Hey friend! If you found any of the ideas here interesting, you''ll definitely enjoy our new book release where Daniel and Chuck cover all of this in much more detail. Learn more here: www.housingtrap.org/
If we did a big reset to 1950s-1960s codes and laws, and get rid of most housing codes ( other than improvements to seismic/hurricane/etc safety, as well as some enhanced energy efficiency housing. Prices would drop tremendously. Do an even bigger reset where stuff is simplified further and the economy would be bustling and many small businesses would restart/start up. Bush and baby Barry Obama are portrayed in a photo together and Barry's step dad Soetero was an Standard Oil exec. Much of politics is too cozy and a puppet of big interests. We need to change that.
There's no middle class housing. It's not just low income, it's middle income housing that is gone. People are looking for half a million dollars for houses and condos. IN the cities it's even worse. You're looking at half a million dollars for a studio or one bedroom condo. Who the hell needs a half million dollar one bedroom? What are you supposed to do with that? We've allowed our housing to become a stock market.
Same in my community, there is no middle. Just McMansions as far as the eye can see, or run down unlivable homes that you can't afford a mortgage for because a developer will pay that much to knock it down for another McMansion.
and strangely the exact kind of homes you would expect the middle class to live in is the very kind of housing that is illegal to build in most of the US. and the transit middle class used to use is the transit that is least effective in a car based world.
It's always been a stock market. The system has just finally reached its end point, late stage capitalism. The problem is capitalism. We need land reform.
Keep in mind that during the 80’s people were encouraged to save due to the interest rates. Right now there’s very little incentive to save because those who are saving are watching those who are reckless taking it in. I’ve been trying to save for a home and it’s been discouraging to watch prices continue to not budge because there’s people willing to get into a mortgage where they’re paying 40% of their income. It’s insane.
The housing market in 2024 poses difficulties due to uncertainties about the Federal Reserve's ability to curb inflation and reduce borrowing costs without adversely affecting demand for assets like homes and automobiles.
Consider shifting from real estate to stocks during severe recessions. While market volatility presents short-term trading opportunities, it's crucial to approach with caution. This isn't financial advice, but investing during such times may be a strategic move, consider adopting the services of a financial expert.
In fact, I had no prior experience or understanding when I began investing in 2020, but by the end of 2023, I had made a profit of almost $850k. All I had been doing was going by what my financial advisor had told me. This demonstrates that all you truly need is a professional to assist you; you don't even need to be a great investor or put in a lot of work.
The problem is that in order to have "permanent roof" with amenities like electricity, gas and water, either the tenant or the owner must somehow pay insurance and property taxes. As a result, a lot of people live in tents, at least in California, where I presently dwell. Not a single mortgage, tax, rent, or insurance. It amazes me how many folks I meet who tell me they live in their cars. This place is insane!
It's becoming more and more insane by the day. Mortgage rates have been rising steadily (already over 7%). I often wonder if I should put my extra money into the stock market and wait for a housing crash, or if I should just buy a house regardless.
Such concerns also come to me. After 50, I'm retiring early. I'm already concerned about the direction the future is taking, particularly with regard to finances and making ends meet. I'm thinking about investing in the stock market for the first time as well, but how can I accomplish so considering that the market has been in disarray for much of the year?
For my part, I can relate to that. My benefits were clear when I started working with a fiduciary financial counsellor. I would always suggest seeking expert assistance in these situations so they can guide you through bumpy markets and simply provide you with indicators and tactics for knowing when to enter and exit the market.
My CFA Annette Marie Holt , a renowned figure in her line of work. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market.
“Luxury” is not a legal term. It is almost always used to sell lemons. After 10 years, the cheap construction begins to show cracks, but the people who built the units are long gone, leaving the problem to the people who fell for the trap. Luxury is code for cheap but unit are sold at extravagant prices
i know its off-topic, but do you happen to know where the term "sell lemons" comes from? from context i imagine it means trying to sell something as more valuable/exotic than it actually is... but i dont understand why on the topic - yeah thats honestly another pretty big problem as well, especially in the UK from what i hear, where people get saddled with horrible build quality that falls apart after a few years
@@SharienGaming It originated (mostly) from the practice of selling bad cars - either poorly made, poorly maintained or simply too old - as being in great condition/new/worth the value (a "sweet deal"), which then leads to the buyer getting the vehicle only to find out it's gone and turned into a "sour deal" shortly after buying it (something goes wrong). And since lemons are sour the practice came to be known as "Selling Lemons".
I see a lot of very expensive finishing being used. You might not realize what this stuff costs. No matter what is used, it is out of style and worn after 20 years. Also, you get damage. Your $30,000 floor can be ruined in a week. I build with cheaper standard commodity materials because I know it all gets old anyway. Works for me.
My grandparents can't even downsize. They need a smaller home without stairs separating the living spaces. Short of moving into a retirement home or retirement condo there are no options for them. They've even looked at buying a plot of land so they can build what they need from scratch! I find this especially troubling because all this equity everyone is so hyped to build is getting harder to tap into. You cannot downsize if your housing options are all the same or similarly expensive.
Most of the smaller homes are in neighborhoods with too much crime. Best thing is to build a bedroom and bathroom extension on the ground floor and have family members move in with them to help out. Retirement homes are very expensive for the better ones, here in Canada 🇨🇦 the housing is very expensive, the retirement homes charge $5000 per month or more. The cheap retirement homes charge $2000+ probably closer to $3000 now. Condos are very expensive here too, $500k for tiny one bedroom. If someone has to use a wheelchair later on, it just won’t fit in the bedroom or bathroom!
The housing market is inflated and oversaturated with homes being on the market with astronomical price tags just stagnant for months. It is very clear that our generation will be likely one of the most devastating bubble pops in modern history. Seeking best possible ways to grow 250k into $1m+ and get a good house for retirement, I'm 54.
I don't think here is the place for personalized investment guidance. However, I suggest consulting with a reliable advisor like Azul to ensure appropriate retirement planning.
I’m closing in on retirement, and I have benefitted much from using a financial advisor. I didn’t really start early, so I knew the compound interest of index fund investing would not work for me. Funny how I pulled in over 80% profit than some of my peers who have been investing for many years. Maybe you should consider this too
There are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with “Sonya Lee Mitchell” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive. She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
Thank you for this tip. It was easy to find your coach. Did my due diligence on her before scheduling a phone call with her. She seems proficient considering her résumé.
I love Philadelphia because they’ve built the mid-rise housing that’s illegal to build almost everywhere today. However, this video raises the great point that merely fixing zoning nationwide isn’t sufficient to restart the now-lost housing dynamism that we so desperately need.
As a Philadelphian you'll have to explain why this is a good thing. Development has been fever-pitch for well over a decade, prices only go up and the neighborhoods are basically just Dorm Part Two: Much Pricier!
@@TheVincentKyle Philadelphia is by far one of the most affordable major metros in the US in terms of housing. The entire country is in a urban housing crisis, but home prices have stayed significantly lower in Philly than average. No city is insulated from the crisis, but I think a strong argument could be made that Philly is doing things right and that's why its prices have stayed relatively low. It could be a lot worse.
@@DijonFrisee Thanks for the context - is there somewhere reliable to look up numbers? And not that I'm trying to fight, but could it be said that the deflated numbers are a result of building atop previously-worthless urban blight? I only came to Philly in the late 90s but even then I knew there was a stark difference between it and, say, some of the rougher areas of Brooklyn.
The summary here is on point. A static city, locked into place by NIMBYs and zoning laws, is never going to provide what an ever changing and growing society needs. And the difference between what housing we can provide and what housing is needed is spreading wider and wider with every passing day.
Also to deal with these NIMBYs cities need to ignore any feedback from anyone over 55. The harsh reality is that these people are going to die in a few years anyway and should have no say about a future that they won't be around for. And for each neighborhood resident that is allowed to speak, one person from outside the neighborhood should be required to speak.
It is difficult to make exact projections for the housing market as it is still unclear how quickly or to what degree the Federal Reserve will reduce inflation and borrowing costs without having a substantial negative impact on demand from consumers for anything from houses to cars.
If anything, it'll get worse. Very soon, affordable housing will no longer be affordable. So anything anyone wants to do, I will advise they do it now because the prices today will look like dips tomorrow. Until the Fed clamps down even further, I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. You can't halfway rip the band-aid off.
You're not doing anything wrong; you simply lack the expertise necessary to make money in a bad market. In these difficult circumstances, only really skilled experts who witnessed the 2008 financial crisis can expect to generate a large wage.
My CFA, Sharon Ann Meny is a renowned figure in her line of work. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market.
Benevolence, this reference seems valid.. Just inputted her full name on my browser and found her site without sweat, 15 years of experience is certainly striking! very much appreciate it
My wife from Peru grew up in a 3 story house with 20 rooms, lots of families, many generations. It started out as a single story detached home with a backyard. Over the course of 40 years, they built 2 more floors, built into the backyard, bought the house next door and combined them. Now, half of it is a boarding house for other people, the other half for the remaining family members. There is no backyard but there is a 3rd floor rooftop deck with amazing views, a nice gathering place. The city has grown so much around it that the rents in the area are quite high relative to local incomes. This asset is providing at least $10,000 per month in housing for all its ~20 tenants (the alternative they would cumulatively pay in rent). Its a source of savings and income for the family. Its cheap accommodations for college students, and new people coming to city. The US has shot itself in the foot by not allowing this type of simple, gradual, incremental growth. So much wealth aborted for about 80 years.
You forgot to say the quiet part out loud - Housing should be a commodity not an instrument for wealth. It needs to stop being a faux investment for the middle class, most people just get bigger and bigger mortgages.. always in debt. Do we need another real estate bubble and crash before we start regulating the housing market?
One way to mitigate this would be to stop foreign investors from snatching up houses and tracts of land and developing them into luxury housing. I see it all around me near my home in coastal LA.
The main reason housing - an otherwise depreciating commodity that requires annual costly maintenance - is because our government forces us to use fake money that they print to themselves and their buddies and the value melts away in our hands. The response therefore is to convert that money into the most valuable things that aren't USD. Mainly houses, stocks, gold, bitcoin. As long as we are forced to use fake money that is increasingly printed out of thin air and is increasingly worthless we will continue to see prices rise. Prices crash when the risk premium on the money we print via credit lines becomes to much to stomach and the banks briefly stop loaning fake money they don't have.
Housing prices likely won’t drop significantly until supply increases. The U.S. is short millions of housing units and isn’t building fast enough. Demand remains high, and even a small dip in prices attracts many buyers. I’m looking to buy affordable houses in August and maybe invest in stocks. When’s the best time to invest in stocks? Some say it’s profitable, but others warn it’s risky. Any advice?
Consider buying stocks when the economy is not doing well, like during a recession. It could be a chance to buy them at a lower price and sell later when prices go up. Just keep in mind, this isn't financial advice, but sometimes it's better than keeping a lot of cash.
Having an investment advisor is the best way to go about the stock market right now. I used to depend on UA-cam videos but it wasn't working. I’ve been in touch with an advisor for a while now, and just last year, I made over 80% capital growth minus dividends.
There are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’ Rebecca Nassar Dunne ” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive. She’s quite known in her field, look her up.
Zoning has locked US cities out of so many useful housing and neighborhood types. It's not just apartments, but also more "gentle" density -- single family homes on smaller lots. Other regulations make it more expensive, too. It's a tremendous irony that Cali has so many rules demanding develops include "affordable housing units," but because of all the regulations and paperwork, the cheapest housing is still $1k+ per square foot to build. It's insane. Get rid of the regulations. Let people build smaller, denser, more affordable housing.
Those rules are specifically designed to benefit the bottom line of large corporate developers, and they're unlikely to change, since most rules in America these days are written by and for large corporations.
Cities are bad so I don't live in one. The US has plenty of room for lateral growth instead of horrifically expensive vertical growth only benefitting rich developers. Dense expensive suburbs are bad so I don't live in one. Those areas already serve the purpose other Americans bought THEIR land for. Coercing them to fit more humans is silly as GROWTH DESTROYS QUALITY OF LIFE for everyone except those cashing out to retire elsewhere.
@@gregmark1688 there “rules” are colorable, Defacto no constitutional standing whats so ever. the U.S is a foreign human trafficking corporation. NOT a “country”. U.S. CITIZENS don’t have a territorial claim to North America only the natural heir unconditional. a naturalized citizen cannot demand rights or sovereignty on land that is not their own. 🇲🇦
@@acealoha Well, I see your point, but ... yes, they can. They simply need to use a popular tool of diplomacy known as a "gun". Typically, governments make sure they have lots and lots of those.
I had to stay in an older neighborhood in Philly for work for a while. I was staying in a regular old house. Nearby were old rowhouses. And also nearby were little delis, private little take out food restaurants, a mini mart, private little grill bars, etc. Even though the particular area was old and kind of run down, it felt wonderful. It felt like way more of a neighborhood than where I live in suburbia. My newer, more modern, development feels like the dark ages. My five year old daughter is obsessed with the idea of going on a bike ride for ice cream. It is literally impossible to do here.
I’m from the U.S. but live elsewhere now. The house I own is considered quite large here but would be quite small in the U.S. - less than 2000 square feet. It’s the perfect size for a family of 4. It has a small lawn, just big enough for a couple dogs to play in. If I reach out the window, I can almost touch my neighbor’s fence, and he could do the same. I don’t want a larger house. I don’t want a larger yard. I don’t need more isolation. It’s hard enough to maintain my property at the size it is, and I couldn’t afford anything larger. I like knowing my neighbors. I love having groceries and other businesses within walking or biking distance. I was able purchase land, build the house, and pay it all off in 10 years. There is no way I could do that in the U.S. with comparable income. Personally, I think car dependency, unaffordable housing, and the lack of public health care are fueling a lot of the problems America is facing. It’s why in a booming economy with low unemployment, people don’t feel prosperous. Scarcity, fear, and isolation fuel gun violence and political polarization. I hope these issues can be fixed, but that would take political skill and courage, which are also sadly in short supply right now. The one thing that is encouraging is that more people are starting to recognize the problems.
Im loving your property and this is the kind of life I'd love. I can technically walk to 3 different grocery stores, but it's a 20 minute walk and there are really no other shops that carry the products I need within walking distance
one thing that immediatly stood out to me is when talking about nimbys and development was that development apparently means "more of the same"... but an area with basically exclusively residences doesnt need more housing... it needs more shops, schools, small offices, services like doctors, dentists and public services... that collection of houses needs to become a town... and it needs to be less empty space and the places where these services already exist, need more housing, to turn a business enclave into a town
Here in El Salvador, there are zones that are house after house after house, actually like a suburb, but plenty were allowed to be turned into stores, dentist clinics, restaurants (pretty big houses), and even kindergartens, I didn't notice that until I started watching these videos
Ah but then you need working class and lower income people to work at those businesses, and the suburb people don't want "those types" moving in close to them. So then any businesses that open can't find enough employees cause the suburb folks all commute into the city for their high paying jobs, and will then complain "no one wants to work" because the poor can't afford to commute to their suburb to work a low income job at their cafes, restaurants, shops, etc.
I believe you are referencing 'mixed use zoning'. Think like the old downtown in cities. Bottom floor is shops and the top is apartments. Wide streets to accommodate pedestrians. Those are illegal to build in the US because of our zoning. No doubt the obsession over car culture also plays a huge factor. Both of those would have to be removed.
This is due to the insanity that is American zoning. Americans have somehow been brainwashed into thinking, “This type of thing should be here, but that type of thing should be over there.” There’s no logical or rational thinking to that; it’s just what we’ve been convinced of over the course of the past 75 years or so.
Post WWII there were a lot of small (900-1200sq. ft.) 2 & 3 bedroom houses built in the Midwest city I grew up in. No one will finance or build these types of houses anymore because there's hardly any profit margin in them. The ones that are being built are done as cheaply as possible and it shows. This means that the housing stock in the city continues to get older and poorer. New houses in the outer suburbs start at $400K and up, effectively excluding the upcoming younger generation from being able to afford quality housing.
It's not really because of the profit margin---it's because things have crept into the "standard" model that don't necessarily have a great reason to exist... like attached garages, and big kitchens. Those things take up a lot of space themselves, and because they are limited in shape also create dead space that would have been better used before.
@@josephfisher426 That's true, but (car guy here) you really can't have a big enough garage! But, you're right. And how about Owner's Suites that are bigger than my entire first house? A contractor that was doing some work for me about 15 years ago told me that he wouldn't even consider building a new house under 1600 sq ft because he'd barely make any money after he paid off his subs. And it's just gotten worse since then. Also, no one that can afford it is going to build a $400K house in an old large city that is viewed as being in decline. As they say; "Location, location, location!"
@@joeyager8479 A lot of the cost to the builder is imposed externally. When I started looking for rural land 6 or 7 years ago, the construction cost for basic 1.5 story 3B was still about $150K. Probably because they had one inspector who did everything. Urban and suburban inspection processes tend to really pile on the overhead. And the time. That's a fixable problem. It's true that the contractor's cost on plumbing, electric, and HVAC is not going to change much as a house gets bigger. Some of that could be planned out in the design, though... if you make it simpler so that the plumber is in and out on a predictable schedule and isn't waiting on anyone else, he doesn't have to charge you as much. One "affordable" project that I am working on (my employer did the site design) ended up having a drain brought down "through" a regular 4" wall. And the plumber actually tried to do that.
Buying a home is challenging, especially if you're not paying in cash or avoiding a government loan. Even with just the minimum monthly payments on a 30-year mortgage, I’ll end up paying more than twice the value of my home. I was fortunate to buy before the market went wild, so I secured a good interest rate. I can't imagine trying to rent or buy in the current conditions.
I hope to own a home some day, not quite long I started investing. I'm very curious already and need help on how to enhance and increase my returns. Any good investment tips will be appreciated.
The enduring US stock market bull run evokes a mix of fear and excitement, presenting opportunities with insight, resulting in $780k gains in the past ten months, utilizing a portfolio advisor for a well-defined strategy.
Thanks for sharing. I curiously searched for her full name and her website popped up immediately. I looked through her credentials and did my due diligence before contacting her.
When we created the tools for the expectation that the cost of housing would rise, we created the expectation that the cost of housing would ALWAYS rise. At first, this just incentivized anyone who owns a home to oppose any new housing anywhere near them to protect their asset, but ever since 2008, housing has straight up become a stock market. Something like 30-40% of homes that are bought aren't bought by people who want to use them as a product, but by people who already own property who want an appreciating asset. we need to somehow get back to a point where housing isn't an investment, but the thing is, that is going to piss off a lot of people. There's no political will for it.
@@BicycleFunk Not from people who already own property, which it sucks to say is a vastly overpowered segment of the population when it comes to political action. Imagine telling all the millions of people who spent $750k on a home "your house will not be more valuable when you sell it than is now." That is a really hard sell to people who have grown their whole lives thinking that owning a home creates generational wealth.
@@PalmelaHanderson we would have no idea what effect on the real estate market would really be if we actually built semi detached or multi unit housing for families. People could still recoup their money for sfh. Because you compare like with like. We just don’t build it. Plus there such sprawl and poor land use, what if we stopped subsidizing the suburbs, it would be more expensive as well
@@jasminewilliams1673 there is no way to make housing affordable and protect peoples investment in their homes. these things are in direct opposition to each other.
Yes, I've been saying this for years. When you treat a house as an investment you are willing to pay the cost it takes to buy that investment, not the lower price that is it's value as a home. We expect investments to appreciate faster than inflation and so we are willing to pay higher and higher prices because it's an investment. And then comes the day when people realize they can't afford a house.
Housing for decades did not appreciate faster than inflation. It was still an investment because housing was a leveraged commodity. When you take a 80% mortgage you're leveraged 4:1. So even if housing only appreciates at the rate of inflation, you're still beating it through leverage. The issue is nimbys and anti-suburban interest groups like this channel got new laws passed that restricted new single family housing in many states, causing the supply to dry up. In developer friendly cities like Houston, they have reasonable housing prices despite massive population growth. The cost of this of course, is suburban sprawl - something this channel advocated against for a decade.
Great video as always. I do want to echo what another commenter said. Middle class housing is gone near me. All houses are so inflated that its beyond ridiculous. A house that sold in 2019 for $240k just went back up for sale in my town for $1.2 million. No significant work done. My town is full of renters that all work at the engineering firms around us, all these workers you would traditionally think of as well paid. We can't afford houses and there just arent enough houses for sale. When new developments are actually built I havent seen one listed for less than $700k. Thats a 2 bed 2 bath. Its crazy.
"A house that sold in 2019 for $240k just went back up for sale in my town for $1.2 million" Would love to see the listing for this, I just find this hard to believe. Got an address?
A bungalow went up for sale around the corner from me last week and sold in 3 days on the market (listed Friday, open houses Sat & Sun and sold Sun evening). It's 2 bed 2 bath, a little under 780 sqft above ground, and went for $1,750,000. The listing is gone, otherwise I would have included it. Given my area, it was likely bought as an investment, and the rent would be no more than $3,600 per month. If there was debt used to by this (though no bank would provide a loan on that rent to price ratio), the equivalent of 20% down and 80% borrowed would mean the mortgage payment is around $8,200 per month, before property taxes, utilities, and repairs. Welcome to Toronto Canada, where the real estate religion has its most devoted followers.
You can have all the supply in the world, but if you allow that supply to be hoarded by investors, you will still have affordability problems. You can't get out of the housing trap without effectively addressing the inflation investors bring about. On another note. If our banking system was a public utility as opposed to another profit-driven tool for investors, we could easily fund our housing needs.
@blackpiller3777 YES!! You would like my 12-year plan to decommodify land & housing, The Affordable Housing Forever Act. It does exactly that, but over a long enough period of time that it won't blow up our economy. BTW - it was Lincoln who, after seeing all of the problems land inequality was already causing by that time, said no one should be allowed to own more land than necessary for their home, sustenance, and "legitimate" business. So we're not alone on this!
There's so much wrong with the housing situation. The prices for single family homes, the car dependency of the suburbs due to bad zoning, the lack of consequences for bad neighbor behavior that make people not want to live in denser housing. Makes it difficult to impossible for 95% of people. But above all....banks and companies should NOT own homes. Families and basic people should own homes.
People want to live in a safe environment, they don’t want to deal with drug dealers, single mothers, and pit bulls next door! It would be really, really nice to have affordable housing without all the drama and bedbugs! We need a major overhaul of society, people need to be more accountable for their actions.
@@annetoronto5474 That's a false dichotomy. Most cities are the safest places in the country, dangerous dogs are a problem of the suburbs, bed bugs are a problem no matter where people live, and if you want affordable housing don't block it from being created. And please explain why you have a problem with single mothers, that sounds pretty suspect.
Mortgage rates are currently at an all time high since 2000(23 years) and based on statistics on inflation, we might see that number skyrocket further, a 30-year fixed rate was only 5% this time last year, so do I just keep waiting for a housing crash before buying or redirect my focus to the equity market
The stock market is no different, to maintain profit you need to have some in-depth knowledge on the market. I mostly just buy and hold stocks, but my portfolio has been mostly in the red for quite awhile now. Unfortunately to be able to make good gains, you’ll need to be consistent and restructure your portfolio frequently.
In my opinion, it was much easier investing back in the 80s but it’s a lot trickier now, those making consistent profit in these times are professionals reason I’ve been using an advisor for the past 5 years to consistently build my portfolio in preparations for retirement.
My CFA, Annette Christine Conte, is a renowned figure in her line of work. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market.
These systems are not broken. I really dislike this narrative. These systems are working exactly as designed. They're just designed to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer, and more numerous. More desperate.
really its a matter of framing: The system works exactly as intended if you view it as a capitalist, where society is meant to extract as many resources as possible to generate as much capital as possible. The system is extremely broken when you believe society is meant to grant everyone a high standard of living by distributing labor and resources fairly among the population.
yes the USD is a scam. Printed to the tune of trillions to be handed out to the government and their buddies while your labor melts away in your hands.
In my country you have to pay 50k-100k before you lay the firsts brick or hammer the first nail, I have been working with a developer and they are paying almost an eights of their costs in finance, Also materials are insanely expensive, I also believe we need to open up more land for development
Correction: We need affordable housing *to buy* , not to rent. Houses don't need to be 2000+ sqft. Make them 1000sqft, or even 700 sqft, like they were originally. Mark these as starter homes, and set fixed pricing with inflation stipulations so investors can't gobble them up, sit on them, and wait to resell them later. And you make anything under the regulatory square footage in specified allocated housing is "interest free", thus denoting that the sale of the property isn't subject to interest, and providing the "starter" consumer who purchases said home to experience generation wealth without the bank making large quantities of money. And if this consumer never leaves? No big deal, regulation around upkeep and maintenance or hefty fines will exist, etc. The problem with the housing market is the basic lack of regulation around selling costs, the outrageous length of loan with pair interest rates (30-year should be illegal, anything over 15 shouldn't exist), and LLCs owning "investment property" who are registered in entirely separate areas. Creating a final regulation: Rental property owners must live within a set distance of property, be it short or long term, and subject to after tenant inspections to confirm it's up to code before a new tenant can stay. That should be federal. I still believe we need a non-profit housing market to enforce healthy competition against the private housing market, thus keeping capitalism in check...
17:46 great and all that, but that just leaves room to exploit the consumer. Why do we need to make "more" money off people's hardships or requirement for housing? We don't. At all. If we want to fix the problem, the solution isn't to make the consumer more vulnerable to exploration in a 0 day bug. The solution is to remove the capability for these private loans to make profit, and require larger banks, with hefty capital, to take this burden. And if you're smart, you'll easily know that the whole "but what if no payment" bs is just bs. Insurance covers that lol...and so would the federal stipulations and incentives provided to these banks. The solution is to stop allowing wealthy capital owners from making profit off the lower class trying to simply live.
Renting isn't really much of an issue if the rents are low enough. Where I live, the rents are so low that there just isn't much profit to be made in landlording and there isn't as much of a divide between renters and owners.
@@BrilliantHandle In the natural condition, rent will be higher because there is a profit margin and management expenses in the case of the rent, and those things are not part of the picture for an owner.
Some jurisdictions are trying stuff like this. But the proposals are primitive and not well thought out (who will manage the regulation of sales, and efficiently?), and the products are still all quite big. Code is part of the complication: new bedrooms must all have windows, which was not the case when middle bedrooms were put in longer rowhouses. Forces everything to be wider than is easily usable.
people who say that actually have no idea what a 700ft "house" is like. you have no clue. and thats why you keep typing this thinking its a solution, but all you are doing is showing you are clueless. let people who know actually build houses. if you cant afford them, i mean you can rent your i bedroom 700ft apartment instead..
Same. In a heartbeat. We have the allowance by local government here in Minneapolis, but the financing isn't there. It's fronting the money and being cash-poor for an ADU that gives us pause.
Typically people will take an equity line of credit or remortgage against the primary home to fund the ADU. Depends on the local housing market but I know in Vancouver many laneway houses were financed that way. I agree we need more accessible financial products for this though!
I live in a Boston suburb (or exurb, if you want) and I'm thrilled to see four (FOUR!) mixed-use developments under construction as I write this. Retail on the ground level with apartments above within the walkshed of our heavy rail line that runs into the city. One developer even fought to have less parking! It's like a dream come true... Or at least it's a beginning.
Isn’t Boston the city that decided decades ago to tear down their public parks and build schools on them? So now there are almost no parks? I only heard about that because I was visiting once and was stunned at the lack of green space in residential areas and around universities. Not sure I would trust city land use decisions in a place that has a history of not being able to accommodate more than one critical need at a time.
I've been watching the housing market closely, Prices have been skyrocketing for years. It's going to be tough for first-time buyers to enter the market." how can one diversify $280k reserve .
It's not just the prices, but also the increasing interest rates that are making it more difficult for people to afford homes. With a good FA you can make up your portfolio.
I've remained in touch with a financial analyst since the start of my business. Amid today's dynamic market, the key difficulty is pinpointing the right time to buy or sell when dealing with trending stocks - a seemingly simple task but challenging in reality. My portfolio has grown by more than 5 figures within just a year, and i have entrusted my advisor with the task of determining entry and exit points.
Could you guide me on how to get in touch with your advisor? My funds are being eroded by inflation, and I'm seeking a more lucrative investment strategy to effectively utilize them.
Melissa Terri Swayne is the licensed coach I use. Just research the name. You'd find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
I appreciate it. After searching her name online and reviewing her credentials, I'm quite impressed. I've contacted her as I could use all the help I can get. A call has been scheduled.
A lot of the problem is that the lower rungs were cut out of the ladder. There's nowhere to go but on the street if you need to downsize: - Building affordable homes is no longer profitable because of the fees and regulations. - Manufactured housing is often not allowed. New mobile home parks are not allowed, and the existing ones are destroyed. - Having more than two people per bedroom is prohibited in rental property. - Living in campers is often prohibited, even if you own the land. - Single-room rental buildings were shut down and demolished. The solution can't and won't come from the government--they created the problem. Oh, you say, you don't want trailer parks, you don't want residential hotels, you don't want large families in small apartments. Fine. You get homeless living on the street instead. Are you happy now?
I kinda disagree that the solution can't come from the government. mainly because it probably has to. and because other governments have done it, like Singapore. they have high amounts of low income housing.
All of the solutions that you suggested aren't part of the problem. You don't want families living in trailer's. The issue is the cost of homes don't relate at all to the cost of providing them. A new house has no relation to the cost of providing due crazy land prices. And yes smaller houses would allow families to save some money
@@robd8577 consider what you're saying though, land cost is high. land isn't high cost everywhere. it's high where everyone wants to live. no one is entitled to live where everyone else wants to live, especially if you don't even have a job. if you have a job and you're making low income, maybe you can justify the government providing low income housing. if you don't even have any income, then shouldn't you move elsewhere?
@trinydex what are you talking about. Where exactly did I say unemployed people have a right to free land in desirable inner cities. Land prices don't reflect the cost. Otherwise go take a long walk off a short pier.
I'm moving to a new city and the housing choices i've been able to find exemplify the root of the "luxury vs affordable" problem. I have an income high enough to afford the "luxury" apartments, but beacuse there is so much demand from people with my income and *higher* and such a constrained supply, I am having an incredibly difficult time actually getting into units that have waitlists a hundred people long. Meanwhile, the old stock of homes from the 50's that have been split into duplexes go for half the price, but beacuse a constrained and unfree market cannot provide me with the housing product i truly want (a really nice place), I may have no choice but to displace a low income person from low price housing stock. This is bad; bad for developers, bad for me, and bad for low income people.
All new developments in my area are branded as “luxury housing”. A few years ago they built “luxury” SFRs (which had a lot less land than homes built in the 60’s-80’s). Then came “Luxury Townhomes”. Then came “Luxury Condos”. And now a nation of renters are offered expensive “Luxury Apartments”. Not sure how “Luxury” and “Apartment” can be in the same sentence. The QOL for middle-class America has gone down so much. With the interest on our national debt about to exceed tax revenue, I know there are even harder times ahead.
It kills me because in America if you think housing is bad, you need to look north. To me the Idea of making housing an investment vehicle is a huge issue. In my area housing grows at a rate faster than even markets. It means anyone with housing already is actually gobbling up more housing as investments. Then using the rent system to just make the payments till they can refinance and do it again. I don't want people to lose their homes but the market can't correct without correcting. You see this even in China where there is enough housing but it's still expensive because it's a investment. Make renting affordable and long term safety and you will fix housing.
@@MrGoalie2012or at least you should be a local resident before you can buy up homes that aren’t your primary home. And some type of limit and how many you can own yes.
Not just housing... For my entire life, the anwer to every economic problem has been to make fiance/investing more profitable. We're in another guilded age now, and despite the name, that is a very bad thing.
A few thoughts...backdrop is in these parts in Nebraska, there's massive pressure for 'property tax relief' as the talking point is that 'property taxes are too high'. In addition to a housing crisis. 1) R1 zoning, from its very creation, was always intended to be expensive and exclusionary. It was always intended to make it impossible for poor people to live in a place. That is literally the entire point, and why Duncan McDuffy invented it ~1920: to stop a black dance hall from being built, by buying the land and subdividing it into large and expensive single family detached lots that only rich (read white) people could afford. Of course R1 housing is expensive. That is literally the entire point of it. It was illegal to racially bias home ownership in government finally in 1910, so instead the strategy was to just ban poor people (read minorities) with R1 exclusionary zoning. The issue though...is R1 zoning spread across the USA to every town/city like a bad TikTok video and is no the dominant form of housing--if there's even anything else allowed. 2) Here, our property taxes do cost people a good chunk of money...because of abysmal land use from R1 and suburbanization which leads to artificial scarcity of land and housing, which drives up prices. Exactly as intended in (1). The entire point of R1 is to be expensive. This isn't a 'bug', this was always the intended 'feature'. 3) We need some systematic zoning reform from the State. Local action is needed for certain....here in Nebraska our legislature has a 'that should be a city level solution' to housing.... Except even in this rural backwater of a state there are 583 different incorporated towns/burgs and cities each with its own distinct version of restrictive R1 zoning in addition to 93 counties which may have some kind of zoning (even if the city doesn't) too. You call an architect to design a house or ADU; if you decide to change the target-city for the build; that house design will need restarted from scratch. Some systematizing is needed and desirable.
It did feel like they intentionally danced around the racist/economic caste aspects of why these legal apparatus were erected and defended. I think they're trying to avoid scaring people who have visceral reactions when presented with historical facts. It isn't necessarily an unwise decision; it may prove to be both disappointing yet the correct one. Would you rather have more people doing good things for flawed reasons, or fewer people doing good things for better reasons? Each problem will have its own calculus to this, and they seem to think the math here plays out better by just getting momentum and then fixing things on the fly later.
I feel like R1 zoning could be used as a decent mechanism to start fighting back. R1 means residential, we should make a law that anything zoned R1 must be owned by the resident. No corporate ownership of single family homes… at very least, not for the purposes of renting them out. I could see corporate/banks owning R1 in the event of a foreclosure or new builds, but that should be temporary and should incur penalties if not sold off quickly.
@@UnderBakedOverEngineered My gripe with leaving out the history, is that people who do not learn the history are forever doomed to repeat it. People who don't know that--dream we can do arcane economic stimulus to get outrselves out; not knowing that there has always been a housing problem in the USA. This property-tax 'too high' nonsense is a part of it. Here in Nebraska, like a lot of places, we have a crisis-shortage of child and senior care workers. And no policy maker or group is talking holistically about the interrelationship of these problems. Instead people feel entitled to expensive inefficient housing that they feel should be cheap--because they don't know that it never was nor can be. Of course there's a child and senior care worker shortage. Why on Earth wouldn't there be? Per BLS, you need a 4-year degree in early childhood development to be a childcare teacher (that is the caliber of knowledge you genuinely want in those workers). That is $50,000 of student debt, easily. And per BLS you know what the median wage of those daycare teachers is? $15/hour. $30K per year. Just affording a car, that is required, is $10,000/year in insurance and gas and maintenance. You will not find an apartment in these parts for less than $1,000 per month sans utilities--and if you need Section 8 Housing the landlord will laugh and tell you to get out--as the shortage is such landlords outright deny anyone without cash. That leaves you
In most suburban-type environments, "R1" has long since become a designation of where public utilities are not going to be made available. Almost everything new in even the worst suburbia is on much smaller lots than that.
It’s so silly that homes are considered an “asset”. They wear and tear and COST money to maintain like a car, like a liability. Like debt. Sure, you can rent it out. But besides that, it’s totally unnatural that its price goes up in price. Unnatural. You won’t have vulture profiteers all over the world investing in homes if homes didn’t appreciate. Houses should depreciate
It makes some sense, a house isn't just a structure, it's access to the space and economy around it. A car can be replaced with any other car fairly easily, but a house dictates a large part of people's lives. A house appreciating in value is about the idea that the surrounding area is gaining economic value. Which, is about the best defense I can give to something like a NIMBY. I don't personally feel like I have an adequate understanding to really have a strong opinion besides homes cost too much.
Several issues here. We started to build more suburbs and single family dwellings but forget the diversification of homes (including condos) for those who don't need or want a single family home. We started to build homes larger and larger to justify increased cost. The land itself should appreciate in value while the home decreases in value to off set the difference, why on earth does a home that becomes older (and typically) needs more upkeep increase in value?
7:10 this is exactly what is happening to me- the ADU in the back yard that I could downsize and move into next year is tied up in red tape- the city wants more ADUs but they have giant fees. Meanwhile, little sister across the country, recently lost her husband only 7 years after moving into their (giant) dream home. So she is in there all alone. And it's Florida: if localities start to do something popular, one can almost bet their governor will sign a law saying that no municipality can alter their zoning to be different than the rest of the state...
Something I see with a lot of this type of work, which doesn't invalidate the message but that I think needs to be considered more carefully: One of the speakers, early on, talks about "people not being able to live where or how they WANT to live, people who can't move where they WANT to be." And I don't want to single the gentleman out, because it's something I hear constantly from commentators and economists and politicians. It feels like a conscious choice, to soften the tenor of the conversation. But, make no mistake: in many cases, if not most, we're not talking about desires, but necessity. People who MUST live some place, or lose their job, or childcare, or be put in a dangerous position due to disability or identity or circumstance. We need to stop talking about wants. We need to acknowledge in our language that we're talking about things where the other side of "functional" is "destitution" or "imminent danger" or "death". Stop saying "want." Say "need."
Very well said! Our government, unfortunately, would rather send our money to other countries rather than put it back into getting us out of this mess. I really think that's a large part of the problem. Capitalism has reached a peak feeding frenzy that can only serve to destroy itself. I want to move away from here, but my daughter has to be here for her job, so we stay here. It's not a choice anymore, it's survival.
@@ellen4956 I don't think that "Our government .... send(ing) money to other countries" is anywhere close to the root of the problem. Even the large sums they are sending to help Ukraine and Israel are a relative pittance compared to the overall budget, and the cost of NOT sending that money would be much greater in the near future. It's not a money problem, per se, it's a structural problem. Restrictive zoning and parking minimums could be eliminated for next to nothing. Building public transportation and bike paths would cost relatively little - and if they were done INSTEAD of large road construction projects, they'd actually save money.
@@OfTheGaps also they arent actually sending money... they are sending over pretty much exclusively their old stockpiles of military equipment that they will replace with newer stuff anyway... they could send all of that equipment and not replace anything and it would barely make a dent in the military capability of the US... and the military budget is fixed anyway isnt it? its mandatory spending and it is humongous this is just the military industrial complex using a crisis to make more money - but it doesnt really have an impact on the size of government budgets... just where the military budget is allocated
@@OfTheGaps More public transit is always good,. Zoning is up to individual cities isn't it? Near my home, city planners are encouraging people who own large lots to build what they used to call an "in-law house" at the back of the lot as a rental. I think that is an excellent idea, and people used to build second dwellings on their lots, as seen in most cities. But when you consider what could be done if a fraction of tax money went into better public transit, trade schools for those who can't afford to pay off student loans, and rebuilding industry right here instead of allowing corporations who exploit slave labor in other countries sell their products here, don't you agree the situation would change for the better fairly quickly? I agree that parking minimums are a big waste, but both houses I've owned had only street parking. It's going to take an FDR style program and mandate to put the money back into the economy at local levels (not banks) to make these changes happen. I agree, it's structural to a point, but we still need to claim federal funds to make these changes a reality. My point is that the multiple billions sent out of the U.S. is needed more right here, right now. I will not drag politics into this discussion further than that. Our own country is experiencing economic hardship and people are losing hope.
@@ellen4956 I think we largely agree. I do think federal funds should be allocated to help make our lives better, and that our federal spending priorities are out of whack. My only quibble was pitting foreign assistance against the needs of the American public. I think foreign aid, for the most part, supports the well-being of American citizens. Corporate welfare, on the other hand, hurts us all.
I really like this video. I really like the previous "Ned Flanders Drops". The "boots on the street" videos are great for getting the feeling and experiences to come across in video. This style of video really helps plainly lay out the problem, give some of the data, and go through solutions in a way that doesn't feel like an academic lecture - even if the topic is deserving of one. I could go on about how much I liked this video, but I'll stop there. We have got to unlock our cities and communities!
One of the last large plots of land (almost a full block in size) in my suburban city became available. Developer built a handful of super expensive townhouses. Land could have easily held over 100 apartments, but its 20 luxury townhouses.
Once you build apartments the demographics change, so does the political climate in the area. Democrats want to install subsidized housing and apartments in conservative areas and change the voters.
Twenty is probably as many as can be squeezed into a block and still have room for a few bushes and trees, and keep their cars from taking away all the street parking. But it is exceptionally small number of residences for a financially viable townhouse complex. Long after the developer has taken his money and run, the owners are going to start seeing big costs for repairs of community assets that can only be split 20 ways. I’ve seen it happen elsewhere and it’s going to be painful. Hopefully they aren’t responsible for a pool, playground, a private street, or parking lot. Also, I hope they are each responsible for their part of the roof and exterior, but there are reasons why those are often community responsibilities.
I’m so happy I found this video. I’m one of those citizen, real estate developers. I want to make affordable housing for people. I don’t care about money. I just want people to be safe in their homes. I’m definitely subscribing because I want to help. Thank you for the video
The banking system is broken as well. I was in my jome in 2009, i asked for a modification. I was told by the bank after submitting my income and expenses that i needed to EAT LESS. YES you heard me right, the bank said i was spending too much on food. I did eat out, i shopped at low budget stores and cooked all my meals in bulk, but yet i am told we eat too much. I paid $180,000 for my home, i lived in it for 9 years, i foreclosed, they sold it to someone else for $125,000, how is that fair? If a bank is willing to take more than a $40,000 hit why couldn't they have le ME stay there for that amount or higher.
You paid on a house for 9 years and was still foreclosed on? And it was only a $180,000 house? Your mortgage payment should have only been a little over $1000.
Yup, i waa trying to buy an entry level home and i wasnt able to because of the demand for homes. I kept losing them, being outbid. These homes I was looking at would be illegal to build today, they are all "too small" to br able to rebuild new.
It is incredible how this guys spoke for 19 minutes about how much we need the free market for housing, and still have people commenting "housing should not be treated as something to sell and buy"
A solution to this is something that Vancouver has implemented. A vacancy tax. Something like high vacancy taxes could work, where real estate companies and real estate owners who have homes that they don't live in and don't rent out would have to pay heavy vacancy taxes, thus heavily incentivizing them to bring those houses to the market to rent instead of keeping it out of the market so it could build up value as an investment over time. This would especially force massive real estate megacorps who have thousands of units or luxury apartments to have to put those up in much lower rental prices just so they don't have to deal with with the vacancy tax. Try speaking with your neighbors and people around your area, bring up this vacancy tax idea, stoke that anti-corpo hate, and try to get the vacancy tax onto a local referendum or at least use that as an actionable and popular policy to pressure your councilpersons and local representatives to implement. A reason why something like this, which a local town can use effectively on even massive real estate megacorporations, is the fact that real estate is not liquid; if the real estate megacorps don't want to bring their properties up to rent at prices that people are will to afford, they can't just pick up their houses and move it somewhere else. Their houses and real estate properties are stuck there. Does this help, friend?
And it has not made any appreciable difference in solving the problem in Vancouver. I'm all for a vacancy tax ONLY in the sense that once it's implemented, people who think it's a silver bullet will realize that it didn't work, and get on board with taking bolder action to solve the problem. Vacancy rates are too low as it is. You need to have empty units in the game of musical chairs. Vacancies are what create competition in the market so that renters/buyers have leverage and can walk away from a crappy deal. If there are no other vacancies, that's when sellers/landlords are empowered to charge extortionate prices.
Back in the day, when I purchased my first home to live-in; that was Miami in the early 1990s, first mortgages with rates of 7% to 9% were typical. People will have to accept the possibility that we won't ever return to 5%. If sellers must sell, home prices will have to decline, and lower evaluations will follow. Pretty sure I'm not alone in my chain of thoughts.
I sold a property in Q4 of 2022 and I'm waiting for a house crash to happen so I buy cheap. In the meanwhile, I've been looking at dividend stocks as an alternative., any idea if it's a good time to buy? I hear people say it's a madhouse right now
Home prices will come down eventually, but for now; get your money as much as you can, out of the housing market and get into the financial markets or gold. Home prices will need to fall by a minimum of 40% (more like 50%) before the market normalizes. If you are in cross roads or need sincere advise on the best moves to take now its best you seek a pro who knows about the financial markets.
The decision on when to pick an Adviser is a very personal one. I take guidance from Sharon Ann Meny to meet my growth goals and avoid mistakes, she's well-qualified and her page can be easily found on the net.
In the USA, individuals living in cars due to partial homelessness result from a complex interplay of factors. High housing costs relative to income, stagnant wages, and income inequality drive this issue. Job loss, weak social support, medical expenses, evictions, and lack of affordable housing also contribute, while systemic problems and inadequate policies further perpetuate the phenomenon.
Considering the present situation, diversifying by shifting investments from real estate to financial markets or gold is recommended, despite potential future home price drops. Given prevailing mortgage rates and economic uncertainty, this move is prudent, particularly due to stricter mortgage regulations. Seeking advice from a knowledgeable independent financial advisor is advisable for those seeking guidance.
I've remained in touch with a financial analyst since the start of my business. Amid today's dynamic market, the key difficulty is pinpointing the right time to buy or sell when dealing with trending stocks - a seemingly simple task but challenging in reality. My portfolio has grown by more than $600k within just a year, and I've entrusted my advisor with the task of determining entry and exit points.
@@joshbarney114 I appreciate the implementation of ideas and strategies that result to unmeasurable progress. Being heavily liquid, I'd rather not reinvent the wheel, thus the search for a reputable advisor, mind sharing info of this person guiding you please?
Finding financial advisors like Marisa Breton Dollard who can assist you shape your portfolio would be a very creative option. There will be difficult times ahead, and prudent personal money management will be essential to navigating them.
Marisa has the appearance of being a great authority in her profession. I looked her up online and found her website, which I reviewed and went through to learn more about her credentials, academic background, and employment. She has a fiduciary duty to protect my best interests. I sent her an email outlining my objectives and also booked a session with her; thanks for sharing.
I’ve been working, saving and contributing towards financial freedom and early retirement, but the economy so far since the pandemic has eaten away most of my portfolio, what I want to know is this: Should I keep contributing to my portfolio in these unstable markets or do I look into alternative sectors.
Yeah, fiduciaries could make a lot of difference, particularly in a market such as this. Stocks are pretty unstable at the moment, but if you do the right math, you should be just fine. Bloomberg and other finance media have been recording cases of folks gaining over 250k just in a matter of weeks/couple months, so I think there are a lot of wealth transfer in this downtime if you know where to look. I have been using an FA since 2020, and I return at least $30k ROI, and this does not include capital gain.
I just googled her and I'm really impressed with her credentials; I reached out to her since I need all the assistance I can get. I just scheduled a caII.
Not without a significant shift in political consensus. Public housing grew in Vienna during the "Rotes Wien" (Red Vienna) period of the First Republic (which followed the conclusion of WWI until the mid-1930's). Roughly a tenth of Vienna's population then lived in public housing. Cheers.
Public housing complexes in the USA didn’t work. These places were extremely dangerous for the many of the residents. Look up Cabrini Green housing development.
North Idaho where I live has seen a massive boom in housing but every place is unaffordable. Studio apartments are no less than a thousand a month and houses that were built for around 70,000 in the 90s are over 400,000 now. And there are no jobs around here that pay enough to live alone.
My main problem thus far to be honest is, how? Right now at least, I know one councilperson (not MY councilperson, but someone who heard me and was sympathetic if not encouraging of Strong Town ideas) who is on board in my suburb. It is awfully easy to lose hope, given how little the rest care given how long I've spoken at council meetings thus far. I don't know what to even start doing after this, as I'm kind of alone for the moment. I don't have, pretty much any deep connection with my neighbors aside from passing by, so I'm not sure how I can turn the current situation around until next election cycle in 2026. My councilperson is kind of openly hostile (politically speaking) to any changes to the codes, and we know how bad local election turnout tends to be. Has anyone at Strong Towns have experience starting from such few people and finding ways to actually change anything within such a system?
A solution to this is something that Vancouver has implemented. A vacancy tax. Something like high vacancy taxes could work, where real estate companies and real estate owners who have homes that they don't live in and don't rent out would have to pay heavy vacancy taxes, thus heavily incentivizing them to bring those houses to the market to rent instead of keeping it out of the market so it could build up value as an investment over time. This would especially force massive real estate megacorps who have thousands of units or luxury apartments to have to put those up in much lower rental prices just so they don't have to deal with with the vacancy tax. Try speaking with your neighbors and people around your area, bring up this vacancy tax idea, stoke that anti-corpo hate, and try to get the vacancy tax onto a local referendum or at least use that as an actionable and popular policy to pressure your councilpersons and local representatives to implement. A reason why something like this, which a local town can use effectively on even massive real estate megacorporations, is the fact that real estate is not liquid; if the real estate megacorps don't want to bring their properties up to rent at prices that people are will to afford, they can't just pick up their houses and move it somewhere else. Their houses and real estate properties are stuck there. Does this help, friend?
@@ajiththomas2465 With all the respect, this tax didn't do anything to Vancouver's prices so as to any other Canadian city/provinces where it was added, so I think it's too bold to consider it a solution. Sure it forced to rent it out, but it's irrelevant if it's rented out on exorbital deficit market where you have way more demand over supply. Attempting to regulate pricing is also a false feeling you help, but would only trigger push burden on renters to subsidize insane mortgages on this housing, as so on...
It will be painful, but it sounds like what we need is for the housing bubble to completely burst again, but this time let the big banks fail for leading us into this mess, and instead prop up the individual homeowners like we should have done in 2008. Then come back in with these new products to get more people into homes at an affordable rate.
Warren Buffett said back in 2008 to let the banks fail. They created the bubble but got paid anyway and then took the house. President Obama said what the banks did was unethical but legal so we bailed them out. Here we go again.
Idk about everywhere else in the country, but in my area, there are a lot of boarded-up houses. What's going on with those houses? They call them "Zombie Houses", but it seems insane to have an empty house sitting around bringing property values down and homeless people living in tents by the river...
I feel for NIMBYs when they say high rise development kills the charm of neighborhoods. I just wish we developed similarly to Montreal, Chicago, Philadelphia. The 3 story rowhomes are beautiful and done on a large enough could provide us all with adequate housing without cramming us into condos. That said I still think condo towers have a place, next to transit corridors for example. Having commercial/residential mixed zoning would also help a lot.
Not all condos are towers. I live in a 3 story courtyard building. Fish in a fountain in the courtyard. Cherry, dogwood, and maple trees that put on great shows every year. It's "flat" style with the living/dining facing the street, and the bedroom facing the courtyard, away from the noise of the city. Twenty households on land the size of two single family lots.
Only if they tie into the urban fabric. In my home city of Alexandria they just built up a 6-block by 2-block parcel with nothing but 3-story rowhouses. They are ugly buildings and the only third space is a 1 square block park. The closest retail is a gas station convenience store on the other side of a highway and a supermarket 6 blocks north of the development. We know what works and refuse to build it.
@@jyutzler sounds like they're ugly cause they're mass produced developer builds for profit. If each home was constructed by the family who'd live in them they'd more than likely be a lot more beautiful but who can afford to do that nowadays?
@@LaMach420 I agree, but the neighborhood would still stink even if the architecture were beautiful because of the lack of third spaces. They could have built a main street down the middle and had a mix of unit types, but that didn't happen.
I don't understand why all the new build housing is 2500+ square feet. Why don't they build smaller affordable houses? Why did greedy people buy up all the older, cheaper houses and remodel them to flip them for massive profits? That's what happened to all of the starter homes.
He's right. Many of the people saying we need affordable housing don't have a clue what it cost to build and maintain. So whether they realize it or not, many people can't even afford what is considered affordable housing without their rent being subsidized.
Missing from this video: private equity buying up starter homes and preventing families from entering the market as owners. The fed needs to step in to regulate this class of "investment" in favor of individuals, not corporations.
In my area, Lennar sold 28 homes on 1 street to first key homes (private equity). First key now has several listed for sale nearly 25% below the 2022 list price. Just posted about it
I would like to have economists look at the impact of private land ownership on the housing crisis. I'd like us to revisit what Henry George said about the subject. If society is the one to capture the value increase in the land only that is inherent in cities, then that money can be used for the public good. As it is, these housing bubbles have arisen because that value gets captured privately and I suspect that value is being concentrated up the wealth ladder. I think this feeds into the video's notion of citizens of communities having a vested interest in the wealth generated by the constant change happening in the community.
Regular people aren’t totally blameless either, I agree most of it lies with companies and policies but when we had cheap money via mortgage loans we started asking for more from our homes. Bigger garages, kitchens, custom bathrooms or large decks. This means developers charge more money and take longer per house to build and get permits for. This hurts supply which in turn drives up prices.
They started it, but home owners are gonna prevent changing it; no owner wants to see their property lose hundreds of thousands in value. It’s what needs to happen and is why house prices aren’t going down any time soon
@@BigHeadClanRight. I mean alot of the blame does fall on the investors but just like how over 90 percent of Americans who own Pickup's and SUV''s dont use them for their intended use but to pick up groceries and starbucks we are also to blame for everyone feeling entitled to a McMansion. The sizes of homes have inflated over the decades. I know alot of young childfree first time home buyers who want to immediately live in a 2500 sq ft home. Thats a starter home to alot of yuppies now.
@@TYBG85 A lot of those investors wouldn't have been able to afford those 70-80K trucks without cheap loans to begin with. Not saying the buyers are blameless (Far from it) but if you are giving people practically free money they are going to spend it stuff they don't need or have any practical use for and we'd have a lot fewer Trucks and SUV on the road. As for first time home buyers I'm not sure who you are talking to, but pretty much all of the people I've talked to from the generation below would be happy with with anything they could call their own without paying 2K in rent for a 1bed/bath apartment. I'm sure there are some out there who may expect larger homes for what they are spending but I can at least see how they got that perception most millenarians and gen Z grew up in houses 1700-2200Sq-Ft homes and probably thought it was the norm when just one generation ago it was more like 1200SQ-FT.
New housing being built is most often over sized, 2 story homes...usually in hoa neighborhoods. Why not build reasonable ranch style homes? New homes are overpriced in part because they aren't modest. This means that a modest, 20 or 30 year old home inflates in value, because even at $250k, it's still a lot cheaper than the new $400k homes...even though the old home was only $80k when new.
I'm going back to school in my mid-40s and after a couple terms of exploration I'm most likely going to go for a masters in urban planning. Stuff like this is fascinating because it indicates we are on the cusp of a huge opportunity to do a great amount of good through policy changes and more thoughtful application of existing statutes. I will be following your work closely
The biggest myth of homeownership is that you NEVER own your home. The focus of banks being heartless and foreclosing if payments become difficult because the only mortgage offered was a variable pales in comparison with what your local government does if you miss a property tax payment. You may pay off your mortgage in 30yrs but you’re NEVER done paying property taxes. And THAT is increasingly becoming more difficult to manage.
I rent from California now, having paid the bank. We have Prop 13, which prevents them from jacking up the property taxes every year. This causes all kinds of revenue and mobility problems, but it means I won't be priced out of my own home by taxes. Now HOA fees, on the other hand...
The American car dependent culture resulted in low density housing - urban sprawl. When there are not enough housing to meet demand, prices go up. Many workplaces have parking lots that are +3x that of the building itself. Local governments should provide sticks and carrots to convert 20-40% of workplaces with +200 to dense, affordable housing. Employees of those places can skip the commute and $12k/year cost of owning a car.
Counties near large cities know that if they let enough apartments, condos and dense housing be built that they will need to build some new elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, water treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants, roads, and every other public service will need more employees and a bigger budget.
I'm an older millennial and we had a family young, so we bought our house just as things were starting to heat up in 2015. We paid $160k for it then (and that was a stretch financially at the time). Based on what similar homes are selling for around us today it would probably sell for closer to $350k. In less than a decade! We've fixed it up here and there but for the most part it's just become older in that time 😂. It's nothing fancy either, 1600sq ft with 4 small bedrooms and 3 small bathrooms. We probably couldn't afford it comfortably if we purchased the same house today. Just crazy!
I'm in Southern California with basically the same house and story...bought in 2010 for $160k, current value is $575k. There is a new build community that's a 5 minute walk from me and similar models are starting at $725k. It's absolutely crazy. Ive paid my house off already but instead of relaxing, I am now working harder because I know how much help my young kids will need in the next 15-20 years when the become adults.
It’s even worse in Canada! 300K homes bought in 2010 now sell for over a million in suburbs hours from major cities. Hopefully the US can catch the issue before you get to Canada’s level of pricing. I’m 32 and have accepted I’m not owning a house for at least another 10 years. I’m not taking on an 900K mortgage as a first time buyer. The average house price in Canada is 750K.
That's the exact same time period my parents talked me out of buying my first house. They thought the bubble would pop any minute. I've always wondered how my life would be different..
@@madderlakevideoproductions4560I’m really curious as to why things are worse in Canada than in the US. Your population is much less dense. I believe what you say, I see those prices for Canada homes on TV. But I don’t understand why?
My husband and I are young millennials. We’re 29 years old, and I don’t know if we will ever be able to buy a house. We bought a two bedroom travel trailer and are going to buy land eventually. We currently live in the trailer while we start our family. (I’m currently pregnant). I would like to own a house, but it isn’t a possibility for us right now.
"It's not just that the rent is too high" but if we can drive costs down, a lot of the other problems also melt away. "When it comes to housing, we need to build tons of units. Lots and lots of units." Exactly.
They need to streamline permitting, reduce gotchas and help fund housing development. Even looking at being a real estate developer it’s just seems like a land mine of rules, regulations, gotchas like contaminated properties, zoning and then don’t get started with funding. It’s all money up front with the hope of selling at profit after a million people get their cut. We need to go back to prefab homes like what sears used to sell. You order and all is shipped to you at a decent price and then you build. I’m absolutely certain 100 years ago zoning, laws, financing and soil contamination was much much less of a concern.
16:22 Confused: if they're currently paying essentially half the house value in rent per year already, why would a mortgage written for them need a 30-year term? That's one heck of an implied interest rate. And then how is that not incredibly lucrative for the underwriter? And why should it matter that the house value is low, when it's possible to finance other things of relatively low value (like, say, cars)?
Even is you build new houses, how do you stop investment firms from buying up the supply? They have the capacity to offer much more money than what you would be able to get from a family that needs a house. And then the investment firms will keep the prices high, because to them housing isn't a necessity, but a way to make a lot of money with. To me the end of the video feels a bit like the residential selective garbage collection: pay no attention to the large industrial polluters, only individuals can save the planet!
Housing would not be a good investment if you build enough supply to curb demand (and continue to do so). Investors are a symptom of an overregulated market.
@@rogerk6180 Lobbying. The investment firms will bribe politicians to not make any changes that would devalue their assets, or make it more difficult to profit.
@@brandonmackenzie1203 More a symptom of an opportunity to make a lot of money. There is a lot of way to make a lot of money and lack of regulation is probably the most powerful one. The sector with the most absurd rate of investment is probably tech, look any faang stock market, compare the value of their share to the money they actually make. Does it look overregulated to you ? Housing in (big) cities is a limited market, you cannot simply build as many houses than you want. Land is very limited, but also depend on transportation, electric grid and water connection, sewage lot a thing that make it something that cannot indefinitely growth and need a lot of public investment in infrastructures. Also, building price goes up : You need natural resource to make the building material that a more rare today, and more expensive to extract and transform than yesterday. Inflation is affecting everybody, so labour in construction price is also going up. So building prices goes up, independently of the market, just because the cost of fabrications are going up. And those cost of fabrications are going up because we only have one planet and a limited amount of resources to share. We have less oil, less coal, less steel, less sand... available than 50 years ago. Limited market + capitalism = oligopoly Oligopoly ⇒ less competition, fewer incentives to drive price down for investors What can be done ? Easy solution, massive investment from a non-profit organization (in theory could be a private one, but we know only public have this kind of will and power). Rent slightly up of the cost of maintenance to force competition back. Rent goes down, less money to make, less shark investors in the market.
Where I live roughly 1-in-5 of the new McMansions and condo apartment units have owners but are vacant. They have been purchased by off-shore interests to hide money from their home country government's clutches, or as a relatively safe store of value not correlated to stock markets, or (some say) to launder ill-gotten gains. Unfortunately, this has added more "juice" to the upward price spiral that is making homes unaffordable for many people here. Not good. Cheers.
The problem in my view is the following. Stop allowing corporations from buying houses. (Less demand and more supply should lower house prices) Allow more zoning and construction of new developments Subsidize builders to reduce cost of building homes. Offer bigger tax incentives and discounts to first time home buyers. Lastly for the renters remove the software that syncs different agencies pricing structures that price gouge renters. Create legislation that creates fair rent allocation for units.
Percentage wise the big outfits don't own many single family homes. Yes, certain cities got hit hard with large numbers of homes being purchased as rentals, but nationwide the numbers are quite low. When you see that a large corporation has purchased a thousand or five thousand houses across the country keep the following number in mind. "In the United States, the majority of housing units are single-family houses - about 82 million " Sure, having those thousand investor-owned homes on the market will help a little here and there, but it will not cure anything any more than having 1,000 new homes appear on the market tomorrow in a large city. They will be charging full price.
my town is 1000 people, 45 minutes away from the nearest town. The house built 25 years ago that is across the street just went up for sale for $289k. My house was built in 1883 I just bought 2 years ago. It's value went up 80% from 22 to 23. This seems like a good thing in the abstract. But that also means my taxes also went up in proportion. Property taxes are expensive no matter where you live. Owning a home is NOT an investment unless you intend to flip it, or rent it. The total cost of home ownership over 30 years is about 100% of it's value. You will have replaced everything by then. roof, siding, windows, furnace, AC, flooring, appliances.
Welcome to what Robert Reich calls "greed-flation". The only reason a realtor will tell you the wildly over-priced housing is "what the market will bear" is because they are reaping a higher 6% on a house that is, for many, merely an investment, not a place to call home.
7:31 This is incorrect. Corporations have bought up more homes than EVER for flipping and renting. Get rid of the corporations doing this, and housing prices drop 20% in six months.
1:05 "In maybe the wealthiest time and the wealthiest society in human history, so many of us feel poor or feel constrained". Well, yeah: what we call individual wealth is a claim on other people. I mean, we COULD define wealth in terms of having lots of fruits and vegetables to eat and lots of time to play with our children, but we tend to define it in financial wealth. And what is financial wealth? It is, for example: if I own bonds, SOMEONE has to be in debt. If I own an apartment building that goes up in value over time, then SOMEONE has to be paying me increased rents every year instead of owning their own place. If I own dividend growth stocks, then SOMEONE has to be spending more money this year than last year (otherwise I may own stocks, but they're not "dividend growth" stocks). This is how wealth, as our society generally defines it, works. One person's wealth is a claim on someone else, which means "someone else" is going to "feel poor or feel constrained".
All of this is true, and the bottom line is simply that if zoning allowed more public transportation accessible, affordable, housing then prices would drop. This isn't a question of lowering construction costs. Municipalities make it next to impossible to build anything that isn't luxurious and super pricey.
_"How do we return to the economic boom after World War 2?"_ That demands understanding why the economy was booming. Because it did so _because World War 2 had ended._ Europe was in shambles, entire cities had to be rebuilt, people had nothing and demand for a lot of things. _Of course_ it was booming. To say you want to "return to that" is equivalent to saying you want another post-World War period. My biggest gripe with the US' housing crisis is that is has bled into so many 'Western' countries, causing untold havoc through collateral damage. The only real solution for now is a much-overdue correction that is inherent to the system. The longer that takes, the harder the crash will be.
My old family home is now over $500,000 bucks. It was bought new in the 1970's for like $80,000's. It's in a Cheap HOA, and right off a Main Street. It has no pool, single level home, 4 bedrooms and 2 baths. I've seen the pictures of what it looks like after the flip, looks lovely. But at the same time, the cost is vial.
Not real estate again! One of the most alluring investment sectors is the stock market; however, stock investing can be risky because of the frequent fluctuations that can result in large gains or losses for investors. If you can manage the risk, though, you can use the stock market to secure your financial position and generate income.
Building a good financial-portfolio has been more complex since covid, so I would recommend you seek professional support. This way you can get strategies designed to address your unique long-term goals and financial dreams.
Yes, that's true. I had assumed that my financial situation was good until I realised that I needed help with diversification. I contacted a coach, and in less than a year, I had made over [$750k] in net profit-roughly six times my own income.
How can one find a verifiable financial Planner, I buy the idea of employing the services of a Financial Advisor because finding that balance between saving and living requires counsel.
This recommendation is coming at the right time because i am literally grasping for straws atm ! I looked her--up online and scheduled a phone call with her.
Why doesn't the govt just buy some of these huge luxury apartment buildings and convert them to subsidized affordable condos? Let's say it costs a developer $100M to build one with 500 units (~$200K/unit to build). Govt could offer them say $125M to hand it over to them. Govt could then set whatever rates on the units they want if they want to rent them or just outright sell them to recoup some or all of that $ to purchase. The developer having made a handsome profit could then go find another project to build. It sounds expensive but we have given close to $200B to Ukraine in the last couple years to fight a war halfway around the world that we don't really even have any interests in. The govt could easily do something like this. Take that $200 Billion we sent to Ukraine and govt could buy 2,000 $100M massive luxury apt complexes. 1,000,000 condos right there converted to govt control without having to build them - they are already built. Then let the developers take their $ towards new projects. Obviously there will be some pushback from local areas on this but that is where local and national govt need to work together to figure out how to make it work. With how much $ the federal govt throws around no reason something like this shouldn't be part of the fix.
Government regulation needs to be slowly unwound. The fundamental tension between investment vs. shelter isn’t answered by doing away with zoning entirely overnight. Incremental progress is key. Changes in policy will create winners & losers. As a YIMBY homeowner, I’m willing to accept some level of economic loss for more neighbors. For example, I think allowing all SFH lots to be duplexes is totally reasonable & wouldn’t hurt anything. No zoning whatsoever & back to a total free for all overnight would.
I want to note that I don't actually believe the disappearance of the 'American dream' is an issue in and of itself. The aspirations of living in a suburb, having a nuclear family and an SUV shouldn't be the goal nor is it sustainable for every single person to have, it's simply not feasible in terms of resources at scale.There are aspects of the post WW2 age we should look to as inspiration and guidance but I don't believe we need to fully revert back to that age in terms of ideals and city planning, especially considering the housing built and city planning is the culprit for suburban sprawl and car centric infrastructure of today The issue moreso lies in the fact that people are not even able to afford single bedroom apartments in a nice city with nearby amenities, or a townhome or a condo etc.Anecdotally I will never live in a single family suburb because it's not appealing to me in any way.
This video nails it. As a small time property owner I can attest to Zoning being a major preventer of building more affordable housing. I have tried to build these units and been stopped.
There are many solutions, but here's my two favorite (realistic) ones to speculate about. 1) Disallow any individual or entity from owning more than two (maybe one) properties at once. If property scalpers (or "investors") can't buy up something in demand without using it, the prices can't skyrocket. Least, not as out-of-control as we see now. 2) Have the government build and maintain flophouses (or some very minimal housing) and only charge the amount to maintain them; including capital cost divided by expected days of operation. No profiting, but no luxuries. If developers only build expensive housing while nobody is forced to buy them, they won't buy them, the lots will rot, and this property gouging business will be financially insolvent.
Unfortunately my city grew along class and race lines, as many are, and that has not changed. So there are winners and losers every time no matter the other circumstances around housing. What has changed since '08, is the added burden of investors buying up housing and locking it up away from a possible homeowner.
I hate to be Debbie Downer, but a lot of real estate market watchers are finally saying the quiet part out loud: That the housing affordability problem will take *decades* to fix. So if you're not already in the housing market, you're probably screwed, because it's probably not getting better in your lifetime. The problem is that we can fix this problem, but we won't. And the reason we won't fix this problem is the same reason we won't fix any problem: because even if the country gains a net benefit and rich people would be richer in the long run, *ANYTHING* that even slightly negatively impacts the ultra-wealthy, even if it's very briefly, is dead on arrival.
Something like high vacancy taxes could work, where real wstate companies and real estate owners who have homes that they don't live in and dont rent out would have to pay heavy vacancy taxes, thus heavily incentivizing them to bring those houses to the market to rent instead of keeping it out of the market so it could build up value as an investment over time.
Most of these ideas require DEREGULATION of mortgage products. There were lenders for many of these propposals in 2001-2008. The CFPB makes some of products VERY regulated so financial institutions do NOT want to create the products. I have worked in mortgages for 20+ years. Many of the products you are pitching have high risk at present so without being able to charge 15-25% (like some manufactured home builders) . Supply/demand vs risk/reward. Loan amounts below 100k need to be deregulated.
The higher end areas complain that they don't have workers at the regular service jobs, but there aren't any homes or apartments for the workers 10 to 15 miles close to the town or city
All anyone really wants or needs is peace and quiet and that can be found almost nowhere and rarely if ever is it affordable. So to hell with this world.
Planning is needed as essential infrastructure (ie. Hospitals and schools) are required to handle such influx in any area. If not no one has access to these essentials.... seems fantastical. Just me?
As a result of rent controls were removed in an attempt to encourage the building of rentals units you now have large corporate landlords owning hundreds of single-family homes charging maximum rent to achieve a 25 to 50% profit and they are also paid ot keep the units empty as well. Thus, we also have unaffordable rent in a very limited number of rental buildings
When in human history, did people sit around, hoping their government was going to provide them housing? The only solution is for every person to take control of their own life and go create their own housing.
To summarize "Let people build what they want"....I built a very comfortable home all my self with zero previous experience for 45 grand not to "code" which has worked perfectly and hasn't fallen down. We have over regulated everyone into an inefficient and expensive corner with nowhere to go at a time where there has never been more knowledge freely available to do it yourself, its mental. Im not a rebel but Im sure as fark not going to be told I can't build myself shelter and then not be offered a reasonable alternative from them at the same time.
@@logoski589 Yeh the price increases have been crazy, I finished my build a month into the pandemic and it was the best/luckiest move I ever made as there is no way I could have afforded to do the project now and would now be a rent slave for life like many others.
Hey friend! If you found any of the ideas here interesting, you''ll definitely enjoy our new book release where Daniel and Chuck cover all of this in much more detail. Learn more here: www.housingtrap.org/
Sure we can escape it, just move to cheaper country.
Where was that archival footage of the 1950s factory workers from?
If we did a big reset to 1950s-1960s codes and laws, and get rid of most housing codes ( other than improvements to seismic/hurricane/etc safety, as well as some enhanced energy efficiency housing. Prices would drop tremendously.
Do an even bigger reset where stuff is simplified further and the economy would be bustling and many small businesses would restart/start up.
Bush and baby Barry Obama are portrayed in a photo together and Barry's step dad Soetero was an Standard Oil exec. Much of politics is too cozy and a puppet of big interests.
We need to change that.
@@MetalGearMk3 this is a possibility if you stop ignoring the criteria of the declaration of independence.
I preordered the audiobook.
There's no middle class housing. It's not just low income, it's middle income housing that is gone. People are looking for half a million dollars for houses and condos. IN the cities it's even worse. You're looking at half a million dollars for a studio or one bedroom condo. Who the hell needs a half million dollar one bedroom? What are you supposed to do with that?
We've allowed our housing to become a stock market.
Same in my community, there is no middle. Just McMansions as far as the eye can see, or run down unlivable homes that you can't afford a mortgage for because a developer will pay that much to knock it down for another McMansion.
Half a million for a house!!! What a steal, I wish it was that cheap
and strangely the exact kind of homes you would expect the middle class to live in is the very kind of housing that is illegal to build in most of the US. and the transit middle class used to use is the transit that is least effective in a car based world.
It's always been a stock market. The system has just finally reached its end point, late stage capitalism. The problem is capitalism. We need land reform.
Because we made housing into a commodity and financial instrument instead of a place to live.
Keep in mind that during the 80’s people were encouraged to save due to the interest rates. Right now there’s very little incentive to save because those who are saving are watching those who are reckless taking it in. I’ve been trying to save for a home and it’s been discouraging to watch prices continue to not budge because there’s people willing to get into a mortgage where they’re paying 40% of their income. It’s insane.
The housing market in 2024 poses difficulties due to uncertainties about the Federal Reserve's ability to curb inflation and reduce borrowing costs without adversely affecting demand for assets like homes and automobiles.
Consider shifting from real estate to stocks during severe recessions. While market volatility presents short-term trading opportunities, it's crucial to approach with caution. This isn't financial advice, but investing during such times may be a strategic move, consider adopting the services of a financial expert.
In fact, I had no prior experience or understanding when I began investing in 2020, but by the end of 2023, I had made a profit of almost $850k. All I had been doing was going by what my financial advisor had told me. This demonstrates that all you truly need is a professional to assist you; you don't even need to be a great investor or put in a lot of work.
@@ThomasChai05who is your advisor please, if you don't mind me asking?
Thank you for the lead. I searched her up, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.
The problem is that in order to have "permanent roof" with amenities like electricity, gas and water, either the tenant or the owner must somehow pay insurance and property taxes. As a result, a lot of people live in tents, at least in California, where I presently dwell. Not a single mortgage, tax, rent, or insurance. It amazes me how many folks I meet who tell me they live in their cars. This place is insane!
It's becoming more and more insane by the day. Mortgage rates have been rising steadily (already over 7%). I often wonder if I should put my extra money into the stock market and wait for a housing crash, or if I should just buy a house regardless.
Such concerns also come to me. After 50, I'm retiring early. I'm already concerned about the direction the future is taking, particularly with regard to finances and making ends meet. I'm thinking about investing in the stock market for the first time as well, but how can I accomplish so considering that the market has been in disarray for much of the year?
For my part, I can relate to that. My benefits were clear when I started working with a fiduciary financial counsellor. I would always suggest seeking expert assistance in these situations so they can guide you through bumpy markets and simply provide you with indicators and tactics for knowing when to enter and exit the market.
How can I reach this adviser of yours? because I'm seeking for a more effective investment approach on my savings
My CFA Annette Marie Holt , a renowned figure in her line of work. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market.
“Luxury” is not a legal term. It is almost always used to sell lemons. After 10 years, the cheap construction begins to show cracks, but the people who built the units are long gone, leaving the problem to the people who fell for the trap. Luxury is code for cheap but unit are sold at extravagant prices
i know its off-topic, but do you happen to know where the term "sell lemons" comes from? from context i imagine it means trying to sell something as more valuable/exotic than it actually is... but i dont understand why
on the topic - yeah thats honestly another pretty big problem as well, especially in the UK from what i hear, where people get saddled with horrible build quality that falls apart after a few years
@@SharienGaming It originated (mostly) from the practice of selling bad cars - either poorly made, poorly maintained or simply too old - as being in great condition/new/worth the value (a "sweet deal"), which then leads to the buyer getting the vehicle only to find out it's gone and turned into a "sour deal" shortly after buying it (something goes wrong). And since lemons are sour the practice came to be known as "Selling Lemons".
@@ParagonFury ah thank you =)
Luxury is code more for cheap foundations with a new coat of paint.
I see a lot of very expensive finishing being used. You might not realize what this stuff costs. No matter what is used, it is out of style and worn after 20 years. Also, you get damage. Your $30,000 floor can be ruined in a week. I build with cheaper standard commodity materials because I know it all gets old anyway. Works for me.
My grandparents can't even downsize. They need a smaller home without stairs separating the living spaces. Short of moving into a retirement home or retirement condo there are no options for them. They've even looked at buying a plot of land so they can build what they need from scratch! I find this especially troubling because all this equity everyone is so hyped to build is getting harder to tap into. You cannot downsize if your housing options are all the same or similarly expensive.
All the small houses were taken down and replaced with much larger ones
Most of the smaller homes are in neighborhoods with too much crime. Best thing is to build a bedroom and bathroom extension on the ground floor and have family members move in with them to help out. Retirement homes are very expensive for the better ones, here in Canada 🇨🇦 the housing is very expensive, the retirement homes charge $5000 per month or more. The cheap retirement homes charge $2000+ probably closer to $3000 now.
Condos are very expensive here too, $500k for tiny one bedroom. If someone has to use a wheelchair later on, it just won’t fit in the bedroom or bathroom!
I’m in the same boat would love to down size but just can’t afford it.
@@michaelepp6212 then the block you from using the best building practices while lying about 4,000 year old still functioning clay walls in Jericho.
Throw a doublewide on a small lot
The housing market is inflated and oversaturated with homes being on the market with astronomical price tags just stagnant for months. It is very clear that our generation will be likely one of the most devastating bubble pops in modern history. Seeking best possible ways to grow 250k into $1m+ and get a good house for retirement, I'm 54.
I don't think here is the place for personalized investment guidance. However, I suggest consulting with a reliable advisor like Azul to ensure appropriate retirement planning.
I’m closing in on retirement, and I have benefitted much from using a financial advisor. I didn’t really start early, so I knew the compound interest of index fund investing would not work for me. Funny how I pulled in over 80% profit than some of my peers who have been investing for many years. Maybe you should consider this too
I've been considering getting one, but haven't been proactive about it. Can you recommend your advisor? I could really use some assistance.
There are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with “Sonya Lee Mitchell” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive. She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
Thank you for this tip. It was easy to find your coach. Did my due diligence on her before scheduling a phone call with her. She seems proficient considering her résumé.
I love Philadelphia because they’ve built the mid-rise housing that’s illegal to build almost everywhere today. However, this video raises the great point that merely fixing zoning nationwide isn’t sufficient to restart the now-lost housing dynamism that we so desperately need.
As a Philadelphian you'll have to explain why this is a good thing. Development has been fever-pitch for well over a decade, prices only go up and the neighborhoods are basically just Dorm Part Two: Much Pricier!
@@TheVincentKyle Philadelphia is by far one of the most affordable major metros in the US in terms of housing. The entire country is in a urban housing crisis, but home prices have stayed significantly lower in Philly than average. No city is insulated from the crisis, but I think a strong argument could be made that Philly is doing things right and that's why its prices have stayed relatively low. It could be a lot worse.
@@DijonFrisee Thanks for the context - is there somewhere reliable to look up numbers? And not that I'm trying to fight, but could it be said that the deflated numbers are a result of building atop previously-worthless urban blight? I only came to Philly in the late 90s but even then I knew there was a stark difference between it and, say, some of the rougher areas of Brooklyn.
Copy China they were right all Along
@@DijonFrisee haha Philly has stayed cheap cause of the crime everywhere and the locals. Let’s be real here.
The summary here is on point. A static city, locked into place by NIMBYs and zoning laws, is never going to provide what an ever changing and growing society needs. And the difference between what housing we can provide and what housing is needed is spreading wider and wider with every passing day.
Also to deal with these NIMBYs cities need to ignore any feedback from anyone over 55. The harsh reality is that these people are going to die in a few years anyway and should have no say about a future that they won't be around for. And for each neighborhood resident that is allowed to speak, one person from outside the neighborhood should be required to speak.
@@fallenshallrise agreed. Old people should have no stake or say
@@fallenshallrise Also it should ignore anyone who accepts open borders, or has no children, bug pod fertility rates are completely unsustainable.
@@zero7523 Along with people who do not pay net taxes, or haven't been in the country for atleast 3 generations.
@@churblefurblesThat isnt very loving and tolerant of you.
It is difficult to make exact projections for the housing market as it is still unclear how quickly or to what degree the Federal Reserve will reduce inflation and borrowing costs without having a substantial negative impact on demand from consumers for anything from houses to cars.
If anything, it'll get worse. Very soon, affordable housing will no longer be affordable. So anything anyone wants to do, I will advise they do it now because the prices today will look like dips tomorrow. Until the Fed clamps down even further, I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. You can't halfway rip the band-aid off.
You're not doing anything wrong; you simply lack the expertise necessary to make money in a bad market. In these difficult circumstances, only really skilled experts who witnessed the 2008 financial crisis can expect to generate a large wage.
this sounds considerable! think you know any advisors i can get on the phone with? i'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation
My CFA, Sharon Ann Meny is a renowned figure in her line of work. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market.
Benevolence, this reference seems valid.. Just inputted her full name on my browser and found her site without sweat, 15 years of experience is certainly striking! very much appreciate it
My wife from Peru grew up in a 3 story house with 20 rooms, lots of families, many generations. It started out as a single story detached home with a backyard. Over the course of 40 years, they built 2 more floors, built into the backyard, bought the house next door and combined them. Now, half of it is a boarding house for other people, the other half for the remaining family members. There is no backyard but there is a 3rd floor rooftop deck with amazing views, a nice gathering place.
The city has grown so much around it that the rents in the area are quite high relative to local incomes. This asset is providing at least $10,000 per month in housing for all its ~20 tenants (the alternative they would cumulatively pay in rent). Its a source of savings and income for the family. Its cheap accommodations for college students, and new people coming to city.
The US has shot itself in the foot by not allowing this type of simple, gradual, incremental growth. So much wealth aborted for about 80 years.
Yes!!!!function as a family. Each family helping and passing property on, not throwing away houses.
That sounds like a wonderful place to live! :D
To be made into a giant ghetto ?
@@stephenpavlov8942 what do you propose?
And this American foot continues to bleed
You forgot to say the quiet part out loud - Housing should be a commodity not an instrument for wealth. It needs to stop being a faux investment for the middle class, most people just get bigger and bigger mortgages.. always in debt. Do we need another real estate bubble and crash before we start regulating the housing market?
One way to mitigate this would be to stop foreign investors from snatching up houses and tracts of land and developing them into luxury housing. I see it all around me near my home in coastal LA.
The main reason housing - an otherwise depreciating commodity that requires annual costly maintenance - is because our government forces us to use fake money that they print to themselves and their buddies and the value melts away in our hands. The response therefore is to convert that money into the most valuable things that aren't USD. Mainly houses, stocks, gold, bitcoin. As long as we are forced to use fake money that is increasingly printed out of thin air and is increasingly worthless we will continue to see prices rise. Prices crash when the risk premium on the money we print via credit lines becomes to much to stomach and the banks briefly stop loaning fake money they don't have.
the gov regulating the housing market will go over about as well as setting the lending rates and permitting requirements.
@@tann_man Well said!
Bingo! Regulations should be used to confine speculative investments into PRODUCTIVE assets, not commodities
Housing prices likely won’t drop significantly until supply increases. The U.S. is short millions of housing units and isn’t building fast enough. Demand remains high, and even a small dip in prices attracts many buyers. I’m looking to buy affordable houses in August and maybe invest in stocks. When’s the best time to invest in stocks? Some say it’s profitable, but others warn it’s risky. Any advice?
Consider buying stocks when the economy is not doing well, like during a recession. It could be a chance to buy them at a lower price and sell later when prices go up. Just keep in mind, this isn't financial advice, but sometimes it's better than keeping a lot of cash.
Having an investment advisor is the best way to go about the stock market right now. I used to depend on UA-cam videos but it wasn't working. I’ve been in touch with an advisor for a while now, and just last year, I made over 80% capital growth minus dividends.
Could you recommend your advisor? I'd appreciate some help.
There are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’ Rebecca Nassar Dunne ” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive. She’s quite known in her field, look her up.
I copied her whole name and pasted it into my browser; her website appeared immediately, and her qualifications are excellent; thank you for sharing.
Zoning has locked US cities out of so many useful housing and neighborhood types. It's not just apartments, but also more "gentle" density -- single family homes on smaller lots. Other regulations make it more expensive, too. It's a tremendous irony that Cali has so many rules demanding develops include "affordable housing units," but because of all the regulations and paperwork, the cheapest housing is still $1k+ per square foot to build. It's insane. Get rid of the regulations. Let people build smaller, denser, more affordable housing.
Those rules are specifically designed to benefit the bottom line of large corporate developers, and they're unlikely to change, since most rules in America these days are written by and for large corporations.
Cities are bad so I don't live in one. The US has plenty of room for lateral growth instead of horrifically expensive vertical growth only benefitting rich developers.
Dense expensive suburbs are bad so I don't live in one. Those areas already serve the purpose other Americans bought THEIR land for.
Coercing them to fit more humans is silly as GROWTH DESTROYS QUALITY OF LIFE for everyone except those cashing out to retire elsewhere.
@@gregmark1688 there “rules” are colorable, Defacto no constitutional standing whats so ever. the U.S is a foreign human trafficking corporation. NOT a “country”. U.S. CITIZENS don’t have a territorial claim to North America only the natural heir unconditional. a naturalized citizen cannot demand rights or sovereignty on land that is not their own. 🇲🇦
@@acealoha Well, I see your point, but ... yes, they can. They simply need to use a popular tool of diplomacy known as a "gun". Typically, governments make sure they have lots and lots of those.
I love the big yard to grow food
I had to stay in an older neighborhood in Philly for work for a while. I was staying in a regular old house. Nearby were old rowhouses. And also nearby were little delis, private little take out food restaurants, a mini mart, private little grill bars, etc. Even though the particular area was old and kind of run down, it felt wonderful. It felt like way more of a neighborhood than where I live in suburbia. My newer, more modern, development feels like the dark ages. My five year old daughter is obsessed with the idea of going on a bike ride for ice cream. It is literally impossible to do here.
I’m from the U.S. but live elsewhere now. The house I own is considered quite large here but would be quite small in the U.S. - less than 2000 square feet. It’s the perfect size for a family of 4. It has a small lawn, just big enough for a couple dogs to play in. If I reach out the window, I can almost touch my neighbor’s fence, and he could do the same.
I don’t want a larger house. I don’t want a larger yard. I don’t need more isolation. It’s hard enough to maintain my property at the size it is, and I couldn’t afford anything larger. I like knowing my neighbors. I love having groceries and other businesses within walking or biking distance. I was able purchase land, build the house, and pay it all off in 10 years. There is no way I could do that in the U.S. with comparable income.
Personally, I think car dependency, unaffordable housing, and the lack of public health care are fueling a lot of the problems America is facing. It’s why in a booming economy with low unemployment, people don’t feel prosperous. Scarcity, fear, and isolation fuel gun violence and political polarization.
I hope these issues can be fixed, but that would take political skill and courage, which are also sadly in short supply right now. The one thing that is encouraging is that more people are starting to recognize the problems.
wtf where do you live i wanna move
@@stereo-soulsoundsystem5070 Nah. I need you to stay there and fix things so that I have the option of returning some day. 😉
Real @@OfTheGaps
@@stereo-soulsoundsystem5070 anywhere in europe probably..
Im loving your property and this is the kind of life I'd love. I can technically walk to 3 different grocery stores, but it's a 20 minute walk and there are really no other shops that carry the products I need within walking distance
one thing that immediatly stood out to me is when talking about nimbys and development was that development apparently means "more of the same"... but an area with basically exclusively residences doesnt need more housing... it needs more shops, schools, small offices, services like doctors, dentists and public services... that collection of houses needs to become a town... and it needs to be less empty space
and the places where these services already exist, need more housing, to turn a business enclave into a town
Here in El Salvador, there are zones that are house after house after house, actually like a suburb, but plenty were allowed to be turned into stores, dentist clinics, restaurants (pretty big houses), and even kindergartens, I didn't notice that until I started watching these videos
Ah but then you need working class and lower income people to work at those businesses, and the suburb people don't want "those types" moving in close to them. So then any businesses that open can't find enough employees cause the suburb folks all commute into the city for their high paying jobs, and will then complain "no one wants to work" because the poor can't afford to commute to their suburb to work a low income job at their cafes, restaurants, shops, etc.
I believe you are referencing 'mixed use zoning'. Think like the old downtown in cities. Bottom floor is shops and the top is apartments. Wide streets to accommodate pedestrians. Those are illegal to build in the US because of our zoning. No doubt the obsession over car culture also plays a huge factor. Both of those would have to be removed.
This is due to the insanity that is American zoning. Americans have somehow been brainwashed into thinking, “This type of thing should be here, but that type of thing should be over there.” There’s no logical or rational thinking to that; it’s just what we’ve been convinced of over the course of the past 75 years or so.
Post WWII there were a lot of small (900-1200sq. ft.) 2 & 3 bedroom houses built in the Midwest city I grew up in. No one will finance or build these types of houses anymore because there's hardly any profit margin in them. The ones that are being built are done as cheaply as possible and it shows. This means that the housing stock in the city continues to get older and poorer. New houses in the outer suburbs start at $400K and up, effectively excluding the upcoming younger generation from being able to afford quality housing.
It's not really because of the profit margin---it's because things have crept into the "standard" model that don't necessarily have a great reason to exist... like attached garages, and big kitchens. Those things take up a lot of space themselves, and because they are limited in shape also create dead space that would have been better used before.
@@josephfisher426 That's true, but (car guy here) you really can't have a big enough garage! But, you're right. And how about Owner's Suites that are bigger than my entire first house?
A contractor that was doing some work for me about 15 years ago told me that he wouldn't even consider building a new house under 1600 sq ft because he'd barely make any money after he paid off his subs. And it's just gotten worse since then.
Also, no one that can afford it is going to build a $400K house in an old large city that is viewed as being in decline. As they say; "Location, location, location!"
@@joeyager8479 A lot of the cost to the builder is imposed externally. When I started looking for rural land 6 or 7 years ago, the construction cost for basic 1.5 story 3B was still about $150K. Probably because they had one inspector who did everything. Urban and suburban inspection processes tend to really pile on the overhead. And the time. That's a fixable problem.
It's true that the contractor's cost on plumbing, electric, and HVAC is not going to change much as a house gets bigger. Some of that could be planned out in the design, though... if you make it simpler so that the plumber is in and out on a predictable schedule and isn't waiting on anyone else, he doesn't have to charge you as much. One "affordable" project that I am working on (my employer did the site design) ended up having a drain brought down "through" a regular 4" wall. And the plumber actually tried to do that.
Well then, the government needs to buy and sell them
@@rchot84 more government will definitely make things better
Buying a home is challenging, especially if you're not paying in cash or avoiding a government loan. Even with just the minimum monthly payments on a 30-year mortgage, I’ll end up paying more than twice the value of my home. I was fortunate to buy before the market went wild, so I secured a good interest rate. I can't imagine trying to rent or buy in the current conditions.
I hope to own a home some day, not quite long I started investing. I'm very curious already and need help on how to enhance and increase my returns. Any good investment tips will be appreciated.
The enduring US stock market bull run evokes a mix of fear and excitement, presenting opportunities with insight, resulting in $780k gains in the past ten months, utilizing a portfolio advisor for a well-defined strategy.
Mind if I ask you to recommend this particular coach you using their service?
Rebecca Nassar Dunne maintains an online presence that can be easily found through a simple search of her name on the internet.
Thanks for sharing. I curiously searched for her full name and her website popped up immediately. I looked through her credentials and did my due diligence before contacting her.
When we created the tools for the expectation that the cost of housing would rise, we created the expectation that the cost of housing would ALWAYS rise. At first, this just incentivized anyone who owns a home to oppose any new housing anywhere near them to protect their asset, but ever since 2008, housing has straight up become a stock market. Something like 30-40% of homes that are bought aren't bought by people who want to use them as a product, but by people who already own property who want an appreciating asset.
we need to somehow get back to a point where housing isn't an investment, but the thing is, that is going to piss off a lot of people. There's no political will for it.
Oh there is political will for it.
@@BicycleFunk Not from people who already own property, which it sucks to say is a vastly overpowered segment of the population when it comes to political action. Imagine telling all the millions of people who spent $750k on a home "your house will not be more valuable when you sell it than is now." That is a really hard sell to people who have grown their whole lives thinking that owning a home creates generational wealth.
@@PalmelaHanderson sure, but over 100 million people in the US do not own, or about 35% of the population. That is enough to make a difference.
@@PalmelaHanderson we would have no idea what effect on the real estate market would really be if we actually built semi detached or multi unit housing for families. People could still recoup their money for sfh. Because you compare like with like. We just don’t build it. Plus there such sprawl and poor land use, what if we stopped subsidizing the suburbs, it would be more expensive as well
@@jasminewilliams1673 there is no way to make housing affordable and protect peoples investment in their homes. these things are in direct opposition to each other.
Yes, I've been saying this for years. When you treat a house as an investment you are willing to pay the cost it takes to buy that investment, not the lower price that is it's value as a home. We expect investments to appreciate faster than inflation and so we are willing to pay higher and higher prices because it's an investment. And then comes the day when people realize they can't afford a house.
Housing for decades did not appreciate faster than inflation. It was still an investment because housing was a leveraged commodity. When you take a 80% mortgage you're leveraged 4:1. So even if housing only appreciates at the rate of inflation, you're still beating it through leverage.
The issue is nimbys and anti-suburban interest groups like this channel got new laws passed that restricted new single family housing in many states, causing the supply to dry up.
In developer friendly cities like Houston, they have reasonable housing prices despite massive population growth. The cost of this of course, is suburban sprawl - something this channel advocated against for a decade.
Great video as always. I do want to echo what another commenter said. Middle class housing is gone near me. All houses are so inflated that its beyond ridiculous. A house that sold in 2019 for $240k just went back up for sale in my town for $1.2 million. No significant work done. My town is full of renters that all work at the engineering firms around us, all these workers you would traditionally think of as well paid. We can't afford houses and there just arent enough houses for sale. When new developments are actually built I havent seen one listed for less than $700k. Thats a 2 bed 2 bath. Its crazy.
"A house that sold in 2019 for $240k just went back up for sale in my town for $1.2 million"
Would love to see the listing for this, I just find this hard to believe. Got an address?
This is screaming Boston to me!
A bungalow went up for sale around the corner from me last week and sold in 3 days on the market (listed Friday, open houses Sat & Sun and sold Sun evening). It's 2 bed 2 bath, a little under 780 sqft above ground, and went for $1,750,000. The listing is gone, otherwise I would have included it. Given my area, it was likely bought as an investment, and the rent would be no more than $3,600 per month. If there was debt used to by this (though no bank would provide a loan on that rent to price ratio), the equivalent of 20% down and 80% borrowed would mean the mortgage payment is around $8,200 per month, before property taxes, utilities, and repairs. Welcome to Toronto Canada, where the real estate religion has its most devoted followers.
Where I live no homes are on the market below $800K and when something does get added it is gone in a few weeks at most.
@Exquisite_Poupon same. Going from 240k to 1.2 million is insane appreciation in just 5 years. Even the stock market doesn't appreciate like that.
You can have all the supply in the world, but if you allow that supply to be hoarded by investors, you will still have affordability problems. You can't get out of the housing trap without effectively addressing the inflation investors bring about.
On another note. If our banking system was a public utility as opposed to another profit-driven tool for investors, we could easily fund our housing needs.
@housingevolution2024 one single law can solve this problem: don't allow people to own more than 1 house.
@blackpiller3777 YES!! You would like my 12-year plan to decommodify land & housing, The Affordable Housing Forever Act. It does exactly that, but over a long enough period of time that it won't blow up our economy.
BTW - it was Lincoln who, after seeing all of the problems land inequality was already causing by that time, said no one should be allowed to own more land than necessary for their home, sustenance, and "legitimate" business. So we're not alone on this!
There's so much wrong with the housing situation. The prices for single family homes, the car dependency of the suburbs due to bad zoning, the lack of consequences for bad neighbor behavior that make people not want to live in denser housing. Makes it difficult to impossible for 95% of people. But above all....banks and companies should NOT own homes. Families and basic people should own homes.
I want to live in the suburbs.
@@parler8698 Then do so. Just don't stop me from moving in and building a fourplex.
People want to live in a safe environment, they don’t want to deal with drug dealers, single mothers, and pit bulls next door! It would be really, really nice to have affordable housing without all the drama and bedbugs! We need a major overhaul of society, people need to be more accountable for their actions.
@@annetoronto5474 That's a false dichotomy. Most cities are the safest places in the country, dangerous dogs are a problem of the suburbs, bed bugs are a problem no matter where people live, and if you want affordable housing don't block it from being created. And please explain why you have a problem with single mothers, that sounds pretty suspect.
@@annetoronto5474I'm scared of black people too
Mortgage rates are currently at an all time high since 2000(23 years) and based on statistics on inflation, we might see that number skyrocket further, a 30-year fixed rate was only 5% this time last year, so do I just keep waiting for a housing crash before buying or redirect my focus to the equity market
The stock market is no different, to maintain profit you need to have some in-depth knowledge on the market. I mostly just buy and hold stocks, but my portfolio has been mostly in the red for quite awhile now. Unfortunately to be able to make good gains, you’ll need to be consistent and restructure your portfolio frequently.
In my opinion, it was much easier investing back in the 80s but it’s a lot trickier now, those making consistent profit in these times are professionals reason I’ve been using an advisor for the past 5 years to consistently build my portfolio in preparations for retirement.
My partner’s been considering going the same route, could you share more info please on the advisor that guides you
My CFA, Annette Christine Conte, is a renowned figure in her line of work. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market.
Thanks for sharing, I just looked her up on the web and I would say she really has an impressive background in investing.
These systems are not broken. I really dislike this narrative. These systems are working exactly as designed. They're just designed to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer, and more numerous. More desperate.
They had us in the first half not gonna lie
really its a matter of framing: The system works exactly as intended if you view it as a capitalist, where society is meant to extract as many resources as possible to generate as much capital as possible. The system is extremely broken when you believe society is meant to grant everyone a high standard of living by distributing labor and resources fairly among the population.
yes the USD is a scam. Printed to the tune of trillions to be handed out to the government and their buddies while your labor melts away in your hands.
It's not a conspiracy. Just organic incentives, follow them and it gets us where we are today.
In my country you have to pay 50k-100k before you lay the firsts brick or hammer the first nail, I have been working with a developer and they are paying almost an eights of their costs in finance, Also materials are insanely expensive, I also believe we need to open up more land for development
Correction: We need affordable housing *to buy* , not to rent. Houses don't need to be 2000+ sqft. Make them 1000sqft, or even 700 sqft, like they were originally. Mark these as starter homes, and set fixed pricing with inflation stipulations so investors can't gobble them up, sit on them, and wait to resell them later.
And you make anything under the regulatory square footage in specified allocated housing is "interest free", thus denoting that the sale of the property isn't subject to interest, and providing the "starter" consumer who purchases said home to experience generation wealth without the bank making large quantities of money.
And if this consumer never leaves? No big deal, regulation around upkeep and maintenance or hefty fines will exist, etc.
The problem with the housing market is the basic lack of regulation around selling costs, the outrageous length of loan with pair interest rates (30-year should be illegal, anything over 15 shouldn't exist), and LLCs owning "investment property" who are registered in entirely separate areas.
Creating a final regulation: Rental property owners must live within a set distance of property, be it short or long term, and subject to after tenant inspections to confirm it's up to code before a new tenant can stay.
That should be federal.
I still believe we need a non-profit housing market to enforce healthy competition against the private housing market, thus keeping capitalism in check...
17:46 great and all that, but that just leaves room to exploit the consumer. Why do we need to make "more" money off people's hardships or requirement for housing? We don't. At all. If we want to fix the problem, the solution isn't to make the consumer more vulnerable to exploration in a 0 day bug.
The solution is to remove the capability for these private loans to make profit, and require larger banks, with hefty capital, to take this burden. And if you're smart, you'll easily know that the whole "but what if no payment" bs is just bs. Insurance covers that lol...and so would the federal stipulations and incentives provided to these banks.
The solution is to stop allowing wealthy capital owners from making profit off the lower class trying to simply live.
Renting isn't really much of an issue if the rents are low enough. Where I live, the rents are so low that there just isn't much profit to be made in landlording and there isn't as much of a divide between renters and owners.
@@BrilliantHandle In the natural condition, rent will be higher because there is a profit margin and management expenses in the case of the rent, and those things are not part of the picture for an owner.
Some jurisdictions are trying stuff like this. But the proposals are primitive and not well thought out (who will manage the regulation of sales, and efficiently?), and the products are still all quite big. Code is part of the complication: new bedrooms must all have windows, which was not the case when middle bedrooms were put in longer rowhouses. Forces everything to be wider than is easily usable.
people who say that actually have no idea what a 700ft "house" is like. you have no clue. and thats why you keep typing this thinking its a solution, but all you are doing is showing you are clueless. let people who know actually build houses. if you cant afford them, i mean you can rent your i bedroom 700ft apartment instead..
Man, if I could get a loan to build an ADU in my backyard, I would 100% do it.
Me, too!
I would love to add an adu to my land. Nice extra money and a better use than my lawn
Duuudeee all those 2 story garage appartments that Menards has plans for really have me acting a certain way
Same. In a heartbeat. We have the allowance by local government here in Minneapolis, but the financing isn't there. It's fronting the money and being cash-poor for an ADU that gives us pause.
Typically people will take an equity line of credit or remortgage against the primary home to fund the ADU. Depends on the local housing market but I know in Vancouver many laneway houses were financed that way. I agree we need more accessible financial products for this though!
I live in a Boston suburb (or exurb, if you want) and I'm thrilled to see four (FOUR!) mixed-use developments under construction as I write this. Retail on the ground level with apartments above within the walkshed of our heavy rail line that runs into the city. One developer even fought to have less parking! It's like a dream come true... Or at least it's a beginning.
Right, wait until you see the rents, probably easily 2500 a month plus!!
Isn’t Boston the city that decided decades ago to tear down their public parks and build schools on them? So now there are almost no parks? I only heard about that because I was visiting once and was stunned at the lack of green space in residential areas and around universities. Not sure I would trust city land use decisions in a place that has a history of not being able to accommodate more than one critical need at a time.
I've been watching the housing market closely, Prices have been skyrocketing for years. It's going to be tough for first-time buyers to enter the market." how can one diversify $280k reserve .
It's not just the prices, but also the increasing interest rates that are making it more difficult for people to afford homes. With a good FA you can make up your portfolio.
I've remained in touch with a financial analyst since the start of my business. Amid today's dynamic market, the key difficulty is pinpointing the right time to buy or sell when dealing with trending stocks - a seemingly simple task but challenging in reality. My portfolio has grown by more than 5 figures within just a year, and i have entrusted my advisor with the task of determining entry and exit points.
Could you guide me on how to get in touch with your advisor? My funds are being eroded by inflation, and I'm seeking a more lucrative investment strategy to effectively utilize them.
Melissa Terri Swayne is the licensed coach I use. Just research the name. You'd find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
I appreciate it. After searching her name online and reviewing her credentials, I'm quite impressed. I've contacted her as I could use all the help I can get. A call has been scheduled.
A lot of the problem is that the lower rungs were cut out of the ladder. There's nowhere to go but on the street if you need to downsize:
- Building affordable homes is no longer profitable because of the fees and regulations.
- Manufactured housing is often not allowed. New mobile home parks are not allowed, and the existing ones are destroyed.
- Having more than two people per bedroom is prohibited in rental property.
- Living in campers is often prohibited, even if you own the land.
- Single-room rental buildings were shut down and demolished.
The solution can't and won't come from the government--they created the problem.
Oh, you say, you don't want trailer parks, you don't want residential hotels, you don't want large families in small apartments. Fine. You get homeless living on the street instead. Are you happy now?
This person gets it. You cant have your cake and eat it too.
I kinda disagree that the solution can't come from the government. mainly because it probably has to. and because other governments have done it, like Singapore. they have high amounts of low income housing.
All of the solutions that you suggested aren't part of the problem. You don't want families living in trailer's.
The issue is the cost of homes don't relate at all to the cost of providing them. A new house has no relation to the cost of providing due crazy land prices. And yes smaller houses would allow families to save some money
@@robd8577 consider what you're saying though, land cost is high.
land isn't high cost everywhere. it's high where everyone wants to live.
no one is entitled to live where everyone else wants to live, especially if you don't even have a job. if you have a job and you're making low income, maybe you can justify the government providing low income housing. if you don't even have any income, then shouldn't you move elsewhere?
@trinydex what are you talking about. Where exactly did I say unemployed people have a right to free land in desirable inner cities.
Land prices don't reflect the cost.
Otherwise go take a long walk off a short pier.
I'm moving to a new city and the housing choices i've been able to find exemplify the root of the "luxury vs affordable" problem. I have an income high enough to afford the "luxury" apartments, but beacuse there is so much demand from people with my income and *higher* and such a constrained supply, I am having an incredibly difficult time actually getting into units that have waitlists a hundred people long. Meanwhile, the old stock of homes from the 50's that have been split into duplexes go for half the price, but beacuse a constrained and unfree market cannot provide me with the housing product i truly want (a really nice place), I may have no choice but to displace a low income person from low price housing stock. This is bad; bad for developers, bad for me, and bad for low income people.
All new developments in my area are branded as “luxury housing”. A few years ago they built “luxury” SFRs (which had a lot less land than homes built in the 60’s-80’s). Then came “Luxury Townhomes”. Then came “Luxury Condos”. And now a nation of renters are offered expensive “Luxury Apartments”. Not sure how “Luxury” and “Apartment” can be in the same sentence. The QOL for middle-class America has gone down so much. With the interest on our national debt about to exceed tax revenue, I know there are even harder times ahead.
It kills me because in America if you think housing is bad, you need to look north. To me the Idea of making housing an investment vehicle is a huge issue. In my area housing grows at a rate faster than even markets. It means anyone with housing already is actually gobbling up more housing as investments. Then using the rent system to just make the payments till they can refinance and do it again. I don't want people to lose their homes but the market can't correct without correcting. You see this even in China where there is enough housing but it's still expensive because it's a investment. Make renting affordable and long term safety and you will fix housing.
Your right. If you want to fix housing then housing should not be an investment. There should be limits on the amount of homes people can own.
@@lachlanbrown3112 You should not be able to purchase a home if you are not going to be the primary resident.
@@MrGoalie2012or at least you should be a local resident before you can buy up homes that aren’t your primary home. And some type of limit and how many you can own yes.
17:15 isn’t this what Airbnb and similar options are for?
You can rent out a spare bedroom if you want right now
Capitalism 🇺🇸
Not just housing... For my entire life, the anwer to every economic problem has been to make fiance/investing more profitable. We're in another guilded age now, and despite the name, that is a very bad thing.
What do you mean by making it more profitable?
A few thoughts...backdrop is in these parts in Nebraska, there's massive pressure for 'property tax relief' as the talking point is that 'property taxes are too high'. In addition to a housing crisis.
1) R1 zoning, from its very creation, was always intended to be expensive and exclusionary. It was always intended to make it impossible for poor people to live in a place. That is literally the entire point, and why Duncan McDuffy invented it ~1920: to stop a black dance hall from being built, by buying the land and subdividing it into large and expensive single family detached lots that only rich (read white) people could afford. Of course R1 housing is expensive. That is literally the entire point of it. It was illegal to racially bias home ownership in government finally in 1910, so instead the strategy was to just ban poor people (read minorities) with R1 exclusionary zoning.
The issue though...is R1 zoning spread across the USA to every town/city like a bad TikTok video and is no the dominant form of housing--if there's even anything else allowed.
2) Here, our property taxes do cost people a good chunk of money...because of abysmal land use from R1 and suburbanization which leads to artificial scarcity of land and housing, which drives up prices. Exactly as intended in (1). The entire point of R1 is to be expensive. This isn't a 'bug', this was always the intended 'feature'.
3) We need some systematic zoning reform from the State. Local action is needed for certain....here in Nebraska our legislature has a 'that should be a city level solution' to housing.... Except even in this rural backwater of a state there are 583 different incorporated towns/burgs and cities each with its own distinct version of restrictive R1 zoning in addition to 93 counties which may have some kind of zoning (even if the city doesn't) too. You call an architect to design a house or ADU; if you decide to change the target-city for the build; that house design will need restarted from scratch. Some systematizing is needed and desirable.
It did feel like they intentionally danced around the racist/economic caste aspects of why these legal apparatus were erected and defended.
I think they're trying to avoid scaring people who have visceral reactions when presented with historical facts.
It isn't necessarily an unwise decision; it may prove to be both disappointing yet the correct one. Would you rather have more people doing good things for flawed reasons, or fewer people doing good things for better reasons? Each problem will have its own calculus to this, and they seem to think the math here plays out better by just getting momentum and then fixing things on the fly later.
I feel like R1 zoning could be used as a decent mechanism to start fighting back.
R1 means residential, we should make a law that anything zoned R1 must be owned by the resident. No corporate ownership of single family homes… at very least, not for the purposes of renting them out.
I could see corporate/banks owning R1 in the event of a foreclosure or new builds, but that should be temporary and should incur penalties if not sold off quickly.
@@UnderBakedOverEngineered My gripe with leaving out the history, is that people who do not learn the history are forever doomed to repeat it. People who don't know that--dream we can do arcane economic stimulus to get outrselves out; not knowing that there has always been a housing problem in the USA. This property-tax 'too high' nonsense is a part of it. Here in Nebraska, like a lot of places, we have a crisis-shortage of child and senior care workers. And no policy maker or group is talking holistically about the interrelationship of these problems. Instead people feel entitled to expensive inefficient housing that they feel should be cheap--because they don't know that it never was nor can be.
Of course there's a child and senior care worker shortage. Why on Earth wouldn't there be? Per BLS, you need a 4-year degree in early childhood development to be a childcare teacher (that is the caliber of knowledge you genuinely want in those workers). That is $50,000 of student debt, easily. And per BLS you know what the median wage of those daycare teachers is? $15/hour. $30K per year. Just affording a car, that is required, is $10,000/year in insurance and gas and maintenance. You will not find an apartment in these parts for less than $1,000 per month sans utilities--and if you need Section 8 Housing the landlord will laugh and tell you to get out--as the shortage is such landlords outright deny anyone without cash. That leaves you
In most suburban-type environments, "R1" has long since become a designation of where public utilities are not going to be made available. Almost everything new in even the worst suburbia is on much smaller lots than that.
Thank you for the history lesson - I did not know that about R1 zoning. I knew about redlining, but not that.
"how do we get back to a bubble?"
Hit the nail on the fin head. never before has this situation been clearer. time for the pitchforks..
It’s so silly that homes are considered an “asset”. They wear and tear and COST money to maintain like a car, like a liability. Like debt. Sure, you can rent it out. But besides that, it’s totally unnatural that its price goes up in price. Unnatural. You won’t have vulture profiteers all over the world investing in homes if homes didn’t appreciate. Houses should depreciate
It makes some sense, a house isn't just a structure, it's access to the space and economy around it. A car can be replaced with any other car fairly easily, but a house dictates a large part of people's lives. A house appreciating in value is about the idea that the surrounding area is gaining economic value.
Which, is about the best defense I can give to something like a NIMBY.
I don't personally feel like I have an adequate understanding to really have a strong opinion besides homes cost too much.
Several issues here. We started to build more suburbs and single family dwellings but forget the diversification of homes (including condos) for those who don't need or want a single family home. We started to build homes larger and larger to justify increased cost. The land itself should appreciate in value while the home decreases in value to off set the difference, why on earth does a home that becomes older (and typically) needs more upkeep increase in value?
7:10 this is exactly what is happening to me- the ADU in the back yard that I could downsize and move into next year is tied up in red tape- the city wants more ADUs but they have giant fees. Meanwhile, little sister across the country, recently lost her husband only 7 years after moving into their (giant) dream home. So she is in there all alone. And it's Florida: if localities start to do something popular, one can almost bet their governor will sign a law saying that no municipality can alter their zoning to be different than the rest of the state...
Something I see with a lot of this type of work, which doesn't invalidate the message but that I think needs to be considered more carefully:
One of the speakers, early on, talks about "people not being able to live where or how they WANT to live, people who can't move where they WANT to be." And I don't want to single the gentleman out, because it's something I hear constantly from commentators and economists and politicians. It feels like a conscious choice, to soften the tenor of the conversation. But, make no mistake: in many cases, if not most, we're not talking about desires, but necessity. People who MUST live some place, or lose their job, or childcare, or be put in a dangerous position due to disability or identity or circumstance. We need to stop talking about wants. We need to acknowledge in our language that we're talking about things where the other side of "functional" is "destitution" or "imminent danger" or "death".
Stop saying "want." Say "need."
Very well said! Our government, unfortunately, would rather send our money to other countries rather than put it back into getting us out of this mess. I really think that's a large part of the problem. Capitalism has reached a peak feeding frenzy that can only serve to destroy itself. I want to move away from here, but my daughter has to be here for her job, so we stay here. It's not a choice anymore, it's survival.
@@ellen4956 I don't think that "Our government .... send(ing) money to other countries" is anywhere close to the root of the problem. Even the large sums they are sending to help Ukraine and Israel are a relative pittance compared to the overall budget, and the cost of NOT sending that money would be much greater in the near future.
It's not a money problem, per se, it's a structural problem. Restrictive zoning and parking minimums could be eliminated for next to nothing. Building public transportation and bike paths would cost relatively little - and if they were done INSTEAD of large road construction projects, they'd actually save money.
@@OfTheGaps also they arent actually sending money... they are sending over pretty much exclusively their old stockpiles of military equipment that they will replace with newer stuff anyway... they could send all of that equipment and not replace anything and it would barely make a dent in the military capability of the US... and the military budget is fixed anyway isnt it? its mandatory spending and it is humongous
this is just the military industrial complex using a crisis to make more money - but it doesnt really have an impact on the size of government budgets... just where the military budget is allocated
@@OfTheGaps More public transit is always good,. Zoning is up to individual cities isn't it? Near my home, city planners are encouraging people who own large lots to build what they used to call an "in-law house" at the back of the lot as a rental. I think that is an excellent idea, and people used to build second dwellings on their lots, as seen in most cities. But when you consider what could be done if a fraction of tax money went into better public transit, trade schools for those who can't afford to pay off student loans, and rebuilding industry right here instead of allowing corporations who exploit slave labor in other countries sell their products here, don't you agree the situation would change for the better fairly quickly? I agree that parking minimums are a big waste, but both houses I've owned had only street parking. It's going to take an FDR style program and mandate to put the money back into the economy at local levels (not banks) to make these changes happen. I agree, it's structural to a point, but we still need to claim federal funds to make these changes a reality. My point is that the multiple billions sent out of the U.S. is needed more right here, right now. I will not drag politics into this discussion further than that. Our own country is experiencing economic hardship and people are losing hope.
@@ellen4956 I think we largely agree. I do think federal funds should be allocated to help make our lives better, and that our federal spending priorities are out of whack. My only quibble was pitting foreign assistance against the needs of the American public. I think foreign aid, for the most part, supports the well-being of American citizens. Corporate welfare, on the other hand, hurts us all.
I really like this video. I really like the previous "Ned Flanders Drops". The "boots on the street" videos are great for getting the feeling and experiences to come across in video. This style of video really helps plainly lay out the problem, give some of the data, and go through solutions in a way that doesn't feel like an academic lecture - even if the topic is deserving of one. I could go on about how much I liked this video, but I'll stop there. We have got to unlock our cities and communities!
One of the last large plots of land (almost a full block in size) in my suburban city became available. Developer built a handful of super expensive townhouses. Land could have easily held over 100 apartments, but its 20 luxury townhouses.
Once you build apartments the demographics change, so does the political climate in the area. Democrats want to install subsidized housing and apartments in conservative areas and change the voters.
Good. Thats less density. At least that's some improvement
Because they can sell the townhouses straight up. Someone would have to hold the apartments; it's riskier in the long term.
Twenty is probably as many as can be squeezed into a block and still have room for a few bushes and trees, and keep their cars from taking away all the street parking. But it is exceptionally small number of residences for a financially viable townhouse complex. Long after the developer has taken his money and run, the owners are going to start seeing big costs for repairs of community assets that can only be split 20 ways. I’ve seen it happen elsewhere and it’s going to be painful. Hopefully they aren’t responsible for a pool, playground, a private street, or parking lot. Also, I hope they are each responsible for their part of the roof and exterior, but there are reasons why those are often community responsibilities.
I’m so happy I found this video. I’m one of those citizen, real estate developers. I want to make affordable housing for people. I don’t care about money. I just want people to be safe in their homes. I’m definitely subscribing because I want to help. Thank you for the video
The banking system is broken as well. I was in my jome in 2009, i asked for a modification. I was told by the bank after submitting my income and expenses that i needed to EAT LESS. YES you heard me right, the bank said i was spending too much on food. I did eat out, i shopped at low budget stores and cooked all my meals in bulk, but yet i am told we eat too much. I paid $180,000 for my home, i lived in it for 9 years, i foreclosed, they sold it to someone else for $125,000, how is that fair? If a bank is willing to take more than a $40,000 hit why couldn't they have le ME stay there for that amount or higher.
You paid on a house for 9 years and was still foreclosed on? And it was only a $180,000 house? Your mortgage payment should have only been a little over $1000.
Very good question.
Yup, i waa trying to buy an entry level home and i wasnt able to because of the demand for homes. I kept losing them, being outbid. These homes I was looking at would be illegal to build today, they are all "too small" to br able to rebuild new.
It is incredible how this guys spoke for 19 minutes about how much we need the free market for housing, and still have people commenting "housing should not be treated as something to sell and buy"
A solution to this is something that Vancouver has implemented. A vacancy tax.
Something like high vacancy taxes could work, where real estate companies and real estate owners who have homes that they don't live in and don't rent out would have to pay heavy vacancy taxes, thus heavily incentivizing them to bring those houses to the market to rent instead of keeping it out of the market so it could build up value as an investment over time.
This would especially force massive real estate megacorps who have thousands of units or luxury apartments to have to put those up in much lower rental prices just so they don't have to deal with with the vacancy tax.
Try speaking with your neighbors and people around your area, bring up this vacancy tax idea, stoke that anti-corpo hate, and try to get the vacancy tax onto a local referendum or at least use that as an actionable and popular policy to pressure your councilpersons and local representatives to implement.
A reason why something like this, which a local town can use effectively on even massive real estate megacorporations, is the fact that real estate is not liquid; if the real estate megacorps don't want to bring their properties up to rent at prices that people are will to afford, they can't just pick up their houses and move it somewhere else. Their houses and real estate properties are stuck there.
Does this help, friend?
I like this idea
And it has not made any appreciable difference in solving the problem in Vancouver. I'm all for a vacancy tax ONLY in the sense that once it's implemented, people who think it's a silver bullet will realize that it didn't work, and get on board with taking bolder action to solve the problem.
Vacancy rates are too low as it is. You need to have empty units in the game of musical chairs. Vacancies are what create competition in the market so that renters/buyers have leverage and can walk away from a crappy deal. If there are no other vacancies, that's when sellers/landlords are empowered to charge extortionate prices.
@@loganbryckyeah except the problem in America is the amount of vacant spaces and not a limit in supply
Back in the day, when I purchased my first home to live-in; that was Miami in the early 1990s, first mortgages with rates of 7% to 9% were typical. People will have to accept the possibility that we won't ever return to 5%. If sellers must sell, home prices will have to decline, and lower evaluations will follow. Pretty sure I'm not alone in my chain of thoughts.
I sold a property in Q4 of 2022 and I'm waiting for a house crash to happen so I buy cheap. In the meanwhile, I've been looking at dividend stocks as an alternative., any idea if it's a good time to buy? I hear people say it's a madhouse right now
Home prices will come down eventually, but for now; get your money as much as you can, out of the housing market and get into the financial markets or gold. Home prices will need to fall by a minimum of 40% (more like 50%) before the market normalizes. If you are in cross roads or need sincere advise on the best moves to take now its best you seek a pro who knows about the financial markets.
Thanks for replying, You seem to know much, How did you go about it and can you recommend an advisor like yours?
The decision on when to pick an Adviser is a very personal one. I take guidance from Sharon Ann Meny to meet my growth goals and avoid mistakes, she's well-qualified and her page can be easily found on the net.
I just googled her now and I'm really impressed with her credentials. I reached out to her since I need all the assistance I can get.
In the USA, individuals living in cars due to partial homelessness result from a complex interplay of factors. High housing costs relative to income, stagnant wages, and income inequality drive this issue. Job loss, weak social support, medical expenses, evictions, and lack of affordable housing also contribute, while systemic problems and inadequate policies further perpetuate the phenomenon.
Considering the present situation, diversifying by shifting investments from real estate to financial markets or gold is recommended, despite potential future home price drops. Given prevailing mortgage rates and economic uncertainty, this move is prudent, particularly due to stricter mortgage regulations. Seeking advice from a knowledgeable independent financial advisor is advisable for those seeking guidance.
I've remained in touch with a financial analyst since the start of my business. Amid today's dynamic market, the key difficulty is pinpointing the right time to buy or sell when dealing with trending stocks - a seemingly simple task but challenging in reality. My portfolio has grown by more than $600k within just a year, and I've entrusted my advisor with the task of determining entry and exit points.
@@joshbarney114 I appreciate the implementation of ideas and strategies that result to unmeasurable progress. Being heavily liquid, I'd rather not reinvent the wheel, thus the search for a reputable advisor, mind sharing info of this person guiding you please?
Finding financial advisors like Marisa Breton Dollard who can assist you shape your portfolio would be a very creative option. There will be difficult times ahead, and prudent personal money management will be essential to navigating them.
Marisa has the appearance of being a great authority in her profession. I looked her up online and found her website, which I reviewed and went through to learn more about her credentials, academic background, and employment. She has a fiduciary duty to protect my best interests. I sent her an email outlining my objectives and also booked a session with her; thanks for sharing.
I’ve been working, saving and contributing towards financial freedom and early retirement, but the economy so far since the pandemic has eaten away most of my portfolio, what I want to know is this: Should I keep contributing to my portfolio in these unstable markets or do I look into alternative sectors.
Try to diversify your portfolio to other market sectors, that way your investment is balanced and you don’t get to make so much losses.
Yeah, fiduciaries could make a lot of difference, particularly in a market such as this. Stocks are pretty unstable at the moment, but if you do the right math, you should be just fine. Bloomberg and other finance media have been recording cases of folks gaining over 250k just in a matter of weeks/couple months, so I think there are a lot of wealth transfer in this downtime if you know where to look. I have been using an FA since 2020, and I return at least $30k ROI, and this does not include capital gain.
Would you mind telling me how to contact this specific coach using their service? You seem to have the solution, as opposed to the rest of us.
Her name is “Sonya lee Mitchell” can't divulge much. Most likely, the internet should have her basic info, you can research if you like
I just googled her and I'm really impressed with her credentials; I reached out to her since I need all the assistance I can get. I just scheduled a caII.
Question to Chuck and Strong Towns: Can we build Vienna style public housing, cutting out Wall Street and the landlord profits?
Not without a significant shift in political consensus. Public housing grew in Vienna during the "Rotes Wien" (Red Vienna) period of the First Republic (which followed the conclusion of WWI until the mid-1930's). Roughly a tenth of Vienna's population then lived in public housing. Cheers.
Public housing complexes in the USA didn’t work. These places were extremely dangerous for the many of the residents. Look up Cabrini Green housing development.
Vienna's style has a very big footprint; where is that available, other than the likes of the demolished parts of Detroit?
Why should we care about landlord profits?
@@MylesKillis landlords should get real jobs.
North Idaho where I live has seen a massive boom in housing but every place is unaffordable. Studio apartments are no less than a thousand a month and houses that were built for around 70,000 in the 90s are over 400,000 now. And there are no jobs around here that pay enough to live alone.
FL is the new CA
So if it’s un-rentable and un-sellable , what is the end game?
@@markwriter2698 Empty homes are tax writeoffs
My main problem thus far to be honest is, how?
Right now at least, I know one councilperson (not MY councilperson, but someone who heard me and was sympathetic if not encouraging of Strong Town ideas) who is on board in my suburb. It is awfully easy to lose hope, given how little the rest care given how long I've spoken at council meetings thus far. I don't know what to even start doing after this, as I'm kind of alone for the moment.
I don't have, pretty much any deep connection with my neighbors aside from passing by, so I'm not sure how I can turn the current situation around until next election cycle in 2026. My councilperson is kind of openly hostile (politically speaking) to any changes to the codes, and we know how bad local election turnout tends to be.
Has anyone at Strong Towns have experience starting from such few people and finding ways to actually change anything within such a system?
A solution to this is something that Vancouver has implemented. A vacancy tax.
Something like high vacancy taxes could work, where real estate companies and real estate owners who have homes that they don't live in and don't rent out would have to pay heavy vacancy taxes, thus heavily incentivizing them to bring those houses to the market to rent instead of keeping it out of the market so it could build up value as an investment over time.
This would especially force massive real estate megacorps who have thousands of units or luxury apartments to have to put those up in much lower rental prices just so they don't have to deal with with the vacancy tax.
Try speaking with your neighbors and people around your area, bring up this vacancy tax idea, stoke that anti-corpo hate, and try to get the vacancy tax onto a local referendum or at least use that as an actionable and popular policy to pressure your councilpersons and local representatives to implement.
A reason why something like this, which a local town can use effectively on even massive real estate megacorporations, is the fact that real estate is not liquid; if the real estate megacorps don't want to bring their properties up to rent at prices that people are will to afford, they can't just pick up their houses and move it somewhere else. Their houses and real estate properties are stuck there.
Does this help, friend?
@@ajiththomas2465
With all the respect, this tax didn't do anything to Vancouver's prices so as to any other Canadian city/provinces where it was added, so I think it's too bold to consider it a solution.
Sure it forced to rent it out, but it's irrelevant if it's rented out on exorbital deficit market where you have way more demand over supply. Attempting to regulate pricing is also a false feeling you help, but would only trigger push burden on renters to subsidize insane mortgages on this housing, as so on...
It will be painful, but it sounds like what we need is for the housing bubble to completely burst again, but this time let the big banks fail for leading us into this mess, and instead prop up the individual homeowners like we should have done in 2008. Then come back in with these new products to get more people into homes at an affordable rate.
Amen. Things must fail and die for life to continue. Propping up the banks was very short sighted
Warren Buffett said back in 2008 to let the banks fail. They created the bubble but got paid anyway and then took the house. President Obama said what the banks did was unethical but legal so we bailed them out. Here we go again.
Idk about everywhere else in the country, but in my area, there are a lot of boarded-up houses. What's going on with those houses? They call them "Zombie Houses", but it seems insane to have an empty house sitting around bringing property values down and homeless people living in tents by the river...
I feel for NIMBYs when they say high rise development kills the charm of neighborhoods. I just wish we developed similarly to Montreal, Chicago, Philadelphia. The 3 story rowhomes are beautiful and done on a large enough could provide us all with adequate housing without cramming us into condos. That said I still think condo towers have a place, next to transit corridors for example. Having commercial/residential mixed zoning would also help a lot.
Not all condos are towers. I live in a 3 story courtyard building. Fish in a fountain in the courtyard. Cherry, dogwood, and maple trees that put on great shows every year. It's "flat" style with the living/dining facing the street, and the bedroom facing the courtyard, away from the noise of the city. Twenty households on land the size of two single family lots.
Only if they tie into the urban fabric. In my home city of Alexandria they just built up a 6-block by 2-block parcel with nothing but 3-story rowhouses. They are ugly buildings and the only third space is a 1 square block park. The closest retail is a gas station convenience store on the other side of a highway and a supermarket 6 blocks north of the development.
We know what works and refuse to build it.
@@jyutzler sounds like they're ugly cause they're mass produced developer builds for profit. If each home was constructed by the family who'd live in them they'd more than likely be a lot more beautiful but who can afford to do that nowadays?
@@LaMach420 I agree, but the neighborhood would still stink even if the architecture were beautiful because of the lack of third spaces. They could have built a main street down the middle and had a mix of unit types, but that didn't happen.
@@jyutzler that do be an issue of our time.
asserting that when people say "we don't want luxury housing, we want affordable housing" really means they want subsidized housing is insanity
I don't understand why all the new build housing is 2500+ square feet. Why don't they build smaller affordable houses? Why did greedy people buy up all the older, cheaper houses and remodel them to flip them for massive profits? That's what happened to all of the starter homes.
He's right. Many of the people saying we need affordable housing don't have a clue what it cost to build and maintain. So whether they realize it or not, many people can't even afford what is considered affordable housing without their rent being subsidized.
Missing from this video: private equity buying up starter homes and preventing families from entering the market as owners. The fed needs to step in to regulate this class of "investment" in favor of individuals, not corporations.
Absolutely! Fiduciary responsibility should not be part of the commodity that is housing.
No corporations -- from mom&pop LLCs to Blackrock -- should be allowed to own single family homes.
In my area, Lennar sold 28 homes on 1 street to first key homes (private equity). First key now has several listed for sale nearly 25% below the 2022 list price. Just posted about it
I would like to have economists look at the impact of private land ownership on the housing crisis. I'd like us to revisit what Henry George said about the subject.
If society is the one to capture the value increase in the land only that is inherent in cities, then that money can be used for the public good. As it is, these housing bubbles have arisen because that value gets captured privately and I suspect that value is being concentrated up the wealth ladder.
I think this feeds into the video's notion of citizens of communities having a vested interest in the wealth generated by the constant change happening in the community.
Good luck with that pipe dream
we did NOT trap ourselves, they trapped us.
Regular people aren’t totally blameless either, I agree most of it lies with companies and policies but when we had cheap money via mortgage loans we started asking for more from our homes.
Bigger garages, kitchens, custom bathrooms or large decks.
This means developers charge more money and take longer per house to build and get permits for.
This hurts supply which in turn drives up prices.
They started it, but home owners are gonna prevent changing it; no owner wants to see their property lose hundreds of thousands in value. It’s what needs to happen and is why house prices aren’t going down any time soon
@@BigHeadClanRight. I mean alot of the blame does fall on the investors but just like how over 90 percent of Americans who own Pickup's and SUV''s dont use them for their intended use but to pick up groceries and starbucks we are also to blame for everyone feeling entitled to a McMansion.
The sizes of homes have inflated over the decades. I know alot of young childfree first time home buyers who want to immediately live in a 2500 sq ft home. Thats a starter home to alot of yuppies now.
@@TYBG85 A lot of those investors wouldn't have been able to afford those 70-80K trucks without cheap loans to begin with.
Not saying the buyers are blameless (Far from it) but if you are giving people practically free money they are going to spend it stuff they don't need or have any practical use for and we'd have a lot fewer Trucks and SUV on the road.
As for first time home buyers I'm not sure who you are talking to, but pretty much all of the people I've talked to from the generation below would be happy with with anything they could call their own without paying 2K in rent for a 1bed/bath apartment.
I'm sure there are some out there who may expect larger homes for what they are spending but I can at least see how they got that perception most millenarians and gen Z grew up in houses 1700-2200Sq-Ft homes and probably thought it was the norm when just one generation ago it was more like 1200SQ-FT.
Yeah, who the fuck is this "we"
New housing being built is most often over sized, 2 story homes...usually in hoa neighborhoods. Why not build reasonable ranch style homes? New homes are overpriced in part because they aren't modest. This means that a modest, 20 or 30 year old home inflates in value, because even at $250k, it's still a lot cheaper than the new $400k homes...even though the old home was only $80k when new.
I'm going back to school in my mid-40s and after a couple terms of exploration I'm most likely going to go for a masters in urban planning. Stuff like this is fascinating because it indicates we are on the cusp of a huge opportunity to do a great amount of good through policy changes and more thoughtful application of existing statutes. I will be following your work closely
The biggest myth of homeownership is that you NEVER own your home. The focus of banks being heartless and foreclosing if payments become difficult because the only mortgage offered was a variable pales in comparison with what your local government does if you miss a property tax payment. You may pay off your mortgage in 30yrs but you’re NEVER done paying property taxes. And THAT is increasingly becoming more difficult to manage.
That’s the way it works!
I rent from California now, having paid the bank. We have Prop 13, which prevents them from jacking up the property taxes every year. This causes all kinds of revenue and mobility problems, but it means I won't be priced out of my own home by taxes. Now HOA fees, on the other hand...
Allodial title. Research it.... difficult but possible. Buried in the real estate title industry...
Correct. Plus insurance is going up every year.
The American car dependent culture resulted in low density housing - urban sprawl. When there are not enough housing to meet demand, prices go up. Many workplaces have parking lots that are +3x that of the building itself. Local governments should provide sticks and carrots to convert 20-40% of workplaces with +200 to dense, affordable housing. Employees of those places can skip the commute and $12k/year cost of owning a car.
Counties near large cities know that if they let enough apartments, condos and dense housing be built that they will need to build some new elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, water treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants, roads, and every other public service will need more employees and a bigger budget.
I'm an older millennial and we had a family young, so we bought our house just as things were starting to heat up in 2015. We paid $160k for it then (and that was a stretch financially at the time). Based on what similar homes are selling for around us today it would probably sell for closer to $350k. In less than a decade! We've fixed it up here and there but for the most part it's just become older in that time 😂. It's nothing fancy either, 1600sq ft with 4 small bedrooms and 3 small bathrooms. We probably couldn't afford it comfortably if we purchased the same house today. Just crazy!
I'm in Southern California with basically the same house and story...bought in 2010 for $160k, current value is $575k. There is a new build community that's a 5 minute walk from me and similar models are starting at $725k. It's absolutely crazy. Ive paid my house off already but instead of relaxing, I am now working harder because I know how much help my young kids will need in the next 15-20 years when the become adults.
It’s even worse in Canada! 300K homes bought in 2010 now sell for over a million in suburbs hours from major cities. Hopefully the US can catch the issue before you get to Canada’s level of pricing. I’m 32 and have accepted I’m not owning a house for at least another 10 years. I’m not taking on an 900K mortgage as a first time buyer. The average house price in Canada is 750K.
That's the exact same time period my parents talked me out of buying my first house. They thought the bubble would pop any minute. I've always wondered how my life would be different..
@@madderlakevideoproductions4560I’m really curious as to why things are worse in Canada than in the US. Your population is much less dense. I believe what you say, I see those prices for Canada homes on TV. But I don’t understand why?
My husband and I are young millennials. We’re 29 years old, and I don’t know if we will ever be able to buy a house. We bought a two bedroom travel trailer and are going to buy land eventually. We currently live in the trailer while we start our family. (I’m currently pregnant). I would like to own a house, but it isn’t a possibility for us right now.
"It's not just that the rent is too high" but if we can drive costs down, a lot of the other problems also melt away. "When it comes to housing, we need to build tons of units. Lots and lots of units." Exactly.
They need to streamline permitting, reduce gotchas and help fund housing development. Even looking at being a real estate developer it’s just seems like a land mine of rules, regulations, gotchas like contaminated properties, zoning and then don’t get started with funding. It’s all money up front with the hope of selling at profit after a million people get their cut. We need to go back to prefab homes like what sears used to sell. You order and all is shipped to you at a decent price and then you build. I’m absolutely certain 100 years ago zoning, laws, financing and soil contamination was much much less of a concern.
16:22 Confused: if they're currently paying essentially half the house value in rent per year already, why would a mortgage written for them need a 30-year term? That's one heck of an implied interest rate. And then how is that not incredibly lucrative for the underwriter?
And why should it matter that the house value is low, when it's possible to finance other things of relatively low value (like, say, cars)?
Even is you build new houses, how do you stop investment firms from buying up the supply? They have the capacity to offer much more money than what you would be able to get from a family that needs a house. And then the investment firms will keep the prices high, because to them housing isn't a necessity, but a way to make a lot of money with.
To me the end of the video feels a bit like the residential selective garbage collection: pay no attention to the large industrial polluters, only individuals can save the planet!
Regulation..
Housing would not be a good investment if you build enough supply to curb demand (and continue to do so). Investors are a symptom of an overregulated market.
@@rogerk6180 Lobbying.
The investment firms will bribe politicians to not make any changes that would devalue their assets, or make it more difficult to profit.
Building houses doesn’t help the fact that tiny lots now cost $300k. The same lots that cost $25k 10 years ago
@@brandonmackenzie1203 More a symptom of an opportunity to make a lot of money.
There is a lot of way to make a lot of money and lack of regulation is probably the most powerful one.
The sector with the most absurd rate of investment is probably tech, look any faang stock market, compare the value of their share to the money they actually make. Does it look overregulated to you ?
Housing in (big) cities is a limited market, you cannot simply build as many houses than you want. Land is very limited, but also depend on transportation, electric grid and water connection, sewage lot a thing that make it something that cannot indefinitely growth and need a lot of public investment in infrastructures.
Also, building price goes up :
You need natural resource to make the building material that a more rare today, and more expensive to extract and transform than yesterday.
Inflation is affecting everybody, so labour in construction price is also going up.
So building prices goes up, independently of the market, just because the cost of fabrications are going up. And those cost of fabrications are going up because we only have one planet and a limited amount of resources to share. We have less oil, less coal, less steel, less sand... available than 50 years ago.
Limited market + capitalism = oligopoly
Oligopoly ⇒ less competition, fewer incentives to drive price down for investors
What can be done ?
Easy solution, massive investment from a non-profit organization (in theory could be a private one, but we know only public have this kind of will and power). Rent slightly up of the cost of maintenance to force competition back.
Rent goes down, less money to make, less shark investors in the market.
Where I live roughly 1-in-5 of the new McMansions and condo apartment units have owners but are vacant. They have been purchased by off-shore interests to hide money from their home country government's clutches, or as a relatively safe store of value not correlated to stock markets, or (some say) to launder ill-gotten gains. Unfortunately, this has added more "juice" to the upward price spiral that is making homes unaffordable for many people here. Not good. Cheers.
The problem in my view is the following.
Stop allowing corporations from buying houses. (Less demand and more supply should lower house prices)
Allow more zoning and construction of new developments
Subsidize builders to reduce cost of building homes.
Offer bigger tax incentives and discounts to first time home buyers.
Lastly for the renters remove the software that syncs different agencies pricing structures that price gouge renters.
Create legislation that creates fair rent allocation for units.
Percentage wise the big outfits don't own many single family homes. Yes, certain cities got hit hard with large numbers of homes being purchased as rentals, but nationwide the numbers are quite low. When you see that a large corporation has purchased a thousand or five thousand houses across the country keep the following number in mind.
"In the United States, the majority of housing units are single-family houses - about 82 million "
Sure, having those thousand investor-owned homes on the market will help a little here and there, but it will not cure anything any more than having 1,000 new homes appear on the market tomorrow in a large city. They will be charging full price.
my town is 1000 people, 45 minutes away from the nearest town. The house built 25 years ago that is across the street just went up for sale for $289k. My house was built in 1883 I just bought 2 years ago. It's value went up 80% from 22 to 23. This seems like a good thing in the abstract. But that also means my taxes also went up in proportion. Property taxes are expensive no matter where you live. Owning a home is NOT an investment unless you intend to flip it, or rent it. The total cost of home ownership over 30 years is about 100% of it's value. You will have replaced everything by then. roof, siding, windows, furnace, AC, flooring, appliances.
Welcome to what Robert Reich calls "greed-flation". The only reason a realtor will tell you the wildly over-priced housing is "what the market will bear" is because they are reaping a higher 6% on a house that is, for many, merely an investment, not a place to call home.
7:31 This is incorrect. Corporations have bought up more homes than EVER for flipping and renting. Get rid of the corporations doing this, and housing prices drop 20% in six months.
Zoning is a huge issue, and so is building codes that have been overblown due to lobbyists, making it unnecessarily expensive to build.
1:05 "In maybe the wealthiest time and the wealthiest society in human history, so many of us feel poor or feel constrained". Well, yeah: what we call individual wealth is a claim on other people. I mean, we COULD define wealth in terms of having lots of fruits and vegetables to eat and lots of time to play with our children, but we tend to define it in financial wealth.
And what is financial wealth? It is, for example: if I own bonds, SOMEONE has to be in debt. If I own an apartment building that goes up in value over time, then SOMEONE has to be paying me increased rents every year instead of owning their own place. If I own dividend growth stocks, then SOMEONE has to be spending more money this year than last year (otherwise I may own stocks, but they're not "dividend growth" stocks).
This is how wealth, as our society generally defines it, works. One person's wealth is a claim on someone else, which means "someone else" is going to "feel poor or feel constrained".
Cities that "relax" regs need to ensure that doesn't encourage speculaters and businesses to drive up prices.
All of this is true, and the bottom line is simply that if zoning allowed more public transportation accessible, affordable, housing then prices would drop. This isn't a question of lowering construction costs. Municipalities make it next to impossible to build anything that isn't luxurious and super pricey.
_"How do we return to the economic boom after World War 2?"_
That demands understanding why the economy was booming. Because it did so _because World War 2 had ended._ Europe was in shambles, entire cities had to be rebuilt, people had nothing and demand for a lot of things. _Of course_ it was booming. To say you want to "return to that" is equivalent to saying you want another post-World War period.
My biggest gripe with the US' housing crisis is that is has bled into so many 'Western' countries, causing untold havoc through collateral damage. The only real solution for now is a much-overdue correction that is inherent to the system. The longer that takes, the harder the crash will be.
My old family home is now over $500,000 bucks. It was bought new in the 1970's for like $80,000's. It's in a Cheap HOA, and right off a Main Street. It has no pool, single level home, 4 bedrooms and 2 baths. I've seen the pictures of what it looks like after the flip, looks lovely. But at the same time, the cost is vial.
Not real estate again! One of the most alluring investment sectors is the stock market; however, stock investing can be risky because of the frequent fluctuations that can result in large gains or losses for investors. If you can manage the risk, though, you can use the stock market to secure your financial position and generate income.
Building a good financial-portfolio has been more complex since covid, so I would recommend you seek professional support. This way you can get strategies designed to address your unique long-term goals and financial dreams.
Yes, that's true. I had assumed that my financial situation was good until I realised that I needed help with diversification. I contacted a coach, and in less than a year, I had made over [$750k] in net profit-roughly six times my own income.
How can one find a verifiable financial Planner, I buy the idea of employing the services of a Financial Advisor because finding that balance between saving and living requires counsel.
The advisor that guides me is Sharon Ann Meny, most likely the internet is where to find her basic info, just search her name. She's established.
This recommendation is coming at the right time because i am literally grasping for straws atm ! I looked her--up online and scheduled a phone call with her.
Why doesn't the govt just buy some of these huge luxury apartment buildings and convert them to subsidized affordable condos? Let's say it costs a developer $100M to build one with 500 units (~$200K/unit to build). Govt could offer them say $125M to hand it over to them. Govt could then set whatever rates on the units they want if they want to rent them or just outright sell them to recoup some or all of that $ to purchase. The developer having made a handsome profit could then go find another project to build. It sounds expensive but we have given close to $200B to Ukraine in the last couple years to fight a war halfway around the world that we don't really even have any interests in. The govt could easily do something like this. Take that $200 Billion we sent to Ukraine and govt could buy 2,000 $100M massive luxury apt complexes. 1,000,000 condos right there converted to govt control without having to build them - they are already built. Then let the developers take their $ towards new projects. Obviously there will be some pushback from local areas on this but that is where local and national govt need to work together to figure out how to make it work. With how much $ the federal govt throws around no reason something like this shouldn't be part of the fix.
Government regulation needs to be slowly unwound. The fundamental tension between investment vs. shelter isn’t answered by doing away with zoning entirely overnight. Incremental progress is key. Changes in policy will create winners & losers. As a YIMBY homeowner, I’m willing to accept some level of economic loss for more neighbors. For example, I think allowing all SFH lots to be duplexes is totally reasonable & wouldn’t hurt anything. No zoning whatsoever & back to a total free for all overnight would.
I want to note that I don't actually believe the disappearance of the 'American dream' is an issue in and of itself. The aspirations of living in a suburb, having a nuclear family and an SUV shouldn't be the goal nor is it sustainable for every single person to have, it's simply not feasible in terms of resources at scale.There are aspects of the post WW2 age we should look to as inspiration and guidance but I don't believe we need to fully revert back to that age in terms of ideals and city planning, especially considering the housing built and city planning is the culprit for suburban sprawl and car centric infrastructure of today
The issue moreso lies in the fact that people are not even able to afford single bedroom apartments in a nice city with nearby amenities, or a townhome or a condo etc.Anecdotally I will never live in a single family suburb because it's not appealing to me in any way.
Maybe also worth noting that boarding houses (roughly "efficiency apartments") used to be extremely common.
This video nails it. As a small time property owner I can attest to Zoning being a major preventer of building more affordable housing. I have tried to build these units and been stopped.
There are many solutions, but here's my two favorite (realistic) ones to speculate about.
1) Disallow any individual or entity from owning more than two (maybe one) properties at once. If property scalpers (or "investors") can't buy up something in demand without using it, the prices can't skyrocket. Least, not as out-of-control as we see now.
2) Have the government build and maintain flophouses (or some very minimal housing) and only charge the amount to maintain them; including capital cost divided by expected days of operation. No profiting, but no luxuries. If developers only build expensive housing while nobody is forced to buy them, they won't buy them, the lots will rot, and this property gouging business will be financially insolvent.
Unfortunately my city grew along class and race lines, as many are, and that has not changed. So there are winners and losers every time no matter the other circumstances around housing. What has changed since '08, is the added burden of investors buying up housing and locking it up away from a possible homeowner.
Great info here. I'm in a limited equity housing cooperative in Chicago. We desperately need share loans, but banks don't want to offer them.
I hate to be Debbie Downer, but a lot of real estate market watchers are finally saying the quiet part out loud: That the housing affordability problem will take *decades* to fix. So if you're not already in the housing market, you're probably screwed, because it's probably not getting better in your lifetime.
The problem is that we can fix this problem, but we won't. And the reason we won't fix this problem is the same reason we won't fix any problem: because even if the country gains a net benefit and rich people would be richer in the long run, *ANYTHING* that even slightly negatively impacts the ultra-wealthy, even if it's very briefly, is dead on arrival.
Love to see practical ways trying to break this problem down.
Something like high vacancy taxes could work, where real wstate companies and real estate owners who have homes that they don't live in and dont rent out would have to pay heavy vacancy taxes, thus heavily incentivizing them to bring those houses to the market to rent instead of keeping it out of the market so it could build up value as an investment over time.
Most of these ideas require DEREGULATION of mortgage products. There were lenders for many of these propposals in 2001-2008. The CFPB makes some of products VERY regulated so financial institutions do NOT want to create the products. I have worked in mortgages for 20+ years. Many of the products you are pitching have high risk at present so without being able to charge 15-25% (like some manufactured home builders) . Supply/demand vs risk/reward. Loan amounts below 100k need to be deregulated.
Basically in housing now is it is everything or nothing with nothing in-between middle-tier housing for the middle-class
The higher end areas complain that they don't have workers at the regular service jobs, but there aren't any homes or apartments for the workers 10 to 15 miles close to the town or city
All anyone really wants or needs is peace and quiet and that can be found almost nowhere and rarely if ever is it affordable. So to hell with this world.
Planning is needed as essential infrastructure (ie. Hospitals and schools) are required to handle such influx in any area. If not no one has access to these essentials.... seems fantastical. Just me?
As a result of rent controls were removed in an attempt to encourage the building of rentals units you now have large corporate landlords owning hundreds of single-family homes charging maximum rent to achieve a 25 to 50% profit and they are also paid ot keep the units empty as well. Thus, we also have unaffordable rent in a very limited number of rental buildings
When in human history, did people sit around, hoping their government was going to provide them housing? The only solution is for every person to take control of their own life and go create their own housing.
To summarize "Let people build what they want"....I built a very comfortable home all my self with zero previous experience for 45 grand not to "code" which has worked perfectly and hasn't fallen down. We have over regulated everyone into an inefficient and expensive corner with nowhere to go at a time where there has never been more knowledge freely available to do it yourself, its mental. Im not a rebel but Im sure as fark not going to be told I can't build myself shelter and then not be offered a reasonable alternative from them at the same time.
If you don't mind me asking, how did you build yours? Did you use an alternative building material?
I did the same for 60k but that was nearly a decade ago. Material would likely cost double now.
@@logoski589 Yeh the price increases have been crazy, I finished my build a month into the pandemic and it was the best/luckiest move I ever made as there is no way I could have afforded to do the project now and would now be a rent slave for life like many others.
@@CFlandre No I used standard 50mm coolroom panels and angled alluminium.