U.S. Housing Prices Explosion Making Repatriation a Less Realistic Option for Many?

[newnative]

26 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

https://www.probuilder.com/demand-mcmansions-decline

 

Demand For McMansions On The Decline

 

Despite the derisive name, McMansions were hot property a decade or so ago. Now, they are on their way out.

Business Insider, citing data from Trulia, reports that the premiums paid for McMansions (defined as mass-produced suburban homes that measure between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet) have declined in 85 of the 100 biggest U.S. cities.

 

        A rather misleading Trulia article to quote as it is only looking at home values, not whether McMansions are still being built. Trulia also says that 43% of American adults would like to live in a larger home than their current home.  The article also says this:

 

Is this proof that McMansions are dying out? Not so much. While some homebuyers may certainly view them as an ugly, outdated relic of the housing bubble, there’s likely more fundamental factors at play. First, prices of the smaller and cheaper non-McMansion homes dropped more during the housing bust, but have made a stronger recovery than McMansions since market bottom. Second, homebuyers are willing to pay about 20% more for a new home compared to a used one, so at least some of the drop in these markets may due to the fact that these McMansions have lost their new newness.

 

     The average size of American homes continued to get bigger until it peaked in 2015 at around 2400 sq.ft., then declining slightly to around 2200 sq.ft. in 2020.  According to an executive with home builder Toll Brothers, there is still a market for McMansion-size homes in the 3000 to 5000 sq.ft. range.   Their most popular model is 4,771 sq.ft.  I suspect with covid and more people working from home and spending more time at home there will remain a market for larger homes.

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Not sure about hedge funds specifically but you're spot on about the destructive phenom of firms buying up massive inventories of regular homes to milk rental yields. 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/02/business/family-homes-wall-street/index.html

 

Certain markets are especially impacted by these mass buying companies. Such as Charlotte and Atlanta.

So we're pushing individuals out of the landlord business, and we're surprised/dismayed when corporations start taking over. 

 

 

[Jingthing]

The problem with huge companies buying huge inventories of single family homes by high bidding is that inflates the prices even more for sales and rentals and squeezes out opportunities for more lower end buyers.

Housing even further into the territory of investment vehicle and further away from basic human need.

 

For anyone that cares about increasing the supply of AFFORDABLE HOUSING this is clearly a destructive trend.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Jingthing

[Yellowtail]

17 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The problem with huge companies buying huge inventories of single family homes by high bidding is that inflates the prices even more for sales and rentals and squeezes out opportunities for more lower end buyers.

Housing even further into the territory of investment vehicle and further away from basic human need.

 

For anyone that cares about increasing the supply of AFFORDABLE HOUSING this is clearly destructive trend.

So you're happy that homeowners that want to move get less for their investment than they otherwise would? 

 

I think one could argue that corporations buying homes up and converting them to rentals would drive up the cost of buying homes, but would likely drive down the cost of rentals. 

 

But again, regulations are changing such that it is more and more difficult for small investors to own rental properties, and easy and easier for larger corporations. 

[EVENKEEL]

After 2008 i bid on a few houses and each time guys were offering 30K over asking. One I went 10K over asking and still didn't get it. Then you had the Zillow people buying up cheap houses. Not a week goes by I don't get phone calls from businesses trying to buy my houses, dirt cheap of course.

[Longwood50]

On 2/22/2022 at 1:29 PM, Yellowtail said:

You've started a topic about rising real estate costs, yet you don't want to discuss anything a about it. 

I agree.  It is fine to carp about many things. And liberals tend to carp, not discuss, nor provide solutions. You can complain about  crime, poor education, expensive medical care, income inequality, illegal immigration, etc however unless you are willing to some up with solutions instead of complaints it does little good.  

Life is not fair.  This notion that somehow society should provide all the basic neccessities without effort by those most impacted is just plain socialism.  Housing, food, cars, medical care, clothing may all be expensive.  However the market place dictates the price.  If the price is too high people will not buy it.  If the seller can continue to sell it at that price, it is a fair price.  

The problem is not that housing is "too expensive" it is that people don't earn enough to afford the home.  So instead of attacking the symptom attack the problem.  People don't earn enough money.  How do you rectify that situation.  Train them to fill jobs that  pay more.  Don't epect that somehow the marketplace will lower the price of homes to the point that the $15 per hour minimum wage worker at Walmart can afford the 3 bedroom home in L.A. 

Two final points.  The goverrnment has already been down the road of providing affordable government housing.  That effort failed miserbly.  The housing was anything but affordable to build but was very cheap for the residents.  They treated it comensurate with what they felt the value of it was.  Next to nothing.  A large percentage of those projects were ultimately destroyed because the residents having nothing invested in them treated them accordingly. 
Secondly, I see this continued refrain about how "society" should do something.  How about the consequences for peoples actions.  If the person drops out of school, gets involved with crime and has a prison record, has multiple children that they can't afford, and doesn't hold a job, is society really suppose to provide them with "affordable housing" and shelter them from the consequences of bad decisions. 

 

Edited March 11, 2022 by Longwood50

[sirineou]

22 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

I agree.  It is fine to carp about many things. And liberals tend to carp, not discuss, nor provide solutions.

Then you go on and "carp" about many things, without offering any solutions.???? 

[Yellowtail]

12 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

I agree.  It is fine to carp about many things. And liberals tend to carp, not discuss, nor provide solutions. You can complain about  crime, poor education, expensive medical care, income inequality, illegal immigration, etc however unless you are willing to some up with solutions instead of complaints it does little good.  

Even without solutions, there is something to be gained by considering the positions of other and sussing them out. 

 

12 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Life is not fair. 

But we all think it should be, and unfortunately there is a growing sector of society that thinks it they can make it be fair. 

 

But life can never be fair. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

This notion that somehow society should provide all the basic neccessities without effort by those most impacted is just plain socialism.

But we can always find the sad story of of a few hard-working person that fell through the cracks that we can write about if we go through enough drug attics and criminals. 

 

12 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Housing, food, cars, medical care, clothing may all be expensive.  However the market place dictates the price.

But were that only true. The market does not dictate how many apartments can be built. And the market does not promote cheap money, loan mandates and subsidies. And yes, these thing do (at least in the short-term) help the poor, they do so at the expense of the middle class, and ultimately really only benefit the rich. 

 

12 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

If the price is too high people will not buy it.  If the seller can continue to sell it at that price, it is a fair price.  

The problem is not that housing is "too expensive" it is that people don't earn enough to afford the home.  So instead of attacking the symptom attack the problem.  People don't earn enough money.  How do you rectify that situation.  Train them to fill jobs that  pay more.  Don't epect that somehow the marketplace will lower the price of homes to the point that the $15 per hour minimum wage worker at Walmart can afford the 3 bedroom home in L.A. 

But everyone HAS to go to college, and everyone that "wants a better life" needs to be allow in. 

 

12 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Two final points.  The goverrnment has already been down the road of providing affordable government housing.  That effort failed miserbly.  The housing was anything but affordable to build but was very cheap for the residents.  They treated it comensurate with what they felt the value of it was.  Next to nothing.  A large percentage of those projects were ultimately destroyed because the residents having nothing invested in them treated them accordingly. 
Secondly, I see this continued refrain about how "society" should do something.  How about the consequences for peoples actions.  If the person drops out of school, gets involved with crime and has a prison record, has multiple children that they can't afford, and doesn't hold a job, is society really suppose to provide them with "affordable housing" and shelter them from the consequences of bad decisions. 

To be fair, many of the people in project housing took care of the properties, but many did not, and because no one involved in the managing had any financial interest, nor stood to lose anything, the management was always a big part of the failure. 

 

But THIS time it will be different. THIS time were going spend enough to actually make it work. The only problem is that THIS time, were going to do everything exactly the same way we did it LAST time, the THIS time the results will be different, because THIS time we REALLY, REALLY care, THIS TIME FOR SURE! 

[impulse]

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

After 2008 i bid on a few houses and each time guys were offering 30K over asking. One I went 10K over asking and still didn't get it. Then you had the Zillow people buying up cheap houses. Not a week goes by I don't get phone calls from businesses trying to buy my houses, dirt cheap of course.

Even more insidious was the way the gub'ment sold off the distressed properties in huge lots, preventing the general public from benefitting.  If you didn't have access to millions and millions of dollars, you were locked out of the bidding.

 

Happened during the S&L crisis in the 80's, then again after 2008.  Another huge transfer of wealth upward.

 

I understand the efficiency of selling in large tranches, but that neither benefitted the public's access to affordable homes, nor did it maximize the price they could have gotten selling them one at a time.  It did, I'm sure, maximize donations to election campaigns.

Edited March 11, 2022 by impulse

[Jingthing]

If an average American worker or pensioner in an average American city can't even afford small no frills shelter then obviously housing is too expensive.

 

Since when is BASIC shelter a luxury item only for financial elites?

 

Again looking at some of the countries that are retired expat destinations that some arrogant Americans call sh**hole countries, those countries seem to offer basic housing for regular workers.

 

Sorry but America is definitely NOT numbah one by this metric. In fact its moving rapidly in the wrong direction.

 

[EVENKEEL]

If I was a returning Expat to the US today and I had no house, my income as well as my savings was limited I would travel around to trailer (RV) parks that had low monthly rates and many times in those places you can find trailers for sale pretty cheap like 10K range or locate one elsewhere and have it moved to park. Fairly easy to find a 32ft + trailer in the 10K range.  That's me, off course I'd have a car. Not an ideal situation by any means but could be neat. 

https://officedrift.com/journal/parks-boondocks/rv-parks-with-amenities-under-350-per-month/

[Yellowtail]

21 hours ago, sirineou said:

Then you go on and "carp" about many things, without offering any solutions.

There were a few solutions in there if you weren't so short-sighted.

[Yellowtail]

52 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

If I was a returning Expat to the US today and I had no house, my income as well as my savings was limited I would travel around to trailer (RV) parks that had low monthly rates and many times in those places you can find trailers for sale pretty cheap like 10K range or locate one elsewhere and have it moved to park. Fairly easy to find a 32ft + trailer in the 10K range.  That's me, off course I'd have a car. Not an ideal situation by any means but could be neat. 

https://officedrift.com/journal/parks-boondocks/rv-parks-with-amenities-under-350-per-month/

If I was broke and single I would go back to traveling with a carnival. Good dough, easy living, lot of fun. 

 

 

 

 

[impulse]

57 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

If I was a returning Expat to the US today and I had no house, my income as well as my savings was limited I would travel around to trailer (RV) parks that had low monthly rates and many times in those places you can find trailers for sale pretty cheap like 10K range or locate one elsewhere and have it moved to park. Fairly easy to find a 32ft + trailer in the 10K range.  That's me, off course I'd have a car. Not an ideal situation by any means but could be neat. 

https://officedrift.com/journal/parks-boondocks/rv-parks-with-amenities-under-350-per-month/

Staying in Galveston (Covid refugee), I meet a lot of people like that.  Many sold their homes in favor of the nomad lifestyle.  We also get a lot of transient workers who do refinery turnarounds.  The projects last a year or so, and it's not worth it to buy a house only to sell it in a year.  Some get apartments, some rent houses.  But a lot of them live in an RV, then move it when they get their next project.  And of course, we get a lot of Winter Texans.  Most of them do it because they like it, as opposed to a financial imperative.

 

Sadly, one of the darlings of the get rich seminars is how to buy mobile hole parks and jack up the rents because the tenants can't afford to move their trailers.  It doesn't work as well on RV parks because it's generally cheap to move an RV.  One more example of turning a basic necessity into a financial product.

Edited March 11, 2022 by impulse

[impulse]

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Median household income in the US is almost  $70K a year and average is almost $100K

 

Average household income in California is almost $110K 

Maybe.  But minimum wage in some places is less than $16K a year and millions of Americans have to survive on that, and many even less.  $1400 a month doesn't buy too much "home" after paying for food and health care.

 

Oops. 2000 hours at $7.25 is more than $10K.  My bad.  But that's if they work full time...  Lots of employers don't like to pay full time benefits.

Edited March 11, 2022 by impulse

[Jingthing]

Big

Red

Flag

 

 

[sirineou]

19 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

There were a few solutions in there if you weren't so short-sighted.

What, letting the market place take care of things that conservatives offer?  Is that the market place that would let me fail, unless I was to big to fail? 

and " Train them to fill jobs that  pay more. " isn't that a "liberal" solution that conservatives fight tooth and nail? 

 

[Yellowtail]

8 hours ago, impulse said:

Maybe.  But minimum wage in some places is less than $16K a year and millions of Americans have to survive on that, and many even less.  $1400 a month doesn't buy too much "home" after paying for food and health care.

 

Oops. 2000 hours at $7.25 is more than $10K.  My bad.  But that's if they work full time...  Lots of employers don't like to pay full time benefits.

Your bad indeed. 

 

Low income people get Medical, HUD. SNAP and or WIC 

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

11 hours ago, sirineou said:

What, letting the market place take care of things that conservatives offer?  Is that the market place that would let me fail, unless I was to big to fail? 

No

 

11 hours ago, sirineou said:

and " Train them to fill jobs that  pay more. " isn't that a "liberal" solution

No

 

11 hours ago, sirineou said:

that conservatives fight tooth and nail? 

No

[sirineou]

10 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

" WASHINGTON — The policy debate over raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour is the latest fault line between Democrats, who largely support the idea, and Republicans, who generally oppose such a sharp increase as bad for business."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/us/politics/republicans-minimum-wage.html

 

 

[Jingthing]

Repatriate this?

 

 

[Yellowtail]

10 hours ago, sirineou said:

 

" WASHINGTON — The policy debate over raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour is the latest fault line between Democrats, who largely support the idea, and Republicans, who generally oppose such a sharp increase as bad for business."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/us/politics/republicans-minimum-wage.html

 

 

I said nothing about the minimum wage in that post.

 

So when Target is begging anyone that can fog a mirror to work for $24 an hour to start, the solution to housing prices spiraling out of control is raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour nationwide. That makes perfect sense. Let's import another two million low and no skilled workers that largely illiterate in their native language, that should help drive wages up and property values down. 

[Yellowtail]

 

Since you offer, how is it that raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour is going make housing more affordable in areas like California where the minimum wage is already $15 an hour?

 

Also, when Target is begging anyone that can fog a mirror to work for $24 an hour to start, aside from getting votes, why is it that raising the federal minimum wage to $15 is even an issue? 

 

I think the best solution would be for the the government to just give every household in the Untied States with a combined income of less than $400K a year $1,500 voucher each month to help with their rent/mortgage. 

 

If that does not work, we can just continue importing low and no-skilled workers that are largely illiterate in their native language until housing costs come down, and everyone is paid a living wage.

 

[Longwood50]

22 hours ago, sirineou said:

Then you go on and "carp" about many things, without offering any solutions

No quite the opposite.  I said from the beginning.  "help" those in need.  Not by enabling them to do nothing to resolve their situation but assisting them in acquiring skills that provide higher income.  

That is a "solution" Having the government somehow be responsible for providing subsidized housing only exacerbates the problem. 

[Longwood50]

22 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

22 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Even without solutions, there is something to be gained by considering the positions of other and sussing them out. 

A "discussion" with alternatives is worthwhile.  However just saying " the USA has failed in providing affordable housing is just carping.  If the person can articulate what they would do differently and how it could be afforded then I would agree with you but most of the time, people complain but offer no viable alternatives, if they offer any alternative at all. 

 

22 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Life is not fair. 

But we all think it should be, and unfortunately there is a growing sector of society that thinks it they can make it be fair. 

 

But life can never be fair. 

 

Life is not fair.  I was not born to a Rockefeller, Buffet, or Kennedy family.  However I was lucky enough to not be born in Burundi either.  While some have a head start on others, there are plenty of examples of people who rose around the world and in the USA in particular and "made themselves" a success by their initiative.  The peson who drops out of school, has multiple felonies, has multiple children they can not afford, and then blames society for their injustice is just making an excuse for their lot in life rather than looking at the true cause by starring in the mirror. 

 

22 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

This notion that somehow society should provide all the basic neccessities without effort by those most impacted is just plain socialism.

But we can always find the sad story of of a few hard-working person that fell through the cracks that we can write about if we go through enough drug attics and criminals. 

Yes and there are many whose jobs were displaced through no fault of their own.  I am not saying don't help them.  I am saying don't enable them.  There is a difference.  If I assist them in jobs training to procure and equivalent or better job, I am helping.  If I am the government and paying their bills, I am enabling them to do nothing. 
 

22 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Housing, food, cars, medical care, clothing may all be expensive.  However the market place dictates the price.

But were that only true. The market does not dictate how many apartments can be built. And the market does not promote cheap money, loan mandates and subsidies. And yes, these thing do (at least in the short-term) help the poor, they do so at the expense of the middle class, and ultimately really only benefit the rich. 

Your are categorically wrong.  If the market place demand for apartments, housing, cars, or anything else is there, capitalism will supply those.  However, no one will build an apartment complex even if the demand is there if there is insufficient people who "can afford" the apartment.  There is a difference between people wanting a BMW and being able to afford one.  

 

22 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

If the price is too high people will not buy it.  If the seller can continue to sell it at that price, it is a fair price.  

The problem is not that housing is "too expensive" it is that people don't earn enough to afford the home.  So instead of attacking the symptom attack the problem.  People don't earn enough money.  How do you rectify that situation.  Train them to fill jobs that  pay more.  Don't epect that somehow the marketplace will lower the price of homes to the point that the $15 per hour minimum wage worker at Walmart can afford the 3 bedroom home in L.A. 

Expand  

But everyone HAS to go to college, and everyone that "wants a better life" needs to be allow in. 

You are categorically wrong about that as well.  For some students, particularly those in certain tech, economics and healthcare fields, the answer is an unequivocal “yes.” Like engineering majors — 95% of which can expect to make more than $80,000 by mid-career, according to FREOPP. But 28% of college degree programs actually leave alumni “financially worse off than if they had never gone to college at all,” meaning graduates don't earn enough to recoup the money they spent earning the degree, according to the report. The worst offenders? Only 1% of psychology graduates will earn more than $80,000 a year by the time they're 35, the reports says, and the odds aren't much better for those in education and the arts.

There are numerous blue collar jobs some of them earning over $100,000 a year that have openings that go unfilled because of this myth that everyone must go to college.  Additionally, the colleges are to blame for offering degrees in programs they know either have more applicants than the field can accomodate or that pay so little that the student owes more to obtain the degree than the field provides over a non degreed job. 

 

 

22 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Two final points.  The goverrnment has already been down the road of providing affordable government housing.  That effort failed miserbly.  The housing was anything but affordable to build but was very cheap for the residents.  They treated it comensurate with what they felt the value of it was.  Next to nothing.  A large percentage of those projects were ultimately destroyed because the residents having nothing invested in them treated them accordingly. 
Secondly, I see this continued refrain about how "society" should do something.  How about the consequences for peoples actions.  If the person drops out of school, gets involved with crime and has a prison record, has multiple children that they can't afford, and doesn't hold a job, is society really suppose to provide them with "affordable housing" and shelter them from the consequences of bad decisions. 

Expand  

To be fair, many of the people in project housing took care of the properties, but many did not, and because no one involved in the managing had any financial interest, nor stood to lose anything, the management was always a big part of the failure. 

There is an old adage that people don't take their rental cars through a car wash.  Why because it isn't theirs.  People value what they have worked hard for and purchased with their own money.  People do not show the same concern when something is "Free"  They got it for nothing and that is the value they attribute to it. One way or another the government has already tried to provide affordable housing and it was a miserable failure.  There are 4 ways to spend money. 1. you spend it on yourself. you are concerned about quality and cost 2. You can spend your money on someone else. You care about the cost but quality is not as important. 3. you can spend someone elses money like a business meal on yourself.  You don't care about the cost, but you want the best. 4. you can spend someone elses money or someone else.  You don't care about the cost and you don't care about the quality.  THAT IS A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. 



 

But THIS time it will be different. THIS time were going spend enough to actually make it work. The only problem is that THIS time, were going to do everything exactly the same way we did it LAST time, the THIS time the results will be different, because THIS time we REALLY, REALLY care, THIS TIME FOR SURE! 

There are only two options to "affordable housing" Lower the cost by subsidizing it to brings its cost down to the level of income people can afford.  Or you can raise the income of people to meet the cost of the more expensive housing.  However you can only raise their income if their skill set is improved to the point that they can get jobs that pay more. 

Of the two, I prefer the latter.  It increases the self worth of the person, it allows them to be self sufficient, and they will take far more responsibility in maintaining something they worked and paid for. 



 

 

[zzaa09]

Part and parcel of the fantasy that is the U.S. and this thread...

[Yellowtail]

25 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

Part and parcel of the fantasy that is the U.S. and this thread...

And what might that be pray tell? 

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, zzaa09 said:

Part and parcel of the fantasy that is the U.S. and this thread...

Come again.

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, andy said:

Came across that today as well.  A 300 sq ft. apartment in suburban sh*th0le Phoenix for $1000/month ????

That's "cheap" these days.

But yeah if a tiny dump like that isn't possible for so many working people or pensioners then something is VERY rotten in the states (not Denmark).

Edited March 12, 2022 by Jingthing

[Yellowtail]

Once we're done with covid subsidies and actually start raising interest rates home prices will start coming down.

 

 

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by Yellowtail
clarity