No, unless we separate housing from investment, it will never be affordable. I don't foresee the political will to make it happen.
Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
This is the biggest issue right here. Houses weren't always investments and making them investments was a terrible idea that's now difficult to fix.
Real estate has become a huge part of stock market and GDP figures. People's retirement funds have become other people's mortgage and rent payments. Affordable houses for some would mean economic decline for others, and no political party wants to create economic decline.
Maybe, but really the issue is construction of new houses. Cities are much cleaner now so people want to live in them. They used to be filled with factory smoke and animal feces.
Yes, more than now. No I don't care that you saw some poop yesterday. The streets were literally caked with horse poop. You wouldn't even notice dog poop.
And most jobs used to be physical, so the average person would have some experience in carpentry. If houses were too expensive, you would find a friend or relative with some expertise and build something yourself. So houses outside the city were cheap because you could build new ones, and houses inside the city sucked (and were cheap).
"no political party wants to create economic decline."
I'm afraid I have to disagree.
Still trying to understand how everything has to be crushed under capitalism. Food. Health care. Housing. Travel. It all there to spin up cash.
Can’t wait till they figure out how to monetize air 🫠
Can’t wait till they figure out how to monetize air
Saw this at a Walgreens last week.
These are really popular with people traveling to Colorado ski resorts and getting altitude sickness. They’re useful to grab to avoid getting sick and combating the symptoms if you do.
In the healthcare space they already have. If the wild fires keep up, it won't be long before we have a Spaceballs or Lorax mogul in our midst.
No. As the effects of climate change become worse, people will migrate to cooler places, which will only push up prices in those places. Poor people will be left to live in uninhabitable and uninsurable areas, while the rich will get to live in comfort.
Climate change is essentially a class struggle, like everything else in life. As long as the 1% don’t have to suffer, nothing will be done. To get the rich to do something about climate change, it will have to affect them directly.
No. Expensive housing is a genie in a bottle.
Once sufficient people have purchased a house at the high price, it would be in their interest for prices to remain high. Corporate entities that buy up houses will actively lobby to make sure housing prices stay high, and the average Joe who paid that much for a house will be happy it stays that way.
I'm not so sure. Large lobbies have greater economic power than us average people, but they aren't strong enough to defy macroeconomic trends. There are many factors that could turn and cause prices to collapse, we just don't know when or if they will occur.
The only factors that can cause the collapse of a captured market are regulation, total market collapse, or revolution.
I think were closer to seeing people be forced to rent every comoddity they need to live than we are to seeing full home ownership.
I bought an apartment about 15 years ago. I finally finished paying it about 3 years ago, and recently got an offer to move to Ontario. With the current house prices and what I was offered there (about 80k), I could barely make rent for my family. I really wanted to move but had to say no because of stupid absurd rent prices. What’s weird is that if I wanted to rent the place I bought I would not be able to afford it either. This is bullshit.
This is kind of just something that krept into my mind but I think with a slowing birthrate that we may just end up with too many homes at some point in the next 25 years.
With climate change many if the existing homes will be in uninhabitable areas.
If you’re talking about the US, the slowing birthrate is compensated for by immigration. This is what drives immigration policy and why the US hasn’t fallen into the same demographic slump as Japan has, and China soon will.
Add to this that much of the tight housing market is driven by people around the world investing in US real estate. Some estimates are as high as 30% of homes sitting empty, held by foreign investors, just appreciating.
Between these two things, we are extremely far from being able to visualize too much housing. I hope we get there, though. Because it would fix the high pricing and allow us to demolish some of the oldest, shittiest housing which is only still around because the market is so nuts.
The solution is simple, but will never happen. Make it illegal to own a home you don't live in.
There are 2 big obstacles we need to overcome. The first is corporate ownership of residential property. This needs to go away.
The second big issue, we need to build higher density housing, and get rid of the enormous parking spaces that take up our downtowns. Not everyone needs a house. And you can absolutely build medium density housing that doesn't feel cramped. Sure, living in an apartment is not perfect, but you are closer to the places you want to go, and public transportation is more feasible. It's a win-win for everyone.
The problem is not affordable housing, there's plenty of that in the US, the problem is getting people to states where housing is affordable without significant drops in quality of life due to lack of access to services and such.
Like, you could buy land in Detroit for the price of a decent car, put a trailer on it and you're already on the property ladder, but you're in Detroit.
This sounds great, but when people start moving, pricing goes up. There's too much investing and too little self-ownership of housing.
I suspect that a strong push for fully remote work would help the US with housing costs due to a chunk of the workforce moving out of the cities and into the boonies.
No, at least not in countries (e.g., the USA) that rely on the state to micromanage every aspect of zoning, and which therefore allow NIMBYs to derail progress at every possible step.
In a better world we would draft new laws to throw out our entire zoning system, and start over with something much more flexible at the state or national level- ideally based on the approach Japan uses, which defaults to mixed-use for every building and makes NIMBYism structurally impossible.
No.
I never wanted to be a homeowner personally, but earlier this year I noticed that four AirBNB's had materialized just on my little block in America, so I bought a condo. I paid $40,000 more than it cost ten years ago, but it's beautiful, I like it, and it gives me the ability to stay where I want to long-term, so here we are.
The Federal Government is not going to act on the forced scarcity of housing, so expect the issue to be handled similar to the way states handled COVID. Some states had good policies. Most had shitty policies, but overall, the outcomes were negative to some degree, and that's almost certainly what will occur with housing over time.
To be honest, I never saw myself buying anything. But when rents were raised a whipping $500-600 in a single year in my area, I got concerned for the future. I bought a small condo that I could afford (still at a cost far above what it was worth pre-2020...around $40k like yours) because I was terrified at what would happen if rents continued to skyrocket at suck a rapid trend. Never in my life have I seen that happen before.
Idk if I made a good financial decision or not, but it seems both of us took a similar path). We'll see what the future holds.
Sadly, the only way to essentially secure/stabilize your housing costs (with the exception of taxes) is by buying your home. Then with equity, assuming relatively similar markets, it allows you to move from one place to another regardless of land price increases.
Renting doesn't really make financial sense because you'll just get squeezed harder and harder by owners forever.
Only if capitalism falls. Otherwise zero chance. Sry.
Well, birth rate is steadily dropping. As people die the housing market could change. There are free houses in rural Japan because their population has been declining and young folks all moved to the cities. In 30-50 years we could see something similar.
Not until people get off their asses and show the 1% they have no real power. In order to make an omelet, you need to break some eggs. It is long past time to crack some shells.
The only way that the 1% lose their power is if the rest of us unanimously decide they no longer have power. Which is why there is so much effort put into preventing any kind of agreement.
After the climate mass deaths, migrations and/or wars, there should be plenty of land.
Although it might not be habitable.
I mean I do kind of expect the world to completely collapse within 20 years, so kinda?
A cave or a half-destroyed building in an overgrown city are free right? Doesn’t get cheaper than that.
I'm just hoping I can find a decent job before I die. I'm on a string of progressively worse and worse jobs that are driving me to the brink.
It's just gonna get worse until everything crashes completely in a way that nobody will own anything they can't carry on their back.
We're starting to see prices decrease right now, since high interest rates are holding. The big analytics firms think we will see a return to affordable housing in 2024 as long as the fed continues to raise interest rates. The reality for larger cities is that prices will most likely stabilize and possibly decrease slightly, but never return to reasonable. Lots of people are in 2% mortgages right now on homes with inflated values. Those people are never moving unless life forces them to. So while rising interest should decrease housing affordability and force prices back down, inventory will remain low, keeping prices pretty stable. Areas with abundant inventory should see a return to normalcy, but for big popular cities, this is probably the new normal. Unfortunately nobody has a crystal ball, and we can't be sure of anything. But this is what the experts think.
All of my friends joke about going in together on buying some property and starting a commune. It’s a passing joke but in the back of our minds I think we’re all seriously considering it. Logistics is the only reason it hasn’t already happened
Not until people quit buying them. And it's not sarcasm or trolling or whatever. There are tons of cheap housing, but it's in places people don't WANT to live. Until people start wanting cheap housing more than a certain location/ job, prices won't come down.
It's not even the "location," it's the people that come with the location. If I could live in a rural area ANYWHERE in the US without having to look at Confederate flags or deal with out and proud bigots, it would be amazing. But that's not the country we've let happen.
In Australia, they are bringing in a shared equity program that has given me hope. Roll on 2024...
I believe there are, and will be. Over 20 years ago, I moved to Dallas, TX area for the same reasons - to get away from unaffordable housing in the west and east coast. At the time, I found Dallas to have a good housing price to income ratio.
But in doing so (moving to Dallas), I may have also potentially taken a big (lifetime) pay cut. I graduated from a top ComSci school, but in moving to Dallas, I put myself outside of the market of the emerging FAANG companies in the west coast.
I think now there are still medium size cities where you may find a good balance of cost to value and quality of life. It really depends on your career goals and life goals. There's always a trade off. I believe right now, the midwest is a good value, if you can stand the winters there :)
Yes. Housing prices have always crashed about once a decade, ore or less. Also prices tend to plateau for 10-15 years until Incomes catch up. I don’t see why this won’t continue to happen
The only difference is this time we have clear lack of supply, along with impediments to building more housing in places people want to live. There’s a profit incentive to building more and I wouldn’t bet against overcoming those obstacles. Money always wins