Should current homeowners wish for home values to decline?

[Anonymous]

This. I'm sorry that your priorities and expenses now are not the same as mine were when I was your age, but your salary is also significantly higher than mine was when I was your age and the cost of everything has gone up for me, too. Do what the rest of us did and start small and crappy, then work your way up.


Aaaaand this. Boomers who just do not get it. The small and crappy home that you bought back then is now a $1M home. Salaries have gone up but so have expenses - and housing has gone up significantly more. Of course, the answer is go even smaller and go even crappier. And take a 2+ hour commute on top of that.

And it's not crappy anymore because we fixed it up. And if it is crappy you should get a discount on the price. We live in Springfield. It is maybe an hour into DC, but we know people who do it in 30-45 minutes. Depends on where in DC. We have metro service here. You can get a relatively nice home for 600K. Of course you may think it's crappy because it's a townhome. But we are boomers who lived in a townhome out here for 10 years before we could upgrade to a 60 year old single house. That said, we are in a good school zone there are plenty of things for kids to do here.

But you probably don't want to live in the "awful" suburbs and you want to be able to walk to the coffee shop and have a 10 minute commute. Good luck. We were not ever able to do that. We get it. Come out here and look around. There is one in our neighborhood of single family houses that is all brick, in good shape, and they want 700K. Nice yard. But you might have to fix something. Houses are things that constantly need fixing. But often you can live in them. It's amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

There is no “housing crisis” in the vast majority of areas in the US. This is largely a propaganda campaign by developers to justify eliminating local control over zoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

There is no “housing crisis” in the vast majority of areas in the US. This is largely a propaganda campaign by developers to justify eliminating local control over zoning.

Most people don't live in the vast majority areas of the US. Jobs and economic centers are not evenly distributed. Cities are hubs for a reason.

[Anonymous]

There really isn't a crisis. Its just people unhappy about not being able to afford the best neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

It’s soace, location and condition of the home that matter. You can generally only get all 3 in the DMV or similar areas if you have a seven figure income or generational wealth. If you make $250K+ you may only need to compromise on one of the 3. The trick when you make less than that is figuring out how to only compromise on 2.

In less desirable metros these kinds of compromises are the necessary for gainfully employed professionals So it just doesn’t seem fair sometimes. But it’s how it is.

[Anonymous]

When Trump fires Powell rates will go back down to where they should be and things will be righted with home appreciation and affordability

[Anonymous]

According to Redfin, homes that went under contract in March spent an average of 47 days on the market…longest period for any March since 2019

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When Trump fires Powell rates will go back down to where they should be and things will be righted with home appreciation and affordability

Hahaha

Hope you enjoy sky high inflation!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When Trump fires Powell rates will go back down to where they should be and things will be righted with home appreciation and affordability

Mortgage rates are tied to the 10-year treasury. Right now, the 10-year treasury is fairly disconnected from the benchmark rate (which is used for paying interest on bank accounts and prime rate loans).

If Trump fires Powell, the 10-year treasury will surge and mortgage rates will surge higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This. I'm sorry that your priorities and expenses now are not the same as mine were when I was your age, but your salary is also significantly higher than mine was when I was your age and the cost of everything has gone up for me, too. Do what the rest of us did and start small and crappy, then work your way up.


Aaaaand this. Boomers who just do not get it. The small and crappy home that you bought back then is now a $1M home. Salaries have gone up but so have expenses - and housing has gone up significantly more. Of course, the answer is go even smaller and go even crappier. And take a 2+ hour commute on top of that.

And it's not crappy anymore because we fixed it up. And if it is crappy you should get a discount on the price. We live in Springfield. It is maybe an hour into DC, but we know people who do it in 30-45 minutes. Depends on where in DC. We have metro service here. You can get a relatively nice home for 600K. Of course you may think it's crappy because it's a townhome. But we are boomers who lived in a townhome out here for 10 years before we could upgrade to a 60 year old single house. That said, we are in a good school zone there are plenty of things for kids to do here.

But you probably don't want to live in the "awful" suburbs and you want to be able to walk to the coffee shop and have a 10 minute commute. Good luck. We were not ever able to do that. We get it. Come out here and look around. There is one in our neighborhood of single family houses that is all brick, in good shape, and they want 700K. Nice yard. But you might have to fix something. Houses are things that constantly need fixing. But often you can live in them. It's amazing.

Maybe you fixed up your house, but the vast majority of Boomer houses hitting the market in my neck of the woods have not kept up with maintenance. It's almost a joke at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should current homeowners wish for home values to decline?

Hones are simply overvalued. Some argue simply and demand I don't know maybe but in many parts of the country homes are simply overvalued.

Historically, troubles in our economy can always be traced somehow to real.estate.

So many people are now priced out because home values just can't stop increasing.

I think the fact that so many people in this country have a sizeable portion of their wealth in real.estate, and the government staring at unsustainable debt, policymakers sure do want home values going up to "mask" households dependence on real estate

Look at who is invested in and controls corporations such as Blackrock, Vanguard, etc. Much foreign influence in the housing market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

There is no “housing crisis” in the vast majority of areas in the US. This is largely a propaganda campaign by developers to justify eliminating local control over zoning.

Zoning, zoning. This isn't some magic panacea for many reasons. Increasing density isn't going to make single family homes more affordable. In some cases it will make them even less affordable if located in the areas where density is increasing all around but cannot be built in their community due to terrain issues, infrastructure issues, etc. Also when people complain about unaffordable housing and prices they complain about SFH prices primarily, because this is the type of housing majority seems to want to buy. People who love urban living have a lot of condos and TH options to choose which are usually already more abundant. There is no shortage of condos in DC metro. There is no shortage of suburban sprawl homes either. Houses that are expensive and desirable are located in central areas near amenities, transit, jobs, etc, have low crime and nice surroundings. There will always be shortage of this unless population dramatically declines because it's what everyone wants. You cannot make more of it short of building new towns with all these amenities, jobs, transit, etc. You cannot build more quaint residential areas with attractive homes, mature foliage by re-zoning and increasing density, because people will still pay premium for these SFHs, and if they become even more rare due to lots getting zoned for small apartment buildings then their prices will rise even more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

There is no “housing crisis” in the vast majority of areas in the US. This is largely a propaganda campaign by developers to justify eliminating local control over zoning.

Zoning, zoning. This isn't some magic panacea for many reasons. Increasing density isn't going to make single family homes more affordable. In some cases it will make them even less affordable if located in the areas where density is increasing all around but cannot be built in their community due to terrain issues, infrastructure issues, etc. Also when people complain about unaffordable housing and prices they complain about SFH prices primarily, because this is the type of housing majority seems to want to buy. People who love urban living have a lot of condos and TH options to choose which are usually already more abundant. There is no shortage of condos in DC metro. There is no shortage of suburban sprawl homes either. Houses that are expensive and desirable are located in central areas near amenities, transit, jobs, etc, have low crime and nice surroundings. There will always be shortage of this unless population dramatically declines because it's what everyone wants. You cannot make more of it short of building new towns with all these amenities, jobs, transit, etc. You cannot build more quaint residential areas with attractive homes, mature foliage by re-zoning and increasing density, because people will still pay premium for these SFHs, and if they become even more rare due to lots getting zoned for small apartment buildings then their prices will rise even more.

So your solution is do nothing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

Agree with all of this. I'm also sick of hearing people whining about boomers not gifting them a renovated house for far below market value. I'm sick of the boomer-blaming ageism in general (and no, I'm not a boomer).

I don't blame the boomers for selling their homes for top dollar. They only need one buyer to pay that price, and unfortunately due to the lack of inventory, there is a buyer out there. But I do blame the boomers who vote against building new housing because it might affect their home price or boomers who request tax breaks to stay in their homes. Not every boomer is like this, but a lot are!

99% of them are like that lol. Their own kids are priced out in the neighborhood they grew up in. I think part of it is that the retired boomers are just bored to be honest. A lot of them have less than 15 years to live and yet they worry about what their neighborhood will look like in 30 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

There is no “housing crisis” in the vast majority of areas in the US. This is largely a propaganda campaign by developers to justify eliminating local control over zoning.

Zoning, zoning. This isn't some magic panacea for many reasons. Increasing density isn't going to make single family homes more affordable. In some cases it will make them even less affordable if located in the areas where density is increasing all around but cannot be built in their community due to terrain issues, infrastructure issues, etc. Also when people complain about unaffordable housing and prices they complain about SFH prices primarily, because this is the type of housing majority seems to want to buy. People who love urban living have a lot of condos and TH options to choose which are usually already more abundant. There is no shortage of condos in DC metro. There is no shortage of suburban sprawl homes either. Houses that are expensive and desirable are located in central areas near amenities, transit, jobs, etc, have low crime and nice surroundings. There will always be shortage of this unless population dramatically declines because it's what everyone wants. You cannot make more of it short of building new towns with all these amenities, jobs, transit, etc. You cannot build more quaint residential areas with attractive homes, mature foliage by re-zoning and increasing density, because people will still pay premium for these SFHs, and if they become even more rare due to lots getting zoned for small apartment buildings then their prices will rise even more.

So your solution is do nothing?

The solution is let actual residents of the communities decide for themselves what they want to do for zoning. They are the people most directly impacted by development decisions. Don’t let large companies and private equity funds lobby the state and federal to override local zoning rules for communities that these (elite) people who profit from destroying neighborhoods don’t event live in.