4 ms·

Except due to globalization this process has moved out to cheaper countries. Where the wealth is created and then parked in more politically stable West. And we

Except due to globalization this process has moved out to cheaper countries. Where the wealth is created and then parked in more politically stable West. And we keep wondering why our Average Joe can't afford a house anymore.

adventured 5y ago
Since when can Average Joe not afford a house? That's a combination of pop myth and extrapolating isolated local phenomenon to the national housing & income context. The home ownership rate in the US is currently on par with where it was in 1995-1996, higher than it was throughout nearly all of the 1980s, and higher than it was throughout all of the 1950s, 1960s and almost all of the 1970s. If you chop off the particularly artificial five to six years of the housing bubble, the US is presently only about 1 to 1.5 points off from all-time highs on home ownership. Now, having pointed this fact out, the obvious next response is to claim that today's home ownership is somehow a lesser form. Houses are quite larger today than they were in the 1950s-1970s however, and superior in most every possible way. And home owners have been building equity pretty consistently since the great recession, with US household balance sheets in good condition overall, including with debt service costs at historically low levels (which includes mortgage payments). Realistically the primary people suffering versus the past re home ownership, are in select few locations like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, Seattle and similar.
- john_moscow 5y ago
  Home ownership rate measures the percentage of the homes occupied by their owners (i.e. how many % are not rented out). It would not show the number of young adults who never had a chance to move out. It will also not show a difference between a single family renting a detached house vs. 5 adults sharing a rented apartment. A much more interesting metric would be the number of shared households, that appears to be rising (although I couldn't easily google up a concrete graph). >Realistically the primary people suffering versus the past re home ownership, are in select few locations like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, Seattle and similar. Well, that's where the jobs are. Sure you can afford a home in Salty Creek with a median Seattle salary, but that's not what most people would want to do. These days, unless you are in STEM (big cities) or trades (rural areas), you are pretty outpriced.

adventured 5y ago

Since when can Average Joe not afford a house? That's a combination of pop myth and extrapolating isolated local phenomenon to the national housing & income context. The home ownership rate in the US is currently on par with where it was in 1995-1996, higher than it was throughout nearly all of the 1980s, and higher than it was throughout all of the 1950s, 1960s and almost all of the 1970s. If you chop off the particularly artificial five to six years of the housing bubble, the US is presently only about 1 to 1.5 points off from all-time highs on home ownership. Now, having pointed this fact out, the obvious next response is to claim that today's home ownership is somehow a lesser form. Houses are quite larger today than they were in the 1950s-1970s however, and superior in most every possible way. And home owners have been building equity pretty consistently since the great recession, with US household balance sheets in good condition overall, including with debt service costs at historically low levels (which includes mortgage payments). Realistically the primary people suffering versus the past re home ownership, are in select few locations like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, Seattle and similar.

john_moscow 5y ago
Home ownership rate measures the percentage of the homes occupied by their owners (i.e. how many % are not rented out). It would not show the number of young adults who never had a chance to move out. It will also not show a difference between a single family renting a detached house vs. 5 adults sharing a rented apartment. A much more interesting metric would be the number of shared households, that appears to be rising (although I couldn't easily google up a concrete graph). >Realistically the primary people suffering versus the past re home ownership, are in select few locations like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, Seattle and similar. Well, that's where the jobs are. Sure you can afford a home in Salty Creek with a median Seattle salary, but that's not what most people would want to do. These days, unless you are in STEM (big cities) or trades (rural areas), you are pretty outpriced.