Housing is the new source of inequality

[Anonymous]

Both things are true: home ownership has long been a huge driver of inequality (and is a significant factor in the difference in net worth/generational wealth between Black and white people, for example) AND the trends OP references are getting worse and driving even greater disparities in income, quality of life, etc.

The idea that everyone can just go buy a house in a lower COL area ignores the history (and present) of systemic racism that makes getting a mortgage, for example, impossible for many people—which means that those same people have not had the decades to build up the kind of wealth that facilitated home-buying for many of us (and that so many of us take for granted). It also ignores the fact that healthy societies do not have huge stratifications in wealth.

[Anonymous]

Homes are definitely affordable. Maybe in Woodbridge or Stafford. But they’re affordable. You’re just picky

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You sound so ridiculous OP. Read a history book. Housing has been a source of inequality (for more reasons than financial) for 100 years.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

+1000

DH and I lived in a condo for 6 years. We lived off one salary and worked 2 jobs until first child born. We put most our savings into a home after 5 years. We did not have things others find necessary- gym membership, two cars, home phone, cable, eating out, etc.

Granted, we had good professional jobs but we wanted a nice home in a nice neighborhood when our kids went to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Homes are definitely affordable. Maybe in Woodbridge or Stafford. But they’re affordable. You’re just picky

They're not, though. I live all the way up in Frederick, in a tiny rowhouse that we're sinking tons of money and time into fixing up, and if I were buying now, between interest rates and price increases, my monthly payment would likely double (or close to it). At these rates, lots of middle class families cant afford the "affordable" homes you're talking about. And I bought TWO YEARS AGO; if I'd been able to buy two years earlier I'm positive I'd be in an SFH.

I really think we're in for either a price correction, or increasing domination of the housing market by big companies that rent out homes that would have been owner-occupied 10 years earlier. I hope it's the first, even though it would make my own property values go down, because the second is grim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1000

DH and I lived in a condo for 6 years. We lived off one salary and worked 2 jobs until first child born. We put most our savings into a home after 5 years. We did not have things others find necessary- gym membership, two cars, home phone, cable, eating out, etc.

Granted, we had good professional jobs but we wanted a nice home in a nice neighborhood when our kids went to school.

This is a red herring. Other people who didn't pay for gym memberships weren't able to buy a condo in an expensive area to get on the property ladder for a wide variety of reasons. They weren't just irresponsible big spenders. I hate this "we were virtuous, why can't everyone else be too?"

[Anonymous]

No one anywhere needs to be virtuous. No one anywhere needs to own a house. Everyone can have their own priorities in spending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you're older and bought a SFH decades ago, you're in good shape. If you're younger and bought a home that you could reasonably afford before interest rates started to climb, you're also in good shape. If these homeowners ever want to move, fewer of them will sell given how low mortgage rates are for them. They will just rent out their homes to us. For us renters, we're really struggling. If interest rates do keep rising, unemployment rates continue to rise, and effectively we're in a recession next year, then I suspect that housing will become the key source of the haves/haves nots. It's always been like this, I know, but it's going to become so, so much more pronounced. If you own a home these days, you are in a whole different social class than renters - especially in high COL areas like DC. End rant.

Ha, people were saying the same thing in 2006. It’s a new paradigm! Buy now or be priced out forever!

There will be a reversion to the mean. Even JPowell has called out then housing market from being unhinged from fundamentals (aka a bubble). And they are deliberately popping it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1000

DH and I lived in a condo for 6 years. We lived off one salary and worked 2 jobs until first child born. We put most our savings into a home after 5 years. We did not have things others find necessary- gym membership, two cars, home phone, cable, eating out, etc.

Granted, we had good professional jobs but we wanted a nice home in a nice neighborhood when our kids went to school.

This is a red herring. Other people who didn't pay for gym memberships weren't able to buy a condo in an expensive area to get on the property ladder for a wide variety of reasons. They weren't just irresponsible big spenders. I hate this "we were virtuous, why can't everyone else be too?"

+1 especially when they did that 10 years ago when affordability was much more closely tied to income. For those in their 20s just starting to work and those in their 30s paying down college loans and saving for a down payment, their worse financial mistake was being born too late. Some people really do live in a bubble.

[Anonymous]

There is still affordable housing, like what we live in but its jus not where you want to live and the size house you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is still affordable housing, like what we live in but its jus not where you want to live and the size house you want.

Who is “you?” It might be affordable for someone living in Bethesda to buy in Bowie, but Bowie is now too expensive for people who used to be able to afford Bowie, so they have to move to Anacostia, which is now too expensive for people used to be able to afford Anacostia etc. You understand there are very, very many people who can’t afford a house at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Homes are definitely affordable. Maybe in Woodbridge or Stafford. But they’re affordable. You’re just picky

They're not, though. I live all the way up in Frederick, in a tiny rowhouse that we're sinking tons of money and time into fixing up, and if I were buying now, between interest rates and price increases, my monthly payment would likely double (or close to it). At these rates, lots of middle class families cant afford the "affordable" homes you're talking about. And I bought TWO YEARS AGO; if I'd been able to buy two years earlier I'm positive I'd be in an SFH.

I really think we're in for either a price correction, or increasing domination of the housing market by big companies that rent out homes that would have been owner-occupied 10 years earlier. I hope it's the first, even though it would make my own property values go down, because the second is grim.

Again, they are. You’re just picky. There are homes in Stafford or Woodbridge that are very affordable. People want a big nice turnkey house with a 40k salary with 60k in debt. Nobody told you to get into debt. That was your choice. Period.

I don’t feel bad for people who say they “can’t”. You can. But you should’ve been preparing and not just expecting nice things to fall into your lap, or you won’t go farther out where you can afford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is still affordable housing, like what we live in but its jus not where you want to live and the size house you want.

Exactly. I didn’t get the house I imagined getting 10 years ago. But I worked for what I have to be happy for what I have.

[Anonymous]

This entire thread is a demonstration of this Atlantic piece about how people remain woefully in denial of the housing shortage in this country: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-housing-supply-shortage-crisis-2022/672240/

New housing starts are not keeping up with population growth: https://usafacts.org/articles/population-growth-has-outpaced-home-construction-for-20-years/

There genuinely is less housing per capita than there used to be. Virtue-signaling doesn't change reality. It's harder to afford a home today than it used to be. I have no dog in this fight, as I'm well off and actually bought below our means during the previous downturn. But I'd simply be an a-hole if I sat around asking why others aren't as thrifty as me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is a demonstration of this Atlantic piece about how people remain woefully in denial of the housing shortage in this country: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-housing-supply-shortage-crisis-2022/672240/

New housing starts are not keeping up with population growth: https://usafacts.org/articles/population-growth-has-outpaced-home-construction-for-20-years/

There genuinely is less housing per capita than there used to be. Virtue-signaling doesn't change reality. It's harder to afford a home today than it used to be. I have no dog in this fight, as I'm well off and actually bought below our means during the previous downturn. But I'd simply be an a-hole if I sat around asking why others aren't as thrifty as me.

Ha, NO. There was no housing shortage before the pandemic. Do you really think millions of houses all across America fell off a cliff in the summer 2020. This NAR prosecuted myth has been disproven countless times.