4 ms·

"All else being equal, we would expect 50% of homes to be unaffordable to a median buyer." Unaffordable? Why? There is a difference between "dislike" and "unaf

"All else being equal, we would expect 50% of homes to be unaffordable to a median buyer." Unaffordable? Why? There is a difference between "dislike" and "unaffordable." I'd expect the median buyer to want a house that is better than what 50% of buyers will settle for, but that is not the same as "unaffordable." If a society does a good job of providing housing then 100% of housing should be affordable. Put differently, if housing is affordable for the poorest citizens, then it is affordable for 100% of the population.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
this is a surprisingly good point.
throwaway09223 4y ago
"If a society does a good job of providing housing then 100% of housing should be affordable." This can never be true, it's a mathematical impossibility. Housing is not equal. There are always preferred units. A skyscraper will have a side with a better view, people will prefer to live near the top rather than the bottom, people will prefer bigger units with better amenities, etc. It's impossible to solve this by "providing housing" because no matter how much you build it cannot solve the issue of relative value. So no, housing cannot ever be 100% affordable under any kind of market economy system. People with money will always be able to out-bid people without. People will always be able to construct homes which are better than others -- and this is a very good thing!
- lkrubner 4y ago
  You have a weird theory that ignores actual history. Most of the West was able to offer society affordable housing for much of the post-war period. And you are, again, confusing a preference with "unaffordable" which is an absolute.
  - throwaway09223 4y ago
    "You have a weird theory that ignores actual history." Mmm, nope. I've said that 50% of homes would be affordable (or unaffordable) to the median, which was true then and is still true now. You're the one with a not only historically inaccurate but also mathematically impossible theory, that 100% affordability might be possible. This has never, ever been the case -- nor can it ever be. "Most of the West was able to offer society affordable housing for much of the post-war period. " And at that time, pray tell, could median wage earners afford to live in any home they wished? Were median wage earners able to live in mansions? Anywhere they wished? Of course not. Because it has never, ever been the case in American history that "100% of housing" were affordable to someone with median income. "And you are, again, confusing a preference " No, I am not. You, however, seem to be confused as to your own claims. Why don't you slow down and re-read what you wrote -- it's completely ridiculous.
poulsbohemian 4y ago
> There is a difference between "dislike" and "unaffordable." You hint at something here that I see a lot of in my market... lots of other agents will talk about "inventory" and will push for more construction, but they are using that as a short hand for the real problem. The problem at least in my market is that there are a lot of houses that are obsolete in some way, or quite simply undesirable in a way that has made them obsolete. Unfortunately, I see a lot of new construction that I'd also call undesirable - people will buy them because they don't have anther option, not because the houses actually have desirable amenities. Case in point - an idiot builder is putting in a new development in which all the houses are pointed the wrong direction, IE: they don't have views to the mountains because the developer was stupid. Additionally, the houses are priced $100K above anything else in the community but the build quality is very low. Brilliant, right? Point being - this leaves me as a real estate agent with a bunch of useless crap that buyers don't want.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

this is a surprisingly good point.

throwaway09223 4y ago

"If a society does a good job of providing housing then 100% of housing should be affordable." This can never be true, it's a mathematical impossibility. Housing is not equal. There are always preferred units. A skyscraper will have a side with a better view, people will prefer to live near the top rather than the bottom, people will prefer bigger units with better amenities, etc. It's impossible to solve this by "providing housing" because no matter how much you build it cannot solve the issue of relative value. So no, housing cannot ever be 100% affordable under any kind of market economy system. People with money will always be able to out-bid people without. People will always be able to construct homes which are better than others -- and this is a very good thing!

lkrubner 4y ago
You have a weird theory that ignores actual history. Most of the West was able to offer society affordable housing for much of the post-war period. And you are, again, confusing a preference with "unaffordable" which is an absolute.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  "You have a weird theory that ignores actual history." Mmm, nope. I've said that 50% of homes would be affordable (or unaffordable) to the median, which was true then and is still true now. You're the one with a not only historically inaccurate but also mathematically impossible theory, that 100% affordability might be possible. This has never, ever been the case -- nor can it ever be. "Most of the West was able to offer society affordable housing for much of the post-war period. " And at that time, pray tell, could median wage earners afford to live in any home they wished? Were median wage earners able to live in mansions? Anywhere they wished? Of course not. Because it has never, ever been the case in American history that "100% of housing" were affordable to someone with median income. "And you are, again, confusing a preference " No, I am not. You, however, seem to be confused as to your own claims. Why don't you slow down and re-read what you wrote -- it's completely ridiculous.

poulsbohemian 4y ago

> There is a difference between "dislike" and "unaffordable." You hint at something here that I see a lot of in my market... lots of other agents will talk about "inventory" and will push for more construction, but they are using that as a short hand for the real problem. The problem at least in my market is that there are a lot of houses that are obsolete in some way, or quite simply undesirable in a way that has made them obsolete. Unfortunately, I see a lot of new construction that I'd also call undesirable - people will buy them because they don't have anther option, not because the houses actually have desirable amenities. Case in point - an idiot builder is putting in a new development in which all the houses are pointed the wrong direction, IE: they don't have views to the mountains because the developer was stupid. Additionally, the houses are priced $100K above anything else in the community but the build quality is very low. Brilliant, right? Point being - this leaves me as a real estate agent with a bunch of useless crap that buyers don't want.