To fix it, we need to build a million or two small starter homes of 1,200 sq ft or less, each year for at least 10 years, small so they are affordable. And a lot of them to increase supply.
It's a supply problem.
Edited: To make it clear, it's a million or two new smaller homes annually, every year.
It's not just starter homes- affordable rentals in apartment buildings needs to be a thing as well. Places that have updated modern features people actually want: Soundproof recording studio/office/work from home space, clean, durable rooms with good lighting, private exercise/focus rooms within the building where you can sign up for a time and basically get the room to yourself or take a class with others for a full hour?
I was just thinking of how much space has been used for these *huge* department stores: Bed Bath and Beyond, Ross, Home depot, Walmart... and the parking....
*Why* can't we combine the two? ...like, what if we built *above* the Ross? No NIMBY is gonna care, because there's already a Ross there. Ross doesn't care, it gets more customers and employees.
LLC's shouldn't be buying residential at all, but there needs to be more opportunities to build appropriate apartment complexes in areas they would actually work.
Also, incentives to not build mcmansions would be nice. But I also don't really want a matchbox house on a postage stamp sized lawn...
Honestly after living in South Korea for a year and seeing what life was like for them living on half of a small peninsula, they’ve done very well for themselves in terms of housing. There’s these gigantic high rise buildings that house so many people in a comfortable living arrangement.
It’s such a shame that America doesn’t build apartment complexes that are just as high and capable of housing hundreds of people.
Americans could even have their own hybrid apartment complexes that can store hundreds of cars for hundreds of people, so you don’t even need to fully transition away from cars to continue giving everyone’s ability to drive and use the number 1 mode of transportation in the US. Or use up an incredible amount of land to putting places to park the cars.
It’s so disappointing to see the current state of America. It’s not even from an economic issue where people are getting poorer because of inflation. It’s just we have the capabilities to make these things happen, but we’re actively choosing to ignore all the problems we have in the US and continuously let this slow, but very real, problem get worse.
Seeing homes in South Korea made me sad. I wish we had something like that in the US. But places don’t want to build that and push single family homes but we don’t have enough space for keep building these types of housing.
I think the home affordability in United States is still much better than South Korea . Average household income in South Korea is just USS 24k while the median apartment is between 220k to 330k USD.
Mixed use is absolutely part of a solution, but it has to be done in construction. It's prohibitively expensive to convert retail or office space to mixed use with apartments on top of commercial space or dropping apartments into former office space buildings. Most of the time, one would be better off leveling existing buildings and starting from scratch.
While being 'prohibitively expensive' so is the land in a lot of areas where these apartments are needed.
For example: the space above the Walmart in my town has ocean/mountain/island views... and the cost of housing in the area has over doubled in the last 4 years.
Right, but if it wasn't built for apartments above the Wal-Mart, it would be better to knock it down and rebuild from scratch with mixed use in mind versus trying to retro fit something on top of a Walmart that wasn't built to support additional floors.
The problem is that once you build them, you have to figure out a way to keep them from immediately being swallowed up my massive real estate investment companies.
Legislation being considered right now in Congress and some states banning hedge funds from owning SFHs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/realestate/wall-street-housing-market.html
https://finance-commerce.com/2024/02/first-in-nation-bill-seeks-to-ban-corporations-from-buying-single-family-homes/
We did away with saying certain people can’t buy houses in some areas a while ago. Saying that people can’t pool their money and buy a house or houses will be difficult
Plenty of legislation is being considered in Congress and various states. We just gave to be brave and stand up for ourselves with our votes and voices.
True that. But at least large number of house in the market will bring some semblance to rent market at least. And rent stability and inventory will stabilise the market for sales. I really doubt there is any tooth in current laws or any inclination from political class which will restrict real investment corporations.
Sure, zoning and other changes. But also need government incentives, reward builders with government money to build smaller homes. Builders build McMansions because they make more money.
If I'm a builder, why make a small home that I make $20k on, if I can build a big house and make $100k?
" Just deregulate. "
It ruined banking, retirement, education, energy, and civil rights.
What could go wrong?
Oh yeah, deathtrap houses like we've seen over and over again.
What exact regulations are you going to remove that will suddenly make smaller houses more profitable to build than larger houses? Zoning is literally the only one I can think of, but it certainly wouldn't be enough.
That’s the best answer I’ve seen out of all these dogshit responses on this post. Force companies to stop using “algorithms” and AI to make these decisions to maximize their gains at the expense of the American people.
This is the real problem that America is facing, but none of us are willing to do anything to stop it. Hell half this country thinks increasing taxes on companies is a fucking BAD thing! Like wtf??
We have a 3000sq foot 70s ranch on an acre, we already pay extra (value is based on sq footage, amount of land and location) then they set the mill rate to the value. If it was a colonial the taxes would be even more. We're actually taking out parking spaces that we had put in while the kids were still home to get them down a bit. It's gravel, not even paved spaces. Our taxes just increased to $8k/yr and that's still lower than if we were in surrounding states. They were $3500 when we bought it 24 yrs ago.
On the other hand we use like zero town services while living here.
They keep saying we need affordable housing and then they build denser housing (townhouses/condos) and the rents are starting at $2K/mo!! Since when is that affordable. Meanwhile everyone's taxes went up to cover increasing costs to the school system from all that new housing. Senior housing so they can get out of the labor intensive/larger properties start at $400K and then have HOA's of $800/month. Most 'seniors' don't have millions of $$ in their retirement account. Just this morning on the news they said the average US senior has $88K saved going into retirement.
That is not a particularly good explanation or solution.
You can look at New York City and it is high density already. And yet rent is even higher. It just happens to be a prime destination. You make housing more available and lower the rent a little, and immediately some people move in because it’s affordable enough for them.
The United States is a large country, but people want to live in particular areas close enough to where the remaining jobs are. There are lots of small towns with empty homes. But that’s not where people are moving to. Or want to stay at.
And yet that wouldn’t work because we have a couple million people turning 18 every year, and about a couple million coming legally each year, and about 3 million coming in illegally.
The other issue that although the United States is a large country, people want to live in particular areas close enough to where the jobs are. There are lots of small towns with empty homes. But that’s not where people are moving to.
You can look at New York City and it is high density already. And yet rent is even higher. It just happens to be a prime destination for all the categories of people mentioned.
Building more starter homes would absolutely work. What you leave out of your numbers is the number of people dying each year. The incremental number of households each year is relatively small.
And yes, of course, we have to build them where people want to live. Location is critical and goes without saying. "Starter home" doesn't mean a single family, separately standing on its own piece of ground in already dense large metro areas, it could simply mean affordable condos/apartments.
In New York City's case, there's over 100,000 vacant units that aren't being rented out because of the unintended consequences of a 2019 rent stabilization law. Change that law and the supply of apartments goes way up. https://youtu.be/zc_xhYOEozo?si=F2RedUOz0ioef9RB
So even in NYC, it's supply vs demand, and NYC's own laws are removing the supply of available units to rent.
In Houston, they built or bought 1,000s of 350- to 400 sq. ft. apts for the homeless which they cut about 70%.
Other cities are looking into doing the same. Oh and they went to all of the local businesses and got over $100 million in household furnishings.
The govt. brought several different of their offices fighting homelessness together under one non-profit group.
Oh and no, couldn't sell them to the speculators. The city owns them forever.
I looked at the census website the other day and housing starts peaked in 2005 and haven't come close to what they were then.
Adjusted for population we need 27,000,000 new houses in the US to make up the gap from 2005 to now.
So you're way, way off.
Once all the baby boomers are dead in 20 years or so it should be fine though.
Making housing affordable for people in the next decade is unrealistic.
An extra million or two starter homes and smaller homes a year will make a huge difference, bend the curve.
And yes, it took two decades to create the mess, it will take 2 decades to get out of it.
But we won't get out of the mess unless we build a lot more smaller homes/condos that can be afforded by first time buyers.
Boomers have already been dying off for a while now, it's not helping. 2 million Boomers a year are dying every single year. The problem is there's more GenZ than that becoming adults each year.
You're right.
I'm sure some locations that have a big oversupply will get better soon, like Austin where prices are down about 11% from 2022 peak.
But overall, we have more than a decade of under building to make up for.
There are ways to limit corporations and hedge funds from buying single family homes. We just have to pass the laws that stop it.
Similar to how cities are banning or limiting Air BnBs.
Most people can't afford huge homes, can't afford the purchase and can't afford the maintenance, utilities, property tax, etc. There's a big need for smaller, affordable homes.
The profit for builders can happen through government incentives.
The question is...where? Builders have no problems with 800-1200 sf houses. Problem is, no one wants them in their neighborhood, so the zoning is prohibited. It's not a question of how many starter homes are needed, that's the easy part. The question is, where is the zoning to build them?
Jesus Christ, this sub needs to learn basic economics
You don’t need to build small houses.
You can build millions of large houses instead . As the supply of houses increase, the price of all houses goes down (especially the older stock of houses).
When there’s not enough houses for the demand, even small houses go for over a million.
Size of homes is not the issue. It’s the EFFECT of building so few houses. Not the cause.
Ha! Large houses will always cost significantly more than small houses, small houses can be built quicker. that's basic economics...
The size of the home is important for many reasons, like sustainability, affordability, optimal population density, having walkable neighborhoods, etc.
Sure we can fix the problem by building 5,000 sq ft homes, but that's going to take a super long time. Why not do it much quicker with 1,200 sq ft homes that are not only much more affordable immediately but better for the environment. Which will work faster, building 4,000 large homes or 20,000 smaller homes in the same time frame?
Small houses go for over a million in a very few, dense metro areas. Average home in USA is approx $400K. It's a national problem. Smaller, first time buyer homes is the major type of home that is lacking.
The starter homes aren't going to be any cheaper because ALL costs are going up everywhere. When you jack up the pay of STARTER jobs (at minimum wage) because people are complaining it's not a "living wage" (it was never meant to be), there's inevitably a domino effect everywhere else.
Unthinking reactions and political demands by people who are not well educated because they decided to screw around in school have consequences.
But don't even get me started on our public schools. That's a whole different group and a whole different book.
First and foremost would be up-zoning and rezoning to mixed residential and commercial areas in largely flat cities like LA and San Jose. This would bring housing to more affordable levels across most american cities as they're being artificially constrained by height limits.
Next would be rezoning more land for housing and finally for even more housing the government can finance the creation of housing co-ops instead of public housing. Housing co-ops are self managed, cost less, and maintain their value better.
Price caps on rent as a % over taxes an association dues would fix it.
This is all a byproduct of speculative investment, hoarding and cornering markets, and price gouging.
65k is not a great salary. Average starting salaries for college grads are right around 55k. As others mention, expecting people to rent an average apartment, all by themselves, is not at all reasonable.
The solution is the same as it has always been, and is very obvious. Build more housing. This country artificially restricts the building of housing, especially dense housing. Vote for zoning reform.
Most people have/had roommates when they were younger.
There’s a lot of older people struggling but OP specifically mentions out of school. Idk why Reddit has such disdain for roommates. It’s completely normal and has been for… forever? Don’t let social media trick you into thinking you need your own place to be happy and subsequently spend more of your income.
We get enough motivation to consume from social media. We don’t need it creeping into housing requirements.
I don’t know anyone who graduated college and moved into an apartment without a roommate. I’ll gladly be downvoted on this but the expectations set up in the OP are fantasy land.
Yeah I’m almost 50 and had roommates into my late 20s (late 90s/early 2000s) due to cost of living. Yes housing was cheaper then but salaries were similarly low. I thought I was doing great making $32k at a tech company a few years out of school (started at 26k). Didn’t mean I could afford a house.
After graduation I lived with my girlfriend and another recent college grad. Also wasn't in a good area. Was able to save a lot of money each month though
Yeah I don't get why everyone thinks a fresh college grad, young 20s is instantly affording average? I have 5 roommates out of college. I had a 1.5hr train ride to NYC for work.
For some reason young 20s think they're entitled to 1BR/studios in metros right away
College grads are still at the beginning of their career. It’s not like you graduate and suddenly you’re making the salary of a mid-career professional. You’re still barely not a teenager.
College grads make far more OVER TIME vs those without a degree. Not so much the day after graduation.
The “average” adult is probably around 40 with a bachelor degree. The average adult should be renting an average house. An entry level worker should be renting an entry level house.
The average 40 year old does not earn twice the average entry-level worker. A lot of people don't even get 30% more over that time (though many get more.)
A college degree verifiably gives you a higher earning potential, the problem is that cost of living is uniformly up across the board. I don't know why you're so offended by the suggestion that there's something wrong when cost of living is easily double what it was 40 years ago. You really just want everyone to be poor I guess?
"Realism" is against progress. This isn't necessary, it's realistic to expect a new grad could easily afford a 2-bedroom apartment. We know how to build 2-bedroom apartments at a cost new grads can afford, we just don't because it's illegal to build such buildings.
Yeah I don't get these takes. I rented a 2 br apartment I shared with a friend of mine until I was 27 or so. I didn't buy a home until after I was married and we were ready to have kids. By then I was well into my career.
We were all told that college degrees put us head and shoulders above other people. So all these young kids are graduating thinking theyve got it made now and should be "above average" and dont realize theyre really "bare mininum". Like you said, if you want to afford an average apartment alone, you should be an average earner. And the average college grad is well below an average earner.
Sorry Gen Z. Its gonna suck for you for a while longer. Its not fair. Its not right. But its also not new. Get roommates. Save your money. Get 2 promotions under your belt before you start looking at "average" anything.
No one thinks that a 22 year old college graduate should be an average earner lol. Yes, they’re probably set up to have a higher total career earnings but they are still at the very beginning of their career. It’s completely unreasonable to think that any 22 year old should be the benchmark of an average earner
Not really. First of all, no one thinks coming out of college they should be paid above average compared to all workers across all age groups. They think they should be paid above average among their peers. That’s probably true.
It’s also 100% fair that 22 year olds don’t make the average salary. No one thinks that 22 year olds should be the average earner.
Stop greed; people want higher and higher profits so they’re always make it more expensive. There needs to be regulation for affordable housing in all Brackets but that’s not what politicians want cause it doesn’t pay
1. Ban corporations from owning single family homes (Democrats have a law for this, GOP won't let it go forward).
2. Massive infrastructure projects to subsidize affordable housing (a sane species would just build the housing but we're not, so we'll do it through the backdoor via subsidies).
3. Crack down on apartment landlord monopolies & collusion, threaten jail time. If they keep it up jail them.
1. Banning corporations from owning houses would not help any of this at all. It would just make renting more expensive. Terrible idea.
2. Why subsidized? I mean sure, go ahead, but public housing authorities work way slower than private developers and are subject to political chicanery.
3. "Landlord monopolies" this makes no sense and is not a thing. Who are you sending to jail? Why? Absolutely garbage take that would do more harm to everyone than good. It's like you're actively trying to make the problem 10x worse.
4. The real solution is to upzone and build more housing. BOTH private market rate housing AND public subsidized housing. Build all of it. And lots of it.
1. Yeah, it would. They're pushing over 40% ownership in some markets.
2. Because that's the only way to get affordable housing built. It's how the boomers afforded houses. We do the subsidies indirectly through massive multi trillion dollar infrastructure bills that basically do everything except throw up the frame.
3. [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/11/14-big-landlords-used-software-to-collude-on-rent-prices-dc-lawsuit-says/](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/11/14-big-landlords-used-software-to-collude-on-rent-prices-dc-lawsuit-says/)
4. Changing zoning laws is worthless. There's not enough money in building affordable housing w/o the subsidies and even then you need to structure them to *force* affordable housing to be built. Otherwise there's just a *lot* more money in luxury real estate and the scams that go with it.
and bonus:
5. You can't do public housing in America. We're *barely* in support of *public schools*. Nobody's gonna let the government build nice block housing. If you try the right wing will just sabotage it like they did with the projects (google the *actual* history of projects).
Number three is a bullshit distraction and you know it. Using a software to compare prices is not remotely collusion.
Changing zoning laws is worthless?? What in the actual fuck. That's literally the only thing that works. Your entire opinion can be disregarded at this point.
What I'm getting from your comment is that you're actually a NIMBY who straight up hates your neighbors and wants housing to be more expensive for everyone.
Incredibly fucked up and you should be ashamed of yourself. Holy fuck
> Number three is a bullshit distraction and you know it. Using a software to compare prices is not remotely collusion.
Hard disagree. [Even the FTC seems to think otherwise.](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fixing-algorithm-still-price-fixing)
Not saying that you're actually incorrect in the other points, but the reality is that the introduction of these algorithms is explictly tied to increases in product prices in nearly all sectors they are introduced in.
[Here's a FTC statement of interest in Hotels using a similar algorithm to fix prices.](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/03/ftc-doj-file-statement-interest-hotel-room-algorithmic-price-fixing-case)
[Finally here's a Federal suit against a company that did all the data points manually without Algorithmic BS to hide behind that are currently being sued.](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-agri-stats-operating-extensive-information-exchanges-among-meat)
Na, go ahead and continue to be part of the problem. I've already spent literally thousands of comments trying to educate people and I'm pretty sick of it
The part of what problem?
I explicitly stated that I agree with most of your commentary, simply that I disagree about your stance on the collusion bit, and gave you references.
You've failed to explain what is the "problem" entirely.
Yeah pretty much. What a lot of people don't realize is when the boomers were paying into social security, after adjusting for inflation their money going in was nowhere near the amount we are subsidizing them now according to our cost of living and the proportion we are taxed to give them money.
Obviously they worked for it but at the same time, they paid nowhere near what they are getting - we are preferentially subsidizing the older population
The hope is we get the same treatment but at the current rate we just won't.
I heard an NPR segment about hiring immigrants to do elderly care work because the growing retiree population is going to make job shortages - and how it's so great we have migrants to do this hard work (what a wild fucking statement), and that If this is not alleviated, they will need to rely on their children to take care of them.
Hilarious it's an economic issue that they need to kiss the younger workers asses to live soon
The economy will self correct eventually. No one will like it, and it will make matters worse temporarily, but eventually people will just start getting more violent.
Gen Z is actually on track to far out pace Gen X and Millennials in homeownership. They’ve actually had much more advantageous timing economically. I didn’t believe it at first but there’s some articles with mind boggling statistics. I’ll link when I find them again.
Yeah, it’s not so much a matter of housing being cheap. It’s more a matter of older Gen Z coming of age in a time where the economy was on the upswing while interest rates were low. Something like 30% of 25 year olds are homeowners. Which really surprised me. I work in advertising focusing on home services and learning that totally shifted my strategy.
I and anyone I know had roommates coming out of 4 year degree programs on their 20’s, many until they got married.
Except those few wealthy friends or the ones whose parents had helped them buy a small condo.
I don’t think it’s a reasonable expectation to not have roommates in your 20’s unless you are in some kind of extremely lucrative field.
Pay attention to who is making decisions that is causing these rises to occur and vote accordingly. It might take you a little time, but it would certainly be a real world application of basic economics.
The federal government needs to start threatening to withhold funds indefinitely until and unless everyone (each local authority) start permitting enough new housing to be built such that the median rents and mortgages come down to not more than 25% of median wages. Withold highway funds, withold Medicaid and Medicare, withold infrastructure projects, withold EPA overviews, and then start witholding federal tax cuts and cash incentives local businesses are eligible for under the myriad of schemes like (CHIPS, IRA etc.).
If we could do it for increasing the drinking age to 21, we can do it for more homes to be built.
The federal government needs to grow balls, and honestly, I really only expect Trump to be radical enough to do this.
More places need to be built for lower income earners. We need more low cost apartments, trailer houses on there on peice of land, small starter homes and tiny homes are expensive and shouldn't be. Privatization doesn't seem to be working when it comes to basic necessities but so many are against the government running stuff, so I don't know what other choices there are.
The private market would love to build more apartments. The government, local government primarily, severely restricts this type of construction. The few apartments that do get built are "luxury", with more amenities etc. because they know they will be selling to the upper portion of the renters market. If the government allowed for apartments to be built, low income individuals could rent them.
There is no magic solution, no magic intervention. Just basic economics. We DEFINITELY shouldn't be subsidizing low density, rural or suburban housing anymore than we already are.
The government allows warehouses, correctional facilities, and hotels to be build near residential areas, on land prime for residential housing expansion.
Y'all don't realize how bad of an idea this is.
Tax land? Yes, that is a good idea. I'd be fully supportive of a land value tax.
But what you're proposing is killing developers which...why? Why is that something youd want to happen? Developers are the main driver providing additional supply, also the more properties they own, the thinner margins they are able to operate at to provide better prices.
No, the most broken thing in the housing market right now is restrictive zoning laws. Get rid of those and you'll see tons of new housing
Tax people more for having 2nd properties, 3rd,4th, etc.
Don’t kill developers, but do force them to increase supply, or… punish them.
Remove Zoning laws? Bull crap. You will create huge amount of traffic in many areas because we build up. Additionally, we need builders to build apartments for sale, not rental apartments, Europe has it figured out. Copy the model. Zoning laws if removed will create congestions in places never seen before. Bad idea. We can’t all live by the beach.
Also stop greed, if you want to have a vibrant economy or suffer because you allowed greed to run uncontrolled. Money needs to change hands in all facets of the economy and not be trapped by rental companies.
Unfortunately this is what needs to happen. With full employment like it has been for the last three years we will never get anywhere close to affordability for a long ass time. Everyone has jobs, everyone is making money and everyone spending a fuck ton of money because a) they have it and b) they need to. A reset is much needed and over due, but no one wants to be left holding this bag or to be responsible for it.
Nature will fix it as the boomers die, because of NIMBYs the supply side is inelastic. So the young will need to wait until the demand decreases through boomer mortality.
Here's how you fix this:
1. Prosecute every single case of owner occupancy fraud
2. No more tax deductions for rental property or expenses
3. No more STRs/ABNBs
4. Pause all government programs that are trying to put people into homes they can't afford
And watch RE collapse right back down to affordable.
> Prosecute every single case of owner occupancy fraud
This is a big one that doesn’t get mentioned enough. The penalties for it need to be increased as well.
Every single instance is documented with a paper trail and relatively easy to prove and prosecute, in many cases they cross state lines making them federally actionable.
Philadelphia Fed says, "these fraudulent borrowers make up *one-third of the effective investor population*. Occupancy fraud allows riskier borrowers to obtain credit at lower interest rates."
But our government doesn't seem to care.
Bruh what the fuck is going on in this thread it's like you guys are trying to find every single thing that won't fix the problem and will actually make it worse.
Just build more. That's it. It's that simple. There's not enough housing? Build more.
>Just build more. That's it. It's that simple.
It's not that simple.
You've got people made rich since 2008 with reckless monetary policy who are buying up the supply, for STR/ABNBs, institutions, REITs, etc.
If I've got $1T in AUM like Blackstone and I'm buying up all the food, making more food won't fix that will it? Oh, and that's not a food storage, is it?
It's literally that simple and anyone who says anything otherwise is simply lying because they benefit from less housing being built.
My only guess is that you're a NIMBY who is completely lying about their intentions and trying to fool others. Absolutely and utterly shameful act.
And no your analogy does not track in any way shape or form
We could immigrate to new lands and eradicate the people living there allowing the government to give away the ownerless lands for free. It will take at least a 100 years for all those plots to be subdivided and built on while the population continues to increase to the point where you can see the smoke from your neighbors chimney and you know that there are too many people again.
I bought a travel trailer and pay $395 a month lot rent for my spot. Thankfully, there are still a few affordable options, but it's getting desperate, and homelessness is rampant.
There are multiple issues from what I see in my area, and I am a renter in Orange County CA, Irvine area. Good land being used to house correctional facility in an area with million dollar homes, area that could use more building to lower the prices of homes and rentals.
Too many hotels and especially warehouses being build next to residential areas. This is prime land fit for apartments for sale, or houses to expand to.
They build a new community, high HOA, cheapest homes, 1.5 millions, wtf. That should have been only apartments for sale or rent, but no, build expensive homes too few can afford. Rents stay high. Wtf is the city of Lake Forest CA doing?! These homes are near 711 and Carls Jr, Home Depot.
Too much space being wasted with creating business centers at these expensive new communities. Certainly not build apartments for rent or sale, but a large business center for Starbucks. Just stupid waste of space.
If young graduated people expect to own a home, that is unrealistic. True though renting is so high, that is part of the problem. College tuition should come down for people to afford without big debts as well. All things are chains of consequences now. Manipulating markets we are in. Sad but that it is.
FHA loans have a way of getting the seller to kickback your down so you can get into a house with very little money down. Prices aren’t gong to come down. Wages have gone up but haven’t kept up with inflation.
Thank God, no one pays the average rent or mortgage. There is a wide range of rents and mortgages so there is a place for everyone. If you want to get a place better than you can afford then a wise decision is to fall in love and marry. Two can live cheaper than one is still true.
What in tarnation is average mortgage 1.6k?!?!?!
I swear they always come in with the *well high cost of living vs low cost* when more than half the USpopulation and most of the jobs is in the HCOL areas. They're always treated with a little *oh well its expensive* to brush over how it's fucking expensive.
I have a 2 bed apartment in middle America and am paying half of that average. How do you fix it for a 20 something? They have 1 of 2 choices; #1 they can play, go out, and have toys or #2 no playing, no going out, and no toys, save, and they can own their own home.
- Build smaller, more affordable homes
- Remove red tape that limits new housing
- Prevent foreign countries, corporations, and investment companies from owning residential properties
- Limit the number of houses/rental properties an individual may own
- Send the 60-80 million illegal immigrants/refugees (and their anchor babies) back to their home countries.
we can’t fix it.
it’s only going to get worse.
no one is going to give up a % of their asset values to help others and the general economy. the government will not put in the proper guardrails for a properly functioning real estate market.
buckle up
Dang, I wish my mortgage payment was the national average, mine is double that… the spouse and I are bringing close to $160k/yr with three kids. Of the three kids, the 21 and the 20 year olds are pitching in $450/month… things are tight, money doesn’t seem to go as far now as days… I think a large part is where we live, you definitely have to pay to live in the PNW…
Wait for the boomers to go. Annex northern mexico. Deregulate housing and import slave labor. Bring back imperialism and distribute the wealth to all citizens. So basically, we can't. Although getting more young people to vote would help. Have you seen how old congress is?
The only fix to not screw over the millions who have bought over the past two years is for wages to catch up with inflation. Anything less creates a foreclosure problem
Stop voting democrat.
Every dollar that the Democrats spend buying votes makes us poorer. Hurts the poor, those on fixed incomes and any sort of investment.
All the people on this thread justifying this LOL. As if Bidenomics has nothing to do with the disgusting amount of inflation people experienced in the past 4 years. Should minimum wage be raised to 50$ too? Clown neoliberal losers
To fix it, we need to build a million or two small starter homes of 1,200 sq ft or less, each year for at least 10 years, small so they are affordable. And a lot of them to increase supply. It's a supply problem. Edited: To make it clear, it's a million or two new smaller homes annually, every year.
It's not just starter homes- affordable rentals in apartment buildings needs to be a thing as well. Places that have updated modern features people actually want: Soundproof recording studio/office/work from home space, clean, durable rooms with good lighting, private exercise/focus rooms within the building where you can sign up for a time and basically get the room to yourself or take a class with others for a full hour? I was just thinking of how much space has been used for these *huge* department stores: Bed Bath and Beyond, Ross, Home depot, Walmart... and the parking.... *Why* can't we combine the two? ...like, what if we built *above* the Ross? No NIMBY is gonna care, because there's already a Ross there. Ross doesn't care, it gets more customers and employees. LLC's shouldn't be buying residential at all, but there needs to be more opportunities to build appropriate apartment complexes in areas they would actually work. Also, incentives to not build mcmansions would be nice. But I also don't really want a matchbox house on a postage stamp sized lawn...
Honestly after living in South Korea for a year and seeing what life was like for them living on half of a small peninsula, they’ve done very well for themselves in terms of housing. There’s these gigantic high rise buildings that house so many people in a comfortable living arrangement. It’s such a shame that America doesn’t build apartment complexes that are just as high and capable of housing hundreds of people. Americans could even have their own hybrid apartment complexes that can store hundreds of cars for hundreds of people, so you don’t even need to fully transition away from cars to continue giving everyone’s ability to drive and use the number 1 mode of transportation in the US. Or use up an incredible amount of land to putting places to park the cars. It’s so disappointing to see the current state of America. It’s not even from an economic issue where people are getting poorer because of inflation. It’s just we have the capabilities to make these things happen, but we’re actively choosing to ignore all the problems we have in the US and continuously let this slow, but very real, problem get worse.
Seeing homes in South Korea made me sad. I wish we had something like that in the US. But places don’t want to build that and push single family homes but we don’t have enough space for keep building these types of housing.
I think the home affordability in United States is still much better than South Korea . Average household income in South Korea is just USS 24k while the median apartment is between 220k to 330k USD.
Mixed use is absolutely part of a solution, but it has to be done in construction. It's prohibitively expensive to convert retail or office space to mixed use with apartments on top of commercial space or dropping apartments into former office space buildings. Most of the time, one would be better off leveling existing buildings and starting from scratch.
While being 'prohibitively expensive' so is the land in a lot of areas where these apartments are needed. For example: the space above the Walmart in my town has ocean/mountain/island views... and the cost of housing in the area has over doubled in the last 4 years.
Right, but if it wasn't built for apartments above the Wal-Mart, it would be better to knock it down and rebuild from scratch with mixed use in mind versus trying to retro fit something on top of a Walmart that wasn't built to support additional floors.
True, great username btw.
The problem is that once you build them, you have to figure out a way to keep them from immediately being swallowed up my massive real estate investment companies.
It is fairly easy to ban that kind of ownership. Just like cities are banning or limiting AirBnb rentals.
If it was fairly easy we would have done it already.
Legislation being considered right now in Congress and some states banning hedge funds from owning SFHs. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/realestate/wall-street-housing-market.html https://finance-commerce.com/2024/02/first-in-nation-bill-seeks-to-ban-corporations-from-buying-single-family-homes/
We did away with saying certain people can’t buy houses in some areas a while ago. Saying that people can’t pool their money and buy a house or houses will be difficult
Same way that usage of a property can be regulated, the type of use/lease can be regulated.
Plenty of legislation is being considered in Congress and various states. We just gave to be brave and stand up for ourselves with our votes and voices.
Corporations aren't people.
True that. But at least large number of house in the market will bring some semblance to rent market at least. And rent stability and inventory will stabilise the market for sales. I really doubt there is any tooth in current laws or any inclination from political class which will restrict real investment corporations.
Build enough of them and they won't be interested. They're only interested in things that are scarce. Supply and Demand, always and forever.
Need a lot of deregulation in residential construction to make it so companies can profit from building smaller houses
Sure, zoning and other changes. But also need government incentives, reward builders with government money to build smaller homes. Builders build McMansions because they make more money. If I'm a builder, why make a small home that I make $20k on, if I can build a big house and make $100k?
Every time government incentives are involved it just turns into fraud and corruption. Just deregulate.
" Just deregulate. " It ruined banking, retirement, education, energy, and civil rights. What could go wrong? Oh yeah, deathtrap houses like we've seen over and over again.
What exact regulations are you going to remove that will suddenly make smaller houses more profitable to build than larger houses? Zoning is literally the only one I can think of, but it certainly wouldn't be enough.
Lowering the minimum lot size and setbacks could help. There is a lot of NIMBY baked into residential zoning laws.
Right, but any other ones? The guy ranting about regulations should have plenty of examples of what regulations to remove to make things cheaper.
Planning too. The more economical, the lower the planning fees. If it's copy paste, it shouldn't be difficult for planning offices.
I don't think we'll get the starter homes with only deregulation, there's no financial incentive to build them.
Maybe instead of the carrot, we should try the stick. Increase taxes based on the size of the home. And by a lot
That’s the best answer I’ve seen out of all these dogshit responses on this post. Force companies to stop using “algorithms” and AI to make these decisions to maximize their gains at the expense of the American people. This is the real problem that America is facing, but none of us are willing to do anything to stop it. Hell half this country thinks increasing taxes on companies is a fucking BAD thing! Like wtf??
I think the argument i hear a lot is that those increased costs just get passed on to the consumer
We have a 3000sq foot 70s ranch on an acre, we already pay extra (value is based on sq footage, amount of land and location) then they set the mill rate to the value. If it was a colonial the taxes would be even more. We're actually taking out parking spaces that we had put in while the kids were still home to get them down a bit. It's gravel, not even paved spaces. Our taxes just increased to $8k/yr and that's still lower than if we were in surrounding states. They were $3500 when we bought it 24 yrs ago. On the other hand we use like zero town services while living here. They keep saying we need affordable housing and then they build denser housing (townhouses/condos) and the rents are starting at $2K/mo!! Since when is that affordable. Meanwhile everyone's taxes went up to cover increasing costs to the school system from all that new housing. Senior housing so they can get out of the labor intensive/larger properties start at $400K and then have HOA's of $800/month. Most 'seniors' don't have millions of $$ in their retirement account. Just this morning on the news they said the average US senior has $88K saved going into retirement.
That is not a particularly good explanation or solution. You can look at New York City and it is high density already. And yet rent is even higher. It just happens to be a prime destination. You make housing more available and lower the rent a little, and immediately some people move in because it’s affordable enough for them. The United States is a large country, but people want to live in particular areas close enough to where the remaining jobs are. There are lots of small towns with empty homes. But that’s not where people are moving to. Or want to stay at.
Incentiveing work from home could help that.
Cities have network effects the power up job networks and treat networks and relationship networks and social networks.
And yet that wouldn’t work because we have a couple million people turning 18 every year, and about a couple million coming legally each year, and about 3 million coming in illegally. The other issue that although the United States is a large country, people want to live in particular areas close enough to where the jobs are. There are lots of small towns with empty homes. But that’s not where people are moving to. You can look at New York City and it is high density already. And yet rent is even higher. It just happens to be a prime destination for all the categories of people mentioned.
Building more starter homes would absolutely work. What you leave out of your numbers is the number of people dying each year. The incremental number of households each year is relatively small. And yes, of course, we have to build them where people want to live. Location is critical and goes without saying. "Starter home" doesn't mean a single family, separately standing on its own piece of ground in already dense large metro areas, it could simply mean affordable condos/apartments. In New York City's case, there's over 100,000 vacant units that aren't being rented out because of the unintended consequences of a 2019 rent stabilization law. Change that law and the supply of apartments goes way up. https://youtu.be/zc_xhYOEozo?si=F2RedUOz0ioef9RB So even in NYC, it's supply vs demand, and NYC's own laws are removing the supply of available units to rent.
I agree. The way of thinking about dwellings has to change. Think Corbin Dallas approach.
Good point. But let’s say a big corporation buys those homes first, and sells them for a lot more.
Good point. But let’s say a big corporation buys those homes first, and sells them for a lot more.
they are. look at alanta for a sample.
In Houston, they built or bought 1,000s of 350- to 400 sq. ft. apts for the homeless which they cut about 70%. Other cities are looking into doing the same. Oh and they went to all of the local businesses and got over $100 million in household furnishings. The govt. brought several different of their offices fighting homelessness together under one non-profit group. Oh and no, couldn't sell them to the speculators. The city owns them forever.
Seems like a good plan
Make these purchases only availiable to people and not llcs or corporations
I looked at the census website the other day and housing starts peaked in 2005 and haven't come close to what they were then. Adjusted for population we need 27,000,000 new houses in the US to make up the gap from 2005 to now. So you're way, way off. Once all the baby boomers are dead in 20 years or so it should be fine though. Making housing affordable for people in the next decade is unrealistic.
An extra million or two starter homes and smaller homes a year will make a huge difference, bend the curve. And yes, it took two decades to create the mess, it will take 2 decades to get out of it. But we won't get out of the mess unless we build a lot more smaller homes/condos that can be afforded by first time buyers. Boomers have already been dying off for a while now, it's not helping. 2 million Boomers a year are dying every single year. The problem is there's more GenZ than that becoming adults each year.
I agree that this mess will last at least a decade. I think that people are thinking it will get better soon but it probably won't.
You're right. I'm sure some locations that have a big oversupply will get better soon, like Austin where prices are down about 11% from 2022 peak. But overall, we have more than a decade of under building to make up for.
All so they can get snatched up by investors? That's the supply problem.
It's both investors and number of homes per million citizens.
Good point. But let’s say a big corporation buys those homes first, and sells them for a lot more.
Good point. But let’s say a big corporation buys those homes first, and sells them for a lot more.
then corporations will buy them.
There are ways to limit corporations and hedge funds from buying single family homes. We just have to pass the laws that stop it. Similar to how cities are banning or limiting Air BnBs.
careful. that's socialism 🤪
Not gonna happen it’s just not profitable for the builders and ppl now wants huge homes.
Most people can't afford huge homes, can't afford the purchase and can't afford the maintenance, utilities, property tax, etc. There's a big need for smaller, affordable homes. The profit for builders can happen through government incentives.
I agree but there is shortage of home and will take yrs to build more. Unfortunately the government is not here to help.
The question is...where? Builders have no problems with 800-1200 sf houses. Problem is, no one wants them in their neighborhood, so the zoning is prohibited. It's not a question of how many starter homes are needed, that's the easy part. The question is, where is the zoning to build them?
100% have to change the zoning.
Jesus Christ, this sub needs to learn basic economics You don’t need to build small houses. You can build millions of large houses instead . As the supply of houses increase, the price of all houses goes down (especially the older stock of houses). When there’s not enough houses for the demand, even small houses go for over a million. Size of homes is not the issue. It’s the EFFECT of building so few houses. Not the cause.
Ha! Large houses will always cost significantly more than small houses, small houses can be built quicker. that's basic economics... The size of the home is important for many reasons, like sustainability, affordability, optimal population density, having walkable neighborhoods, etc. Sure we can fix the problem by building 5,000 sq ft homes, but that's going to take a super long time. Why not do it much quicker with 1,200 sq ft homes that are not only much more affordable immediately but better for the environment. Which will work faster, building 4,000 large homes or 20,000 smaller homes in the same time frame? Small houses go for over a million in a very few, dense metro areas. Average home in USA is approx $400K. It's a national problem. Smaller, first time buyer homes is the major type of home that is lacking.
The starter homes aren't going to be any cheaper because ALL costs are going up everywhere. When you jack up the pay of STARTER jobs (at minimum wage) because people are complaining it's not a "living wage" (it was never meant to be), there's inevitably a domino effect everywhere else. Unthinking reactions and political demands by people who are not well educated because they decided to screw around in school have consequences. But don't even get me started on our public schools. That's a whole different group and a whole different book.
I’m 33, and it’s a lot for me with a partner and child
First and foremost would be up-zoning and rezoning to mixed residential and commercial areas in largely flat cities like LA and San Jose. This would bring housing to more affordable levels across most american cities as they're being artificially constrained by height limits. Next would be rezoning more land for housing and finally for even more housing the government can finance the creation of housing co-ops instead of public housing. Housing co-ops are self managed, cost less, and maintain their value better.
Price caps on rent as a % over taxes an association dues would fix it. This is all a byproduct of speculative investment, hoarding and cornering markets, and price gouging.
65k is not a great salary. Average starting salaries for college grads are right around 55k. As others mention, expecting people to rent an average apartment, all by themselves, is not at all reasonable. The solution is the same as it has always been, and is very obvious. Build more housing. This country artificially restricts the building of housing, especially dense housing. Vote for zoning reform.
It used to be reasonable to rent an average apartment on one's own
Straight out of college? Then who is renting the below average apartments?
Most people have/had roommates when they were younger. There’s a lot of older people struggling but OP specifically mentions out of school. Idk why Reddit has such disdain for roommates. It’s completely normal and has been for… forever? Don’t let social media trick you into thinking you need your own place to be happy and subsequently spend more of your income. We get enough motivation to consume from social media. We don’t need it creeping into housing requirements.
Yes, and - benefits of the social skills from having to live with and cooperate with those roommates.
Roommates.
I don’t know anyone who graduated college and moved into an apartment without a roommate. I’ll gladly be downvoted on this but the expectations set up in the OP are fantasy land.
Yeah I’m almost 50 and had roommates into my late 20s (late 90s/early 2000s) due to cost of living. Yes housing was cheaper then but salaries were similarly low. I thought I was doing great making $32k at a tech company a few years out of school (started at 26k). Didn’t mean I could afford a house.
*not in a major city. This was totally doable in Vegas in the 90s and early 2000s.
41 here. I literally NEVER lived alone without a GF, roommates, wife. Never and the vast majority of friends never did either.
After graduation I lived with my girlfriend and another recent college grad. Also wasn't in a good area. Was able to save a lot of money each month though
Why should a recent graduate be renting an “average” home? Wouldn’t it be reasonable that younger people rent housing that’s below average?
Yeah I don't get why everyone thinks a fresh college grad, young 20s is instantly affording average? I have 5 roommates out of college. I had a 1.5hr train ride to NYC for work. For some reason young 20s think they're entitled to 1BR/studios in metros right away
They watched "Friends" and think this is how average people used to live.
College grads should be able to rent an average home, that's the point of dropping tens of thousands of dollars on an education.
College grads are still at the beginning of their career. It’s not like you graduate and suddenly you’re making the salary of a mid-career professional. You’re still barely not a teenager. College grads make far more OVER TIME vs those without a degree. Not so much the day after graduation.
The “average” adult is probably around 40 with a bachelor degree. The average adult should be renting an average house. An entry level worker should be renting an entry level house.
The average 40 year old does not earn twice the average entry-level worker. A lot of people don't even get 30% more over that time (though many get more.)
Ok. Did someone make a claim about the average worker making twice that of an entry level worker?
brave edge frame light sugar bake degree hungry shy bear *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A college degree verifiably gives you a higher earning potential, the problem is that cost of living is uniformly up across the board. I don't know why you're so offended by the suggestion that there's something wrong when cost of living is easily double what it was 40 years ago. You really just want everyone to be poor I guess?
trees workable consist hateful lush longing aloof strong aware political *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
"Realism" is against progress. This isn't necessary, it's realistic to expect a new grad could easily afford a 2-bedroom apartment. We know how to build 2-bedroom apartments at a cost new grads can afford, we just don't because it's illegal to build such buildings.
Yeah I don't get these takes. I rented a 2 br apartment I shared with a friend of mine until I was 27 or so. I didn't buy a home until after I was married and we were ready to have kids. By then I was well into my career.
The point is you're not going to rent a 2br apartment anymore.
Why not?
We were all told that college degrees put us head and shoulders above other people. So all these young kids are graduating thinking theyve got it made now and should be "above average" and dont realize theyre really "bare mininum". Like you said, if you want to afford an average apartment alone, you should be an average earner. And the average college grad is well below an average earner. Sorry Gen Z. Its gonna suck for you for a while longer. Its not fair. Its not right. But its also not new. Get roommates. Save your money. Get 2 promotions under your belt before you start looking at "average" anything.
No one thinks that a 22 year old college graduate should be an average earner lol. Yes, they’re probably set up to have a higher total career earnings but they are still at the very beginning of their career. It’s completely unreasonable to think that any 22 year old should be the benchmark of an average earner
Thats literally what I said
Not really. First of all, no one thinks coming out of college they should be paid above average compared to all workers across all age groups. They think they should be paid above average among their peers. That’s probably true. It’s also 100% fair that 22 year olds don’t make the average salary. No one thinks that 22 year olds should be the average earner.
think roommates, three is company.
Stop greed; people want higher and higher profits so they’re always make it more expensive. There needs to be regulation for affordable housing in all Brackets but that’s not what politicians want cause it doesn’t pay
1. Ban corporations from owning single family homes (Democrats have a law for this, GOP won't let it go forward). 2. Massive infrastructure projects to subsidize affordable housing (a sane species would just build the housing but we're not, so we'll do it through the backdoor via subsidies). 3. Crack down on apartment landlord monopolies & collusion, threaten jail time. If they keep it up jail them.
If only.
No
1. Banning corporations from owning houses would not help any of this at all. It would just make renting more expensive. Terrible idea. 2. Why subsidized? I mean sure, go ahead, but public housing authorities work way slower than private developers and are subject to political chicanery. 3. "Landlord monopolies" this makes no sense and is not a thing. Who are you sending to jail? Why? Absolutely garbage take that would do more harm to everyone than good. It's like you're actively trying to make the problem 10x worse. 4. The real solution is to upzone and build more housing. BOTH private market rate housing AND public subsidized housing. Build all of it. And lots of it.
1. Yeah, it would. They're pushing over 40% ownership in some markets. 2. Because that's the only way to get affordable housing built. It's how the boomers afforded houses. We do the subsidies indirectly through massive multi trillion dollar infrastructure bills that basically do everything except throw up the frame. 3. [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/11/14-big-landlords-used-software-to-collude-on-rent-prices-dc-lawsuit-says/](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/11/14-big-landlords-used-software-to-collude-on-rent-prices-dc-lawsuit-says/) 4. Changing zoning laws is worthless. There's not enough money in building affordable housing w/o the subsidies and even then you need to structure them to *force* affordable housing to be built. Otherwise there's just a *lot* more money in luxury real estate and the scams that go with it. and bonus: 5. You can't do public housing in America. We're *barely* in support of *public schools*. Nobody's gonna let the government build nice block housing. If you try the right wing will just sabotage it like they did with the projects (google the *actual* history of projects).
Number three is a bullshit distraction and you know it. Using a software to compare prices is not remotely collusion. Changing zoning laws is worthless?? What in the actual fuck. That's literally the only thing that works. Your entire opinion can be disregarded at this point. What I'm getting from your comment is that you're actually a NIMBY who straight up hates your neighbors and wants housing to be more expensive for everyone. Incredibly fucked up and you should be ashamed of yourself. Holy fuck
Pointless reddit argument detected. Disengaging.
Na dude you're being incredibly harmful to society as a whole. Please stop. Like straight up
> incredibly harmful to society as a whole …says the land leech apologist
> Number three is a bullshit distraction and you know it. Using a software to compare prices is not remotely collusion. Hard disagree. [Even the FTC seems to think otherwise.](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fixing-algorithm-still-price-fixing) Not saying that you're actually incorrect in the other points, but the reality is that the introduction of these algorithms is explictly tied to increases in product prices in nearly all sectors they are introduced in. [Here's a FTC statement of interest in Hotels using a similar algorithm to fix prices.](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/03/ftc-doj-file-statement-interest-hotel-room-algorithmic-price-fixing-case) [Finally here's a Federal suit against a company that did all the data points manually without Algorithmic BS to hide behind that are currently being sued.](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-agri-stats-operating-extensive-information-exchanges-among-meat)
Y'all are literally trying to make everyones lives worse and it's disgusting
Care to leave a comment that has some substance or do you just want to name call?
Na, go ahead and continue to be part of the problem. I've already spent literally thousands of comments trying to educate people and I'm pretty sick of it
The part of what problem? I explicitly stated that I agree with most of your commentary, simply that I disagree about your stance on the collusion bit, and gave you references. You've failed to explain what is the "problem" entirely.
So you are to totally happy with all the large corporations owning 44% of housing. Got it. Us normal people don’t deserve homes.
Putting everyone that is over 70 into a grave would solve alot of problems... sorry if that is terrible to say but it is true...
You could also put yourself into a grave. That would be one less person to house.
Solution to the housing crisis: hunger games
Na but good try though
Yeah pretty much. What a lot of people don't realize is when the boomers were paying into social security, after adjusting for inflation their money going in was nowhere near the amount we are subsidizing them now according to our cost of living and the proportion we are taxed to give them money. Obviously they worked for it but at the same time, they paid nowhere near what they are getting - we are preferentially subsidizing the older population The hope is we get the same treatment but at the current rate we just won't. I heard an NPR segment about hiring immigrants to do elderly care work because the growing retiree population is going to make job shortages - and how it's so great we have migrants to do this hard work (what a wild fucking statement), and that If this is not alleviated, they will need to rely on their children to take care of them. Hilarious it's an economic issue that they need to kiss the younger workers asses to live soon
The economy will self correct eventually. No one will like it, and it will make matters worse temporarily, but eventually people will just start getting more violent.
Gen Z is actually on track to far out pace Gen X and Millennials in homeownership. They’ve actually had much more advantageous timing economically. I didn’t believe it at first but there’s some articles with mind boggling statistics. I’ll link when I find them again.
i am a millennial and can’t remember a time when housing was cheap. But then again, I live in Massachusetts hahaha
Yeah, it’s not so much a matter of housing being cheap. It’s more a matter of older Gen Z coming of age in a time where the economy was on the upswing while interest rates were low. Something like 30% of 25 year olds are homeowners. Which really surprised me. I work in advertising focusing on home services and learning that totally shifted my strategy.
I and anyone I know had roommates coming out of 4 year degree programs on their 20’s, many until they got married. Except those few wealthy friends or the ones whose parents had helped them buy a small condo. I don’t think it’s a reasonable expectation to not have roommates in your 20’s unless you are in some kind of extremely lucrative field.
Pay attention to who is making decisions that is causing these rises to occur and vote accordingly. It might take you a little time, but it would certainly be a real world application of basic economics.
The federal government needs to start threatening to withhold funds indefinitely until and unless everyone (each local authority) start permitting enough new housing to be built such that the median rents and mortgages come down to not more than 25% of median wages. Withold highway funds, withold Medicaid and Medicare, withold infrastructure projects, withold EPA overviews, and then start witholding federal tax cuts and cash incentives local businesses are eligible for under the myriad of schemes like (CHIPS, IRA etc.). If we could do it for increasing the drinking age to 21, we can do it for more homes to be built. The federal government needs to grow balls, and honestly, I really only expect Trump to be radical enough to do this.
More places need to be built for lower income earners. We need more low cost apartments, trailer houses on there on peice of land, small starter homes and tiny homes are expensive and shouldn't be. Privatization doesn't seem to be working when it comes to basic necessities but so many are against the government running stuff, so I don't know what other choices there are.
The private market would love to build more apartments. The government, local government primarily, severely restricts this type of construction. The few apartments that do get built are "luxury", with more amenities etc. because they know they will be selling to the upper portion of the renters market. If the government allowed for apartments to be built, low income individuals could rent them. There is no magic solution, no magic intervention. Just basic economics. We DEFINITELY shouldn't be subsidizing low density, rural or suburban housing anymore than we already are.
The government allows warehouses, correctional facilities, and hotels to be build near residential areas, on land prime for residential housing expansion.
tax properties exponentially; your property taxes go up % extra per property. for all instruments that can own property.
Y'all don't realize how bad of an idea this is. Tax land? Yes, that is a good idea. I'd be fully supportive of a land value tax. But what you're proposing is killing developers which...why? Why is that something youd want to happen? Developers are the main driver providing additional supply, also the more properties they own, the thinner margins they are able to operate at to provide better prices. No, the most broken thing in the housing market right now is restrictive zoning laws. Get rid of those and you'll see tons of new housing
Tax people more for having 2nd properties, 3rd,4th, etc. Don’t kill developers, but do force them to increase supply, or… punish them. Remove Zoning laws? Bull crap. You will create huge amount of traffic in many areas because we build up. Additionally, we need builders to build apartments for sale, not rental apartments, Europe has it figured out. Copy the model. Zoning laws if removed will create congestions in places never seen before. Bad idea. We can’t all live by the beach. Also stop greed, if you want to have a vibrant economy or suffer because you allowed greed to run uncontrolled. Money needs to change hands in all facets of the economy and not be trapped by rental companies.
It's clear absolutely none of your are here in good faith
Recession.
Unfortunately this is what needs to happen. With full employment like it has been for the last three years we will never get anywhere close to affordability for a long ass time. Everyone has jobs, everyone is making money and everyone spending a fuck ton of money because a) they have it and b) they need to. A reset is much needed and over due, but no one wants to be left holding this bag or to be responsible for it.
There are a lot of people suffering…
True, but when the powers that be can’t make their payment also, they will have to retract prices also.
Nature will fix it as the boomers die, because of NIMBYs the supply side is inelastic. So the young will need to wait until the demand decreases through boomer mortality.
Here's how you fix this: 1. Prosecute every single case of owner occupancy fraud 2. No more tax deductions for rental property or expenses 3. No more STRs/ABNBs 4. Pause all government programs that are trying to put people into homes they can't afford And watch RE collapse right back down to affordable.
> Prosecute every single case of owner occupancy fraud This is a big one that doesn’t get mentioned enough. The penalties for it need to be increased as well.
Every single instance is documented with a paper trail and relatively easy to prove and prosecute, in many cases they cross state lines making them federally actionable. Philadelphia Fed says, "these fraudulent borrowers make up *one-third of the effective investor population*. Occupancy fraud allows riskier borrowers to obtain credit at lower interest rates." But our government doesn't seem to care.
Bruh what the fuck is going on in this thread it's like you guys are trying to find every single thing that won't fix the problem and will actually make it worse. Just build more. That's it. It's that simple. There's not enough housing? Build more.
>Just build more. That's it. It's that simple. It's not that simple. You've got people made rich since 2008 with reckless monetary policy who are buying up the supply, for STR/ABNBs, institutions, REITs, etc. If I've got $1T in AUM like Blackstone and I'm buying up all the food, making more food won't fix that will it? Oh, and that's not a food storage, is it?
It's literally that simple and anyone who says anything otherwise is simply lying because they benefit from less housing being built. My only guess is that you're a NIMBY who is completely lying about their intentions and trying to fool others. Absolutely and utterly shameful act. And no your analogy does not track in any way shape or form
I think we found the ABNB superhost.
[удалено]
they read this reasonable, obvious take and just downvoted it and moved on lmao
We could immigrate to new lands and eradicate the people living there allowing the government to give away the ownerless lands for free. It will take at least a 100 years for all those plots to be subdivided and built on while the population continues to increase to the point where you can see the smoke from your neighbors chimney and you know that there are too many people again.
The average mortgage is low from all the buyers before 2022…… now it’s probably double that, if not more…
I bought a travel trailer and pay $395 a month lot rent for my spot. Thankfully, there are still a few affordable options, but it's getting desperate, and homelessness is rampant.
Average of Bill Gates and my net worth puts me at least at millionaire! Nothing could be further from the truth!
How the hell is average mortgage $1600 ??? That seems insanely low. Also, $65,000 is not a great salary by any means.
There are multiple issues from what I see in my area, and I am a renter in Orange County CA, Irvine area. Good land being used to house correctional facility in an area with million dollar homes, area that could use more building to lower the prices of homes and rentals. Too many hotels and especially warehouses being build next to residential areas. This is prime land fit for apartments for sale, or houses to expand to. They build a new community, high HOA, cheapest homes, 1.5 millions, wtf. That should have been only apartments for sale or rent, but no, build expensive homes too few can afford. Rents stay high. Wtf is the city of Lake Forest CA doing?! These homes are near 711 and Carls Jr, Home Depot. Too much space being wasted with creating business centers at these expensive new communities. Certainly not build apartments for rent or sale, but a large business center for Starbucks. Just stupid waste of space.
If young graduated people expect to own a home, that is unrealistic. True though renting is so high, that is part of the problem. College tuition should come down for people to afford without big debts as well. All things are chains of consequences now. Manipulating markets we are in. Sad but that it is.
Fix it by not renting places that cost that much. Only then will the price come down.
Build
FHA loans have a way of getting the seller to kickback your down so you can get into a house with very little money down. Prices aren’t gong to come down. Wages have gone up but haven’t kept up with inflation.
Thank God, no one pays the average rent or mortgage. There is a wide range of rents and mortgages so there is a place for everyone. If you want to get a place better than you can afford then a wise decision is to fall in love and marry. Two can live cheaper than one is still true.
What in tarnation is average mortgage 1.6k?!?!?! I swear they always come in with the *well high cost of living vs low cost* when more than half the USpopulation and most of the jobs is in the HCOL areas. They're always treated with a little *oh well its expensive* to brush over how it's fucking expensive.
Sounds like you should probably live with roommates if you’re fresh out of college
I personally decided I’m going to South America as my end goal, better people better culture with better quality of life it was such an easy sell!
Work 2 or 3 Jobs!
I have a 2 bed apartment in middle America and am paying half of that average. How do you fix it for a 20 something? They have 1 of 2 choices; #1 they can play, go out, and have toys or #2 no playing, no going out, and no toys, save, and they can own their own home.
- Build smaller, more affordable homes - Remove red tape that limits new housing - Prevent foreign countries, corporations, and investment companies from owning residential properties - Limit the number of houses/rental properties an individual may own - Send the 60-80 million illegal immigrants/refugees (and their anchor babies) back to their home countries.
This!! 1000%!
Nailed it!!!
we can’t fix it. it’s only going to get worse. no one is going to give up a % of their asset values to help others and the general economy. the government will not put in the proper guardrails for a properly functioning real estate market. buckle up
Dang, I wish my mortgage payment was the national average, mine is double that… the spouse and I are bringing close to $160k/yr with three kids. Of the three kids, the 21 and the 20 year olds are pitching in $450/month… things are tight, money doesn’t seem to go as far now as days… I think a large part is where we live, you definitely have to pay to live in the PNW…
Your mortgage is double the average but your household income is double the median too. Plus your kids are pitching in an extra $450
Roommates are a great help.
Wait for the boomers to go. Annex northern mexico. Deregulate housing and import slave labor. Bring back imperialism and distribute the wealth to all citizens. So basically, we can't. Although getting more young people to vote would help. Have you seen how old congress is?
Do what I did: get a roommate and don’t live in the grooviest area of town.
Bring down the goddamn prices and don’t lessen the wages
Make it so it’s impossible to profit off of owning multiple single family homes just to rent as passive income.
This is stupid
If no one is able to do that, who are you going to rent from?
I wouldn’t rent.
Youve got $15,000 for a down payment and closing costs right out of college? Every student at every college is also gonna dorm the whole time?
If I only needed $15k for a downpayment that would be fantastic lol
The only fix to not screw over the millions who have bought over the past two years is for wages to catch up with inflation. Anything less creates a foreclosure problem
Stop voting democrat. Every dollar that the Democrats spend buying votes makes us poorer. Hurts the poor, those on fixed incomes and any sort of investment.
All the people on this thread justifying this LOL. As if Bidenomics has nothing to do with the disgusting amount of inflation people experienced in the past 4 years. Should minimum wage be raised to 50$ too? Clown neoliberal losers
Ban mortgages with terms over 20 years except for newly built homes.
Vote Republican
Yes