The Daily episode on the housing crisis

[Anonymous]

The solution is immigrant families cram into old (50 years+) apartments and/or sublet couch space. It’s a miserable existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of affordable areas of the country to live.

And jobs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of affordable areas of the country to live.

And jobs?

Rural areas and small towns are desperate for family practice physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals. There's also a big need for skilled tradespeople, mechanics, machinists, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of affordable areas of the country to live.

And jobs?

Rural areas and small towns are desperate for family practice physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals. There's also a big need for skilled tradespeople, mechanics, machinists, etc.

Rural areas and towns are closing their hospitals, and the local doctors and nurses don't make much money if they are just a country doctor (with no hospital).

Why do you think they are desperate? If it was lucrative you would be able to find people willing to relocate.

In terms of skilled tradespeople...where? The oil fields of ND need those people as example, but they have a massive housing affordability crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of affordable areas of the country to live.

And jobs?

Rural areas and small towns are desperate for family practice physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals. There's also a big need for skilled tradespeople, mechanics, machinists, etc.

Rural areas and towns are closing their hospitals, and the local doctors and nurses don't make much money if they are just a country doctor (with no hospital).

Why do you think they are desperate? If it was lucrative you would be able to find people willing to relocate.

In terms of skilled tradespeople...where? The oil fields of ND need those people as example, but they have a massive housing affordability crisis.

Not to mention it takes anywhere from 2 years at the minimum to become an RN to 7+ years to become a doctor. "Sure, just quit your job, take on a 1-2 punch of massive debt and no income for years then move to a depressed (and depressing) area all just to be able to afford a house" is not exactly a reasonable suggestion.

And you're exactly correct about the skilled trades being highly location-specific. What all the blue-collar-boosters fail to mention is that their promises of making 6 figures as a tradesperson are very cherry picked. Most welders are making like $20 an hour. Machinists maybe a little more. Sure, in the oilfields or in highly specialized jobs you're making a ton, but for Joe Whitecollar thinking about moving to Ohio to become a machinist as their ticket to the good life? Think again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

You are living in fantasy land. It's not even possible to build a new house that is 1600 sq feet for under 500k anymore in an area like DC. Even if the land were free you would not be able to find someone to build you a house for this price, (including site prep). Also, the median household income in the DC metro area is high enough to afford something that cost 500-600k, so it is not realistic to make a below average income for this area and expect to be able to afford to live in a the best school district.

Right which is why we need to build more high density housing that makes a home of that size actually affordable. If builders aren't going to produce smaller starter homes as SFHs then we need more townhomes and condos that families can afford.

Because guess what -- "median household income" means that a huge number of people in this area make less than that. So if the only housing available to families in the area costs more than they can afford then you have a housing problem. And if you tell all those people to go move somewhere cheaper then who will you get to do all the many many jobs that pay below the median for the area.

It kind of sounds like you are the one who is living in a fantasyland. Also the prior post was a direct response to someone saying "well the problem is that everyone wants a giant new build with huge closets and luxury finishes" and here is someone saying "actually no I just want a starter home I can actually afford the mortgage on with my actual salary" and your respones is "well that's a fantasy you can't have that." Right. That's precisely the issue -- people can't even afford run down smaller older houses. So where do you propose they live.

Here is some "high density" housing you can afford in an area with "at least OK" schools. https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876
https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876

This is the same condo listed twice.

This is a 2 bedroom garden-level condo with no outdoor space (not even communal outdoor space) and a $538 per month condo fee. This could work for the right family (one kid or just very young kids or a single parent or two parents but neither works from home etc) but this is not what people mean when they say they are looking for family housing -- this unit is best suited for a professional single or couple or retirees.

Also as someone who has lived in a condo with a child I can tell you that it can work but it would be better in a community that was really geared toward families. It's hard living somewhere with and active kid when your neighbors expect essentially total silence at all times.

And here's a large part of the problem. Americans believe they are entitled to a SFH, and living in a condo (particularly with kids) is impossible and/or makes them a failure.

You know what? Get over it. This isn't the 1950s, SFHs aren't affordable in certain areas for everyone, and that's OK. Housing is a series of tradeoffs for everyone but the most affluent - size/age/location/schools/neighborhood/etc. You can have some, but not all - you choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of affordable areas of the country to live.

I think you are missing the point. There was an article recently about some random town in Michigan…probably an affordable area in your eyes.

Well, the median price has doubled in just the last 5 years because of people selling from high cost area and moving there. Great for them, but now the locals are priced out.

Now they have a homeless problem…mainly due to local jobs not paying enough and rents increasing as much as owning.

It cascades.

This is exactly what happened in Loudoun late 1990s to early 2000s. All the locals were openly angry about those of us who moved out from more expensive, crowded areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

You are living in fantasy land. It's not even possible to build a new house that is 1600 sq feet for under 500k anymore in an area like DC. Even if the land were free you would not be able to find someone to build you a house for this price, (including site prep). Also, the median household income in the DC metro area is high enough to afford something that cost 500-600k, so it is not realistic to make a below average income for this area and expect to be able to afford to live in a the best school district.

Right which is why we need to build more high density housing that makes a home of that size actually affordable. If builders aren't going to produce smaller starter homes as SFHs then we need more townhomes and condos that families can afford.

Because guess what -- "median household income" means that a huge number of people in this area make less than that. So if the only housing available to families in the area costs more than they can afford then you have a housing problem. And if you tell all those people to go move somewhere cheaper then who will you get to do all the many many jobs that pay below the median for the area.

It kind of sounds like you are the one who is living in a fantasyland. Also the prior post was a direct response to someone saying "well the problem is that everyone wants a giant new build with huge closets and luxury finishes" and here is someone saying "actually no I just want a starter home I can actually afford the mortgage on with my actual salary" and your respones is "well that's a fantasy you can't have that." Right. That's precisely the issue -- people can't even afford run down smaller older houses. So where do you propose they live.

Here is some "high density" housing you can afford in an area with "at least OK" schools. https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876
https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876

This is the same condo listed twice.

This is a 2 bedroom garden-level condo with no outdoor space (not even communal outdoor space) and a $538 per month condo fee. This could work for the right family (one kid or just very young kids or a single parent or two parents but neither works from home etc) but this is not what people mean when they say they are looking for family housing -- this unit is best suited for a professional single or couple or retirees.

Also as someone who has lived in a condo with a child I can tell you that it can work but it would be better in a community that was really geared toward families. It's hard living somewhere with and active kid when your neighbors expect essentially total silence at all times.

Same person as before that sent you the condo link. Yes, I agree with you on this that condos are not very family friendly and it's beneficial for kids to have a yard to play in. I just don't agree that the solution is to build a bunch a "high density housing" and eliminate single family zoning. The better solution is to create starter home single family neighborhoods in the suburbs that will be relatively more affordable with 5,000-10,000 sq ft lots. Townhouses can be good options for families too, but housing that is higher density than around 8 units per acre should be close to transit and employment centers to prevent traffic congestion.

A condo is a perfectly acceptable place to live for a family. You don't need a yard. There are parks. You can walk there or drive there. Sure, your neighbors might be annoyed when your kid is crying or running around but they can deal with it. And you can have a condo in the suburbs. You are packing more people into a smaller space. And then have one parking area for all the cars. Why does every family need their own SFH, 2 car garage, front street parking, a yard, and a backyard? Give people options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

You are living in fantasy land. It's not even possible to build a new house that is 1600 sq feet for under 500k anymore in an area like DC. Even if the land were free you would not be able to find someone to build you a house for this price, (including site prep). Also, the median household income in the DC metro area is high enough to afford something that cost 500-600k, so it is not realistic to make a below average income for this area and expect to be able to afford to live in a the best school district.

Right which is why we need to build more high density housing that makes a home of that size actually affordable. If builders aren't going to produce smaller starter homes as SFHs then we need more townhomes and condos that families can afford.

Because guess what -- "median household income" means that a huge number of people in this area make less than that. So if the only housing available to families in the area costs more than they can afford then you have a housing problem. And if you tell all those people to go move somewhere cheaper then who will you get to do all the many many jobs that pay below the median for the area.

It kind of sounds like you are the one who is living in a fantasyland. Also the prior post was a direct response to someone saying "well the problem is that everyone wants a giant new build with huge closets and luxury finishes" and here is someone saying "actually no I just want a starter home I can actually afford the mortgage on with my actual salary" and your respones is "well that's a fantasy you can't have that." Right. That's precisely the issue -- people can't even afford run down smaller older houses. So where do you propose they live.

Here is some "high density" housing you can afford in an area with "at least OK" schools. https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876
https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876

This is the same condo listed twice.

This is a 2 bedroom garden-level condo with no outdoor space (not even communal outdoor space) and a $538 per month condo fee. This could work for the right family (one kid or just very young kids or a single parent or two parents but neither works from home etc) but this is not what people mean when they say they are looking for family housing -- this unit is best suited for a professional single or couple or retirees.

Also as someone who has lived in a condo with a child I can tell you that it can work but it would be better in a community that was really geared toward families. It's hard living somewhere with and active kid when your neighbors expect essentially total silence at all times.

Same person as before that sent you the condo link. Yes, I agree with you on this that condos are not very family friendly and it's beneficial for kids to have a yard to play in. I just don't agree that the solution is to build a bunch a "high density housing" and eliminate single family zoning. The better solution is to create starter home single family neighborhoods in the suburbs that will be relatively more affordable with 5,000-10,000 sq ft lots. Townhouses can be good options for families too, but housing that is higher density than around 8 units per acre should be close to transit and employment centers to prevent traffic congestion.

A condo is a perfectly acceptable place to live for a family. You don't need a yard. There are parks. You can walk there or drive there. Sure, your neighbors might be annoyed when your kid is crying or running around but they can deal with it. And you can have a condo in the suburbs. You are packing more people into a smaller space. And then have one parking area for all the cars. Why does every family need their own SFH, 2 car garage, front street parking, a yard, and a backyard? Give people options.

Don't ruin the suburbs with your Density Bro condos for childless people. We don't need those here. Build them in DC or somewhere that actually wants them.

[Anonymous]

Condos would be more family friendly if they built them family size. Instead 2BR is like the biggest you will ever see. Actual space in a condo that had more rooms and space to spread out would make them a more viable solution for families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

You are living in fantasy land. It's not even possible to build a new house that is 1600 sq feet for under 500k anymore in an area like DC. Even if the land were free you would not be able to find someone to build you a house for this price, (including site prep). Also, the median household income in the DC metro area is high enough to afford something that cost 500-600k, so it is not realistic to make a below average income for this area and expect to be able to afford to live in a the best school district.

Right which is why we need to build more high density housing that makes a home of that size actually affordable. If builders aren't going to produce smaller starter homes as SFHs then we need more townhomes and condos that families can afford.

Because guess what -- "median household income" means that a huge number of people in this area make less than that. So if the only housing available to families in the area costs more than they can afford then you have a housing problem. And if you tell all those people to go move somewhere cheaper then who will you get to do all the many many jobs that pay below the median for the area.

It kind of sounds like you are the one who is living in a fantasyland. Also the prior post was a direct response to someone saying "well the problem is that everyone wants a giant new build with huge closets and luxury finishes" and here is someone saying "actually no I just want a starter home I can actually afford the mortgage on with my actual salary" and your respones is "well that's a fantasy you can't have that." Right. That's precisely the issue -- people can't even afford run down smaller older houses. So where do you propose they live.

Here is some "high density" housing you can afford in an area with "at least OK" schools. https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876
https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876

This is the same condo listed twice.

This is a 2 bedroom garden-level condo with no outdoor space (not even communal outdoor space) and a $538 per month condo fee. This could work for the right family (one kid or just very young kids or a single parent or two parents but neither works from home etc) but this is not what people mean when they say they are looking for family housing -- this unit is best suited for a professional single or couple or retirees.

Also as someone who has lived in a condo with a child I can tell you that it can work but it would be better in a community that was really geared toward families. It's hard living somewhere with and active kid when your neighbors expect essentially total silence at all times.

Same person as before that sent you the condo link. Yes, I agree with you on this that condos are not very family friendly and it's beneficial for kids to have a yard to play in. I just don't agree that the solution is to build a bunch a "high density housing" and eliminate single family zoning. The better solution is to create starter home single family neighborhoods in the suburbs that will be relatively more affordable with 5,000-10,000 sq ft lots. Townhouses can be good options for families too, but housing that is higher density than around 8 units per acre should be close to transit and employment centers to prevent traffic congestion.

A condo is a perfectly acceptable place to live for a family. You don't need a yard. There are parks. You can walk there or drive there. Sure, your neighbors might be annoyed when your kid is crying or running around but they can deal with it. And you can have a condo in the suburbs. You are packing more people into a smaller space. And then have one parking area for all the cars. Why does every family need their own SFH, 2 car garage, front street parking, a yard, and a backyard? Give people options.

People do have options, but you can’t force people to want what they don’t want and building more of what exists isn’t going to magically make people want it. People who like Arlington like that it’s a mix between city and suburb, that you can have a SFH so close in to transit and amenities. If you eliminate the SFHs, you take away the thing that people like about it that makes it unique and desirable. At that point, why would you want to live in a condo here vs. a condo in the city itself? Doesn’t make a lot of sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

You are living in fantasy land. It's not even possible to build a new house that is 1600 sq feet for under 500k anymore in an area like DC. Even if the land were free you would not be able to find someone to build you a house for this price, (including site prep). Also, the median household income in the DC metro area is high enough to afford something that cost 500-600k, so it is not realistic to make a below average income for this area and expect to be able to afford to live in a the best school district.

Right which is why we need to build more high density housing that makes a home of that size actually affordable. If builders aren't going to produce smaller starter homes as SFHs then we need more townhomes and condos that families can afford.

Because guess what -- "median household income" means that a huge number of people in this area make less than that. So if the only housing available to families in the area costs more than they can afford then you have a housing problem. And if you tell all those people to go move somewhere cheaper then who will you get to do all the many many jobs that pay below the median for the area.

It kind of sounds like you are the one who is living in a fantasyland. Also the prior post was a direct response to someone saying "well the problem is that everyone wants a giant new build with huge closets and luxury finishes" and here is someone saying "actually no I just want a starter home I can actually afford the mortgage on with my actual salary" and your respones is "well that's a fantasy you can't have that." Right. That's precisely the issue -- people can't even afford run down smaller older houses. So where do you propose they live.

Here is some "high density" housing you can afford in an area with "at least OK" schools. https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876
https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876

This is the same condo listed twice.

This is a 2 bedroom garden-level condo with no outdoor space (not even communal outdoor space) and a $538 per month condo fee. This could work for the right family (one kid or just very young kids or a single parent or two parents but neither works from home etc) but this is not what people mean when they say they are looking for family housing -- this unit is best suited for a professional single or couple or retirees.

Also as someone who has lived in a condo with a child I can tell you that it can work but it would be better in a community that was really geared toward families. It's hard living somewhere with and active kid when your neighbors expect essentially total silence at all times.

Same person as before that sent you the condo link. Yes, I agree with you on this that condos are not very family friendly and it's beneficial for kids to have a yard to play in. I just don't agree that the solution is to build a bunch a "high density housing" and eliminate single family zoning. The better solution is to create starter home single family neighborhoods in the suburbs that will be relatively more affordable with 5,000-10,000 sq ft lots. Townhouses can be good options for families too, but housing that is higher density than around 8 units per acre should be close to transit and employment centers to prevent traffic congestion.

A condo is a perfectly acceptable place to live for a family. You don't need a yard. There are parks. You can walk there or drive there. Sure, your neighbors might be annoyed when your kid is crying or running around but they can deal with it. And you can have a condo in the suburbs. You are packing more people into a smaller space. And then have one parking area for all the cars. Why does every family need their own SFH, 2 car garage, front street parking, a yard, and a backyard? Give people options.

As you’re posting this there’s someone on a neighborhood forum lamenting that they’re coming stateside for a duty station and being downsized from a 5bdrm to 2, and are looking for a second entire condo to have enough space to live/work from home. They’re a family of 3.

People don’t want what you want them to want.

[Anonymous]

There is plenty of evidence to support a thesis that this “crisis” is artificial and we actually have a lot more housing units than you would think and in the future, the proportion of housing units to working age people will start going higher and higher due to declining birth rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of affordable areas of the country to live.

And jobs?

Rural areas and small towns are desperate for family practice physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals. There's also a big need for skilled tradespeople, mechanics, machinists, etc.

Rural areas and towns are closing their hospitals, and the local doctors and nurses don't make much money if they are just a country doctor (with no hospital).

Why do you think they are desperate? If it was lucrative you would be able to find people willing to relocate.

In terms of skilled tradespeople...where? The oil fields of ND need those people as example, but they have a massive housing affordability crisis.

Yes. I have a family member who became a nurse at a rural hospital in part because the local nursing school offered a bunch of incentives including tuition reimbursement if you worked at the hospital for a certain number of years after getting your degree.

Turns out it is actually hard to make more than poverty wages at times because of how the hospital staffs. It's common for her to have 4 scheduled shifts in a week but be "called off" of two of them because they will adjust their staffing last based on bed occupancy numbers. Her income is extremely variable and it's been hard to figure out housing even though though in theory housing is very cheap there because some months she barely makes enough to pay for food and gas. Her goal was to be able to buy a house there after a few years in this job but she's struggled to save. It's not as steady as she thought it would be and I think it won't get steady until she has at least 5-7 years of experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is plenty of evidence to support a thesis that this “crisis” is artificial and we actually have a lot more housing units than you would think and in the future, the proportion of housing units to working age people will start going higher and higher due to declining birth rates.

Wow, great! Problem solved. Links please?