4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I’ll also add, what are 3 barriers to your topical middle class person living out the "American Dream”. The cost of housing, the cost of education, and the cost of healthcare. AKA the 3 industries that the government has heavily gotten involved in to try to "fix” to "improve access”.

Government steps in because they are already broken. Rent right now is broken, government is the only entity that can fix that but if they get it wrong they can, and sometimes have , broken it even worse. As long as we get the causation part right, keep going.

i glad a lot of people are see the danger greedy LIB policy put us in. And u know what drives it? JEALOUS! They see grand galas at the White House and they jealous. They see our Big Beautiful Ballroom at they jealous. When I want more money I dont ask for handouts! I ask for ANOTHER SHIFT. Or I get an EXTRA JOB. And now I almost ready to get a saving account and once that interest kick in, I sitting pretty for retirement. But these LIBS see the glamor and glory of what makes America great and they try an take it for themself!

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

How are you defining "affordable housing”?

Broadly, whatever housing fits within 30% of the monthly income for a person.

Median household income is like what, $85k? That translates to just over $2k/mo for housing.

Let's say you have 20% to put down, and can get a 6.5% 30-year fixed mortgage loan. If taxes and insurance need to fit within that amount, you're looking at a home around $340k or less.

Current median home price in there US is around $415k. Unaffordable, so a household around the median needs to start looking at smaller homes in less desirable areas.

5 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Government steps in because they are already broken. Rent right now is broken, government is the only entity that can fix that but if they get it wrong they can, and sometimes have , broken it even worse. As long as we get the causation part right, keep going.

That's just simply not true. Rent is broken BECAUSE of government policies. We've had nearly 20 years of low interest rates which greatly inflated the price of housing on a national level. And then on a local level, you have municipalities throughout the country with ordinances which restrict the number of new housing that can be built. So you have an increasing demand for housing due to population growth, a restricted supply of new housing due to government regulations, and an increase of supply of money into the system due to low interest rates for for an extended period of time. The result is that the price of housing has gone up at a rate that is much higher than the rate at which income has grown. And government isn't going to fix this problem, because their only solution to "fix" the problem ends up making the problem even worse.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Broadly, whatever housing fits within 30% of the monthly income for a person.

Median household income is like what, $85k? That translates to just over $2k/mo for housing.

Let's say you have 20% to put down, and can get a 6.5% 30-year fixed mortgage loan. If taxes and insurance need to fit within that amount, you're looking at a home around $340k or less.

Current median home price in there US is around $415k. Unaffordable, so a household around the median needs to start looking at smaller homes in less desirable areas.

Just going to expand on your thoughts. When higher desired people move to a smaller home in a lower desired area, that area starts to become more desirable and increases the value of those homes making it less affordable for those who were there originally. It’s kind of a vicious cycle.

5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Broadly, whatever housing fits within 30% of the monthly income for a person.

Median household income is like what, $85k? That translates to just over $2k/mo for housing.

Let's say you have 20% to put down, and can get a 6.5% 30-year fixed mortgage loan. If taxes and insurance need to fit within that amount, you're looking at a home around $340k or less.

Current median home price in there US is around $415k. Unaffordable, so a household around the median needs to start looking at smaller homes in less desirable areas.

As morbid as it sounds, I don't think we're getting affordable housing until a generation starts checking out.

Watching Steve Bannon squirm is always entertaining...

Politico via Yahoo News

‘There Should Be Flashing Red Lights’: Steve Bannon on Ma...

Trump’s former White House strategist has a warning for Republicans gloating about Zohran Mamdani’s election.

Some highlights...

Forget the Republican Party in New York — that's a joke — but the national Republican Party and some of the smartest strategists do not realize the power of the Working Families Party and the [Democratic Socialists of America] for ground game. Modern politics now is about engaging low-propensity voters, and they clearly turned them out tonight, and this is kind of the Trump model. This is very serious.

He's right about this. The most surprising thing about this election was how many people voted. Here's where he gets desperate...

His speech tonight could not have been nastier or more aggressive. He mocked Cuomo. That is one of the first families of the Democratic Party, particularly in the state of New York.

And then with Trump, it was a direct throwdown to Trump, unlike any politician’s ever done. He tried to call President Trump out, and President Trump responded.

I think tomorrow — and I've argued from the beginning — this guy's citizenship should be checked immediately.

To me, it ought to be addressed. It ought to be addressed by the State Department, DHS and the Justice Department, to go through all this. If the guy lied on his naturalization papers, he ought to be deported out of the country immediately and put on a plane to Uganda.

It always cracks me up when Trumptards clutch their pearls when a democrat gets aggressive or mocks someone. Also really? If you can't beat 'em deport 'em? "If the guy lied on his naturalization papers".... um Mamdani was 7 years old when he came here. Trying to go after something on a 7 year old kids paperwork is desperate even for these guys.

11 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

As morbid as it sounds, I don't think we're getting affordable housing until a generation starts checking out.

Can we pick which one? Gen Z hunger games would be 🔥

24 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Can we pick which one? Gen Z hunger games would be 🔥

That wouldn't really help make homes available

19 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Broadly, whatever housing fits within 30% of the monthly income for a person.

Median household income is like what, $85k? That translates to just over $2k/mo for housing.

Let's say you have 20% to put down, and can get a 6.5% 30-year fixed mortgage loan. If taxes and insurance need to fit within that amount, you're looking at a home around $340k or less.

Current median home price in there US is around $415k. Unaffordable, so a household around the median needs to start looking at smaller homes in less desirable areas.

Understood. Reason I asked is I didn’t know if you meant affordable housing as you’ve described above, or "affordable housing” as in government regulated "affordable housing.”

So part of the problem as I’ve stated is the interest rate policy we’ve had in this country for the past 20 years and what that has done in general to the price of housing. The other part to note which you’ve also noted is house size. If you compare the average house size today to say 50-70 years ago, home sizes are significantly larger today. (Which is also somewhat ironic because family sizes are smaller. So you have less people occupying larger houses). So when comparing home prices over time, we do have to take into account the size of the home and should be looking at it on a per sf basis. Which even on a per sf basis, the cost has gone up but not AS big a difference when just comparing nominal prices.

I think part of the increase in home size is due to demand. People in general I think do want larger homes than previous generations. But I also think part of it is also due to local regulations that make it unprofitable for developers to build smaller homes.

For example, a new housing development is being built near me. It’s zoned R1, which means the minimum lot size is about 0.3 acres. So the developer laid out 0.5 acre lots and it can fit 16 homes. And so of course they are large homes. Wouldn’t make sense financially for the developer to have 0.3 - 0.5 acre lots and put a 3 bed 1.5 bath 2,000 SF home on it.

1 hour ago, dawkins4prez said:

Shut up Vikas. Nobody is after your curry arse. It's the class above you that's out of hand, they warped democracy and capitalism itself. It is increasingly difficult to classify what we have now as competition based capitalism and ludicrous to assume it will provide better standards of living for even the bottom 75% going forward.

I love how you think you know what "class" I am in.

22 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Understood. Reason I asked is I didn’t know if you meant affordable housing as you’ve described above, or "affordable housing” as in government regulated "affordable housing.”

So part of the problem as I’ve stated is the interest rate policy we’ve had in this country for the past 20 years and what that has done in general to the price of housing. The other part to note which you’ve also noted is house size. If you compare the average house size today to say 50-70 years ago, home sizes are significantly larger today. (Which is also somewhat ironic because family sizes are smaller. So you have less people occupying larger houses). So when comparing home prices over time, we do have to take into account the size of the home and should be looking at it on a per sf basis. Which even on a per sf basis, the cost has gone up but not AS big a difference when just comparing nominal prices.

I think part of the increase in home size is due to demand. People in general I think do want larger homes than previous generations. But I also think part of it is also due to local regulations that make it unprofitable for developers to build smaller homes.

For example, a new housing development is being built near me. It’s zoned R1, which means the minimum lot size is about 0.3 acres. So the developer laid out 0.5 acre lots and it can fit 16 homes. And so of course they are large homes. Wouldn’t make sense financially for the developer to have 0.3 - 0.5 acre lots and put a 3 bed 1.5 bath 2,000 SF home on it.

We've done a lot of buying land and then taking it through the zoning and entitlement process. Local regulations are a major impediment because they make the fixed costs so high due to all of the compliance -- EIRs in particular, and CEQA in California is a disaster. By the time you're done with all of that, your investment basis is too high to consider the smaller profits on "affordable" homes. So you cut a deal -- 15% will be affordable housing where you lose money, and the rest are McMansions where you get the actual return.

1 hour ago, Paul852 said:

As morbid as it sounds, I don't think we're getting affordable housing until a generation starts checking out.

Probably true, because the barriers to making a profit building affordable housing - be those barriers market driven or NIMBY driven (largely some combination thereof) - are great.

Unless something changes there we won't build our way out.

Come on grandma, what are you holding onto that large single family home for? Time for a group home. 😂

Lol all the former libertarians now full-on commie.

God bless you @Phillyterp85, you're fighting the good fight. You're just not fighting the real enemy....

That's what's behind all this. You think these LARPers give two ishs about rent prices in New York??

43 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Understood. Reason I asked is I didn’t know if you meant affordable housing as you’ve described above, or "affordable housing” as in government regulated "affordable housing.”

So part of the problem as I’ve stated is the interest rate policy we’ve had in this country for the past 20 years and what that has done in general to the price of housing. The other part to note which you’ve also noted is house size. If you compare the average house size today to say 50-70 years ago, home sizes are significantly larger today. (Which is also somewhat ironic because family sizes are smaller. So you have less people occupying larger houses). So when comparing home prices over time, we do have to take into account the size of the home and should be looking at it on a per sf basis. Which even on a per sf basis, the cost has gone up but not AS big a difference when just comparing nominal prices.

I think part of the increase in home size is due to demand. People in general I think do want larger homes than previous generations. But I also think part of it is also due to local regulations that make it unprofitable for developers to build smaller homes.

For example, a new housing development is being built near me. It’s zoned R1, which means the minimum lot size is about 0.3 acres. So the developer laid out 0.5 acre lots and it can fit 16 homes. And so of course they are large homes. Wouldn’t make sense financially for the developer to have 0.3 - 0.5 acre lots and put a 3 bed 1.5 bath 2,000 SF home on it.

What shocked me is how little the rate increases of the last few years has impacted home values.

They've certainly impacted the real estate market. But not as much as I expected. The median sale price went down as we went from a 3-4% prime rate up to 8%+.

But if you look at specific areas and track sale values over time, the same types of homes in the same area continued to rise in sale value.

I attribute this in part to the lock-in effect of low interest loans. I'm five years in to a 15-year at 2.5%. Only about 25% of my PI is on interest.

It would take a helluva deal or change in financial circumstances for me to move.

2 hours ago, Bear Grylls said:

i glad a lot of people are see the danger greedy LIB policy put us in. And u know what drives it? JEALOUS! They see grand galas at the White House and they jealous. They see our Big Beautiful Ballroom at they jealous. When I want more money I dont ask for handouts! I ask for ANOTHER SHIFT. Or I get an EXTRA JOB. And now I almost ready to get a saving account and once that interest kick in, I sitting pretty for retirement. But these LIBS see the glamor and glory of what makes America great and they try an take it for themself!

literally the smartest cuck alive.

9 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Lol all the former libertarians now full-on commie.

God bless you @Phillyterp85, you're fighting the good fight. You're just not fighting the real enemy....

That's what's behind all this. You think these LARPers give two ishs about rent prices in New York??

you f'ng dope, the only reason this POS won nyc is trump.

13 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

you f'ng dope, the only reason this POS won nyc is trump.

Eh...the main reason he won is Cuomo was a horribly flawed candidate, so he won the primary and then was on cruise control. The Dems needed a better candidate in the primary.

58 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I love how you think you know what "class" I am in.

You're not a billionaire brother. For the purposes of these discussions, it doesn't matter a lick if you're worth 5m or 20m.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Eh...the main reason he won is Cuomo was a horribly flawed candidate, so he won the primary and then was on cruise control. The Dems needed a better candidate in the primary.

New york already flirted hard with this in '21 and Andrew Yang. AOC is the rising congressional star there. This is a trend.

Dammit first Procus and now WV Mike has to cancel his trip to Fashion Week too 😢

Mandami is ruining this city already