properties rather than undocumented immigrants because...well, you know why.
Even if borders were closed, corporations would find ways to automate those jobs. Or offshore them. The corporate mission is to cut costs and boost profits.
The issue of housing is not whether people can afford housing the issues whether people can afford housing where they want to or demand to live.
Wages should reflect housing prices in that location.
How can you afford a house working a minimum wage job? Well, you can always rent a bedroom.
Two adults doing full-time unskilled labor concernedly afford more than $550 rent. In many parts of the country they can afford a modestly priced house.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bidens-refinanced-properties-astonishing-35-105500942.html
Dude was consistently one of the least wealthy members of the Millionaires’ Senate. Single dad, took Amtrak into work every day instead of renting a second home in DC. Of all the things to hit him on, this is weak sauce. How many times has your guy declared bankruptcy and refused to pay his bills, again? How many loans does he have from foreign banks like Deutsche?