• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Moral imperative for a housing crash... and permanent devaluation

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,049
So a couple of my wife's friends just bought a property that is priced three times higher now than in 2019. That's after the price of that property came down by over $100k.

I know a lot of family and friends who bought very recently.

Debt cancelation needs to be part of the equation if we ever want prices to be reasonable again.

If the same exact property(nothing done to make it more productive in any way) is prices 3 times higher than it was three years ago, how can we call it anything other than inflation?

At least with stocks, we can make the case that the company it belongs to may have become more productive.

The following data is before the latest craziness:

What was $27 in 1940 was $1104 in 2020.

If you use an inflation calculator:

$27 in 1940 was about $500 in 2020, less than half what the rent was.

Considering that rent/mortgage is the overwhelming majority of what a young person pays to live(way over 1/3 or 1/4, unless you bought ages ago), rent/mortgage should be the real measure of inflation, not some arbitrary basket of goods for CPI.

In 1980, the median rent was $240, which once adjusted for inflation, becomes $754. This still indicates more than a 50% increase in CPI adjusted terms by 2020...again before the craziness of the last two years.

Here are the CPI adjusted wages over a similar period:

Even if you are extremely generous, you could maybe see a wage increase of 25%, though you can also see a 10% increase instead.

If someone was making ends meet working 40 hours a week in 1980, to afford the 50% more rent, and generously saying the make 25% more money they'd have to work 48 hours a week now. Remember this is without the latest craziness, and ignoring the dip in wages now. If we take 10% more earnings instead we're looking at 54 hours a week instead.

But let's face it, people have probably been working 60 hour weeks since the 80s already. But now that becomes 70 to 80 hours a week depending on how generous or stingy you are with wages.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,049
I suppose I am harping on, but it is something that needs to be harped on.

If, in this moment, you were to single-factor all the problems in the world: inequity, homelessness, poverty, climate change, political polarization, rise of totalitarian impulses, etc. The lack of affordable housing supply wouldn't be that bad of an oversimplification.

This is a global crisis too.

I actually want to make the case that housing being treated like wealth should instead be directly be used as a measure of inflation instead (if not THE measure of inflation). There many other things, like trading cards, artwork, memorabilia that go up in value with absolutely not change in the productive needs that are being fulfilled by the property. But one main difference is that housing is shelter that everybody needs and is a human right.

If your main reason for lobbying and getting laws and ordinances passed to prohibit human being access to their basic human rights is to preserve the value of your memorabilia/status symbol that is your house, then "psychopath" is not a bad description.

I understand if during the latest run, due to life circumstances, you may have bought into a place you can barely afford and now if housing crashes, you're basically screwed financially. That's why debt cancelation needs to be part of the equation.

I understand also if you are a NIMBY who doesn't want a garbage dump, or polluting factory, or other such thing in your back yard.

But if you are a property value NIMBY whose house has been paid free and clear in a place where there has been a huge economic boom (so a lot of people want to move to where the jobs are) and you are restricting housing to preserve "the character of the neighborhood" or you are saying things like "think of the property values"... yeah, psychopath isn't a bad description.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,062
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Renters have to pay way more monthly for the same amount of space a lower monthly mortgage would be. Removing some of the barriers to qualify could help a lot of people like myself. Because I don't have enough W2 income (mostly 1099 income) I am barred from home ownership unless I find a way to save up the full amount while paying rent, which is a tall order. My credit score is over 800 and I've never missed a rent payment on time in my life. That is only one example, but there are ways the system could help more people.
 

The Cat

Offering FREE Monkey paws down at the Crossroads.
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
24,568
Renters have to pay way more monthly for the same amount of space a lower monthly mortgage would be. Removing some of the barriers to qualify could help a lot of people like myself. Because I don't have enough W2 income (mostly 1099 income) I am barred from home ownership unless I find a way to save up the full amount while paying rent, which is a tall order. My credit score is over 800 and I've never missed a rent payment on time in my life. That is only one example, but there are ways the system could help more people.

Sort of what makes it so obvious that the current system doesnt have any illusions about itself. The God Machine is aware if not sentient of its horrific nature. It just...does not care. Not even enlightened self interest. That's why its so cosmically horrific. -_-
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,049
I have this course on in the background. It's amazing how much of it is relevant to the things people are talking about.

This lecture (lecture 4) in particular is rather relevant to the housing issues.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,049
There are so many versions of this meme, but this one kind of hits at the root:
me-vs-parents-memes-53-5fcf334404a47__700.jpg


A more tone-deaf or self-deprecating version is stuff like this:
me-vs-parents-memes-56-5fcf3674c328d__700.jpg


But we know the main reason for this--see the previous meme.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,049
There are many people saying that there is going to be a crash. I am not really good at predictions. I am just arguing (ad nauseum) that there needs to be a crash...and crash basically forever.


Keep in mind, only parents who are already wealthy can provide this sort of help.
 
Last edited:

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,049
Assuming that we don't want global modern fiefdom where landed gentry and their bloodlines at the only ones who can afford homes (everyone else will just have to pay tribute to this nobility in the form of rents) society as a whole will need to come up with ways to make homes exponentially more affordable.

When we look to other industries that have made their main driving force the exponential decrease in the main societal value the industry provides, we see one very consistent incentive structure. Those who are capable will increasingly be the only ones who are capable because of the amount of innovation capacity they would have built up to keep the exponential going. In semiconductors, TSMC, Intel, and others like them are the only once capable of keeping this trend going. Other may come in and try to compete, but they'd be lucky to get one technology node before the incumbents, let alone keep delivering each technology node at a consistent pace.

This would be the main economic incentive for home builders, community planners, transportation engineers, etc. (whatever conglomeration is needed) to band together to create a model of sustained innovation to exponentially reduce the cost of housing over time. Modular homes are obviously not enough by themselves. Imagine a model of griding the electrical, transportation, plumbing, and social fabric (education, healthcare, fire, police, etc.) in such a way as to increasingly make it more and more affordable for people to live.

Markets work on incentives.
How would one structure incentives to make it profitable to make it easier for people to live?
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,049
This pair of articles has me more than a little annoyed.


This is especially bad since the likes of Dave Ramsey makes a lot of his money off of making housing unaffordable. His statements are especially addressing the wealthy people with homes who actually can support their kids. A lot of people can't do that. Another reason that "generation of psychopaths" is a good label.

I don't know how much a coach bag costs, but I doubt it's tens of thousands, and I doubt people are buying one every month. This trope is a twist on the avocado toast or cafe latte trope. Not many people are doing these things, and It's not mathematically making much of a dent in affordability. These tropes are really just ways for boomers to not see their core psychopathic desire to see their wealth number go up while basic human rights stay unattainable for many.

It also seems like the "there's no crash coming; people need to reset their expectations" statements are coming mainly from real estate lobbies and wealthy home owners and those supporting their kids in the way mentioned.
 

The Cat

Offering FREE Monkey paws down at the Crossroads.
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
24,568
This pair of articles has me more than a little annoyed.


This is especially bad since the likes of Dave Ramsey makes a lot of his money off of making housing unaffordable. His statements are especially addressing the wealthy people with homes who actually can support their kids. A lot of people can't do that. Another reason that "generation of psychopaths" is a good label.

I don't know how much a coach bag costs, but I doubt it's tens of thousands, and I doubt people are buying one every month. This trope is a twist on the avocado toast or cafe latte trope. Not many people are doing these things, and It's not mathematically making much of a dent in affordability. These tropes are really just ways for boomers to not see their core psychopathic desire to see their wealth number go up while basic human rights stay unattainable for many.

It also seems like the "there's no crash coming; people need to reset their expectations" statements are coming mainly from real estate lobbies and wealthy home owners and those supporting their kids in the way mentioned.
I think Dave Ramsey is the type of Grifter who doesnt see himself as a grifter; ive seen him speak at churches; and he very much makes me think of a man who is trying to convince himself and God that storing up treasure where moths eat and rust destroys is quite good actually, otherwise how will you know how to profit off all that realestate in the hear after...honestly a lot of these people seem to think Heaven is just an HOA...but they have been decieved by the wicked one...HOA's are hell's racket.

Ramsey imo is one of those boomers who sees the right thing in Millenials and zoomers and is forced to look in the mirror and read that Bible of his and know that "God's word." names him a fool who is going to die and lose everything he put his faith in because he puts his faith in wordly profit. Boomers seem to think they'll live forever or somehow get out of this by being rescued. Millenials and Zoomers have grown up in the collapse. We've gone to school in combat zones, we've been chastised our whole lives for the sins of our fathers, while the older generation seems to vocally projects themselves onto us and cant seem to understand why we just dont go out and live like its still the late sixties and we're all cis het white guys and upper middle class resources, because its still the same world isnt it? I'll never understand kicking down generationally. these boomers like Dave Ramsey are doing so much harm to future generations with that kind of mentality...how dare we not just be narcissitic supply for them, whats wrong with us for not just faking it till we make it? tbh I dont know many millenials or zoomers i talk to at least, who really see getting old as a luxury we're ever going to be able to afford. And rather than come together and get policy done to fix the damned problems...our leadership strategy...culture war misdirects. The first politician I see who just runs on the platform of Floyd T Nimrod loves puppies, and vote for floyd is a vote for puppy love, you don't hate puppies do you? ugh sorry. Dave Ramsey inspires ranting for me. This guy has done a lot to drive down empathy and charity for the poor from the organization who claims to be the organization of empathy and charity. Dave Ramsey forges chains on his own soul and sells them to other rich people to wrap around theirs.
 

ceecee

Coolatta® Enjoyer
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
15,992
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
I think Dave Ramsey is the type of Grifter who doesnt see himself as a grifter; ive seen him speak at churches; and he very much makes me think of a man who is trying to convince himself and God that storing up treasure where moths eat and rust destroys is quite good actually, otherwise how will you know how to profit off all that realestate in the hear after...honestly a lot of these people seem to think Heaven is just an HOA...but they have been decieved by the wicked one...HOA's are hell's racket.

Ramsey imo is one of those boomers who sees the right thing in Millenials and zoomers and is forced to look in the mirror and read that Bible of his and know that "God's word." names him a fool who is going to die and lose everything he put his faith in because he puts his faith in wordly profit. Boomers seem to think they'll live forever or somehow get out of this by being rescued. Millenials and Zoomers have grown up in the collapse. We've gone to school in combat zones, we've been chastised our whole lives for the sins of our fathers, while the older generation seems to vocally projects themselves onto us and cant seem to understand why we just dont go out and live like its still the late sixties and we're all cis het white guys and upper middle class resources, because its still the same world isnt it? I'll never understand kicking down generationally. these boomers like Dave Ramsey are doing so much harm to future generations with that kind of mentality...how dare we not just be narcissitic supply for them, whats wrong with us for not just faking it till we make it? tbh I dont know many millenials or zoomers i talk to at least, who really see getting old as a luxury we're ever going to be able to afford. And rather than come together and get policy done to fix the damned problems...our leadership strategy...culture war misdirects. The first politician I see who just runs on the platform of Floyd T Nimrod loves puppies, and vote for floyd is a vote for puppy love, you don't hate puppies do you? ugh sorry. Dave Ramsey inspires ranting for me. This guy has done a lot to drive down empathy and charity for the poor from the organization who claims to be the organization of empathy and charity. Dave Ramsey forges chains on his own soul and sells them to other rich people to wrap around theirs.
Yeah he is just another prosperity gospel preaching grifter. It's most definitely your own fault if you are poor and your own lack of faith if you remain poor. This bullshit has also been exported to other countries like Brazil and some African nations.

HOA's are totalitarian fiefdoms who's overreaching power has been emboldened by the real estate lobby and upheld by the most soulless white ghouls imaginable.


il_570xN.4064699697_bafs.jpg
 

The Cat

Offering FREE Monkey paws down at the Crossroads.
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
24,568
Thought this would fit here.​
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,049
Again not a prediction, but yet another person's opinion:

Also, I have been looking at home prices in particular places, and I am seeing a strange pattern. If you look back at the history on properties, you will see two weird things pop-up over and over.
1) In the history you'll see either a buy at a much higher price than it used to be, followed by it being placed for sale almost immediately for some more. Or you'll see a buy followed by being put on the market by a huge jump in price in a short time (too short to believe anything non-cosmetic happened). Again, the only sensible name for the exact same thing being price much higher than it was not too long ago is inflation. This I suspect are ibuyers trying to land-speculate. When art work does this, there aren't people going homeless or being price out of the "American Dream". Housing is a human right, while art is not.
2) In the latter part of the price history, you'll see a flat section where houses are being sold and then immediately put on sale for basically the same price. Or you'll see it bought and put up for exorbitant rent (which nobody takes). I think this phenomenon comes from ibuyers selling to each other to manipulate the market so that they can spin a story that the market crash has bottomed out. It ought to be illegal if that's the case.

Edit: I know innocent people got caught up because they just had to move and eat the high prices by maxing what they can possibly afford. That's why debt cancellation ought to be part of the mix of solving this affordability crisis. When Biden supporters wonder why only 1 in 6 people of their party don't want him as the candidate, especially young people, just think about the housing affordability problem for young people vs for older people.
 
Last edited:

Maou

Mythos
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
6,142
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
First of all, this is not a prediction. Instead, I'm stating it's a morally good thing for houses to be inexpensive permanently.

Additionally, we live in the current world with the way it is currently incentivized. I am guilty of all the stupidity and immorality as I am argue here. I am a homeowner in the suburbs and own more than I need-a complete hypocrite.

But, I urge that responses that argue that is not in fact morally good for housing to be very inexpensive to use something other than hypocrisy as the counter.

A better version of ourselves practically necessitates that the current version is hypocritical with respect to new ideals.

Benefits
1. Reduced homelessness. When it costs less to give people homes, it takes less to do that. Almost a tautology.
2. Reduced poverty. The vast majority of "wealthy" people have the majority of their "wealth" in their homes. But the main productive value a home is that it provides for people is shelter. The excess beyond shelter(and some comfort), takes land away from farming, forest land, and other means of productive use of space. If the basics were affordable for everyone, the extra, especially if there's little speculative gain in exchangeable value, will be seen as the narcissistic and wasteful flex that it is. All the other things people exchange their money for will gain where housing loses.
3. Reduced pollution. The most wateful way to live is suburbia. Rural areas when cultivated well produce food. Due to density, cities actually have less pollution per capita(and can be reduced further if mix use could create shorter or no commutes), and undeveloped land is great if reforested.
1. "Homelessness" in of itself is a lot more complicated than just not having a home. Most chronic homelessness is the result of untreated mental illness, and gatekeeping communities who up the price of rent for "aesthetic" reasons (aka they don't want commie blocks in their city), A good example is California, with their rules about how highrise apartment buildings cannot be built. And no, earthquakes are not a factor in this at all (see Japan). The reason homes are not being built, is because the rich people living there don't want commie blocks in the distance blotting the beautiful landscape.

2. Poverty cannot be cured, unless we can somehow make the rich pay taxes equally to the poor. Which they do not. Taxes exist only for poor people currently. Vote to abolish taxes (which are unconstitutional and the reason the revolutionary war was fought to begin with), and the price of everything will drop significantly. Also what you are really referring to when it comes to "wealth" in their "homes" is called assets. Assets are a way of storing money. There are liquid and fixed assets, and they exist in a way to manipulate money to maintain wealth. While I agree that people shouldn't own too much land (aka monopolies like bill gates and the government). I also don't agree with seizing and giving away their land. Because lets be honest. Rich people and politicians are the same people. You're not actually taking away from anyone. What goes from one billionaires pocket, goes directly into another. None of this will help the poor. And the government controlling it is just as bad as billionaires.

3. The majority of pollution is entirely in industrialization. The first world exports most of its pollution to the 3rd world. That is why China is a massive pollution hellhold, but if we regulate them we literally cannot function as we do now since we have become a service based economy. Those countries do not have the same regulations as the first world. You having cheap access to things, is the problem with pollution. I would say a return to more natural, but difficult ways of doing things is superior for the environment and people (not using automation, chemicals etc). Have everything made domestically and use our own resources. I am also more for planting trees, cleaning and abolishing plastic, and getting rid of tons of pesticides. We are producing so much food with the use of pesticides, much of it goes to waste. If we never used pesticides, we might actually break even on both food production and it would help trade. It would also be reducing the hazardous waste that is polluting our environments and causing genetic and mental deformities in people. (see atrazine scandal).

Also no, cities produce most of the pollution, especially if they have an airport.

"In 2019, private jet travel emitted an estimated 899,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide(CO2)into the atmosphere. This accounted for 0.9% of globalCO2 emissions from civil aviation that year.
A typical private jet emits carbon at a rate of 4.9 kilograms per mile.
For comparison, the average person emits about 0.6 metric tons of CO2 per year and a commercial airplane emits about 85 grams per passenger per kilometer.
Private jets are typically used by the wealthy for business or pleasure trips. The use of private jets has increased in recent years as the number of millionaires and billionaires has grown. In the United States, there are an estimated 18,000 private jets.
The impact of private jets on the environment is significant, but it is often overshadowed by the much larger emissions of commercial airlines."


Useful concepts
1. We can see inflation as a list of numbers instead of a single number. I know we're trained by the media to think of it as one abstract number. But in our day to day life, if my wife and I like a particular milk for a combination of health and taste reasons, we're not going to suddenly switch to a substitute. Each thing we regularly buy has it's own change in price. This includes what we pay for shelter. For most people, this means paying either a rent or a mortgage. At one time, when cars were new, they were more expensive than houses. Now houses can go for 10 times what cars go for. Financial experts now call cars "financial napalm" but consider houses part of a diversified portfolio. Interestingly, even though most people don't think of it this way, we pay exponentially less every couple years for transistors (in the form of electronics)
2. Socially sustained exponential decreases in price exist. The most famous of these is known as Moore's law (the exponential decrease in the cost of transistors). But it must be stressed that this is not a law of physics. It is a collective goal sustained by increasing efforts (see Moore's Second Law) in the face of hurdles put up by the laws of physics. They may fail at any point, and people point to evidence it's slowing. There are others, like the exponential drop in cost of sequencing a human genome. Why don't we make collective goals enlisting humanity's creativity to exponentially lower the costs of basic needs like food and shelter?
3. We know how to build vertically. It's out of favor now because density also brings traffic and could potentially strain resources. But these limitations could be designed around. Future cities could be much better than current ones. Suburbia could also become more dense.
4. Mix use land may be more productive. Trump bragged about how he lived and worked in the same building in the Art of the Deal (I am no Trump fan, but I take ideas from everyone). Imagine if the same area is used for power production, green sections for photosynthesis and recreation, housing, shopping, farming, and business...like a city in a building. Would that be possible?
5. NIMBYs. I feel sorry for people named Karen. I'm not sure why that's the name picked for people causing significant inconvenience, if not harm, for others simply to get their whims met. I think a better name would be a NIMBY-which stands for not in my back yard. I understand raising legitimate concerns about various things. But instead of voicing concerns and allowing people to address the plans, often they go into blocking a project mode before the project even takes shape.
6. People make fun of status seekers and speculators in one domain but not others. It's easy to make fun of someone who paid ridiculous amounts of money for a bored Ape NFT, but there are pieces of modern art I don't get either. We make fun of people owning virtual pieces of metaverse real estate, but applaud people getting way more home than they'll ever need in the real world. The difference is the real world extra is eating a lot more resources than the virtual nonsense(even though it eats resources also). I'm not advocating the hype around the metaverse and NFTs. I am pointing out that this stupidity happens already in the real world. Buying exhorbitantly for the status is there for NFTs as well as for the extra of a house. Waisting tons of the world's resources buying because you are hoping for the price to go up happens both with bitcoin as well as with the extra of a house.
1. Inflation will never be clear, because the numbers are skewed and intentionally hidden. What people can say is "inflation" is merely rich monopolies marking up things just because they can. Production is actually almost always at an all time high. What monopolies do, is sabotage smaller competition and have the media say there is a shortage, and that is why the numbers are going up because monopolies are the only ones that can afford to put their things on sale. For example, rich billionaires in California buy up tons of houses and land in another state. They don't use the land, and the houses are empty. They wait for the housing market to inflate, then sell for a massive profit. All while producing homelessness and causing rent prices to skyrocket. This is a product of asset manipulation like I mentioned before. They also want to convert everything into a "renters society" where only the rich own things.

This applies to many things, across many nations as well, by the same people. The manipulations are across trade, resources, and production. These monopolies control everything. For example, the reason why cars are so expensive right now is due to a microchip shortage. Something like 90% of all microchips are produced in Taiwan. Them having issues, literally impacts almost all industrial machine computer productions across the world. This is why domestic production is so important.

Rich people literally don't care about helping humanity with a few exceptions. What got them to the top, their lack of empathy, is the reason they don't care. Most of it is an old boy's club too (meaning they only promote their friend and family). Rich people live in a completely different world to most people, to the point we normal people are practically a different species and alien to them. People really need to understand this.

3. The reason we don't build vertically as much, is people want space. Living like sardines, even if sustainable, damages your mental and physical health. The only thing governments can do is gaslight the population into liking not having a garden and greenspace in their immediate surroundings. The only real solution is to stop over population.

4. I agree with mixed use land. Things shouldn't be so violently segregated. Especially in places like the USA. I also agree with having as much green as possible in cities, to reduce light absorption which decreases temperature. (ie: places like Phoenix). There have been movements to make cities more natural too. Which I fully support. The term is "walkable cities".

5. Most boomers are all entitled undereducated pieces of shit, just saying. They are the reason our world is going to shit right now. 90% of their shit is entitlement, and they can't grasp the fact that things have changed since they were a kid.

6. NFT nonsense is just a sign of a dying culture imo.

I do not know if I addressed all your questions, but feel free to ask me to clarify on certain things if you wish. Or if I missed something.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,049
It seems we agree with most things. I also don't want to rehash the months of posts on this thread.

"Cures" are for individuals dealing with biological problems that affect their bodies. The analogy is too frought to argue over.

Social problems need to be addressed by different thinking. The thinking needs to take into account that people:
have a subconscious,
don't always act rationally,
are not all psychopathically selfish nor angelically altruistic,
cannot understand all the implications of their actions,
are subject to the fundamental attribution error,
....

Also, regarding pollution, the point isn't where the carbon is emitted, but how much of it contributed by people living in particular ways. For someone flying(jet or otherwise), someone driving a long distance to take the same flight contributes more pollution than someone who didn't drive. For home heating, wherever the production happens, it takes more pollution to heat a bigger house, especially if all sides of that house is exposed.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,049
More on ibuyers and their ilk. This one is about open door which optimized the trend.

Here are competitors to open door:

A lot of them have shut down or shut down the ibuyer part of its business, but it is hard to believe they have dumped their inventory already. From what I have seem about the pricing on the market, I believe there is some game-playing going on. There are a lot more than the 8 I mentioned. I think a lot are selling to each other to try an entice normal buyers into thinking the crash has bottomed out. If that is happening, it should be illegal.

To interpret the indices, a value of 100 means that a family with the median income has exactly enough income to qualify for a mortgage on a median-priced home. An index above 100 signifies that family earning the median income has more than enough income to qualify for a mortgage loan on a median-priced home, assuming a 20 percent down payment. For example, a composite HAI of 120.0 means a family earning the median family income has 120% of the income necessary to qualify for a conventional loan covering 80 percent of a median-priced existing single-family home. An increase in the HAI, then, shows that this family is more able to afford the median priced home.
Unfortunately, reporting is not consistent. But they do percent change in this, look at underlying factors, and also may or may not include the multiplier that sets 100 as the base affordability.

Keep in mind even during the ridiculousness of late last year, this index still showed that homes were just "slightly unaffordable". This should indicate at least something is off. In addition, we don't take into account the lack of stability in jobs even when constant employment can be expected (having to move all the time). We don't take into account the possible recession especially in traditional growth sectors like technology.

California affordability is really bad especially where there are jobs:

 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,049
lol




Do people believe that his little "correction" fixed all this?! ^^^
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,049
Given the state of housing:



It's strange that people say that the housing "correction" is over. If that's the case, society is screwed. In order for things to be good, it seems like it'd take 40 years. A 30% drop still would only give temporary relief from a societal perspective. 90% would be more in line.

With a population growth enough for younger generations to support older ones, the only thing that makes sense is permanent housing deflation. If we could only use a fraction of the research we do to improve transistor or genome sequencing continually, I think we'd find a lot less political instability.

I feel like all the frustration over "wokeness" and "cancel culture" wouldn't be a problem if young people who aren't set to inherit it could afford basic human rights.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,049
In the nineties, Clinton used to say : "It's the economy, stupid." He rode that to a two term presidency.

I think people worried about ageism against Biden from young people need to take into account that these same people love Bernie Sanders.

The thing that makes Biden seem out of touch is not his age, it is that he is not militant about affordable housing. He is clearly capable of being militant, like in the State of the Union.
A winning slogan for him to recapture the younger vote would be "It's affordable housing, stupid." This would only happen through supply increases, not interest hikes. We subsidize corn not to be grown. Subsidize housing so that more of it will be built!

I am fairly certain neither De Santos nor Trump will be as beholden to the NIMBYs in their party as the Democrats are to the NIMBYs in theirs. This is based purely on regulation, after all.

The real estate lobby though? IDK.

The party that gets there with the most vigor will likely take my vote.
 
Top