This is to maintain a system where house worth is treated like savings not as a property to build a family in.
We point to 2020 and 2014 as big times of change, I'm starting to suspect 2008 housing crash scared the Boomers enough that led to them putting housing worth above EVERYTHING else.
If we’d just beat the cost of housing down it would fix so many problems, but you can’t touch those boomers net worth. I’d accept it and I own property and if I woke up tomorrow and it was worth half I’d be fine with it as I can still live there and it’s a net benefit to the greater economy. I’m significantly more benefitted by a strong economy than a some illiquid house value dollars.
I heard interesting podcast this week it was with CEO of Meritage Homes, a fairly large home builder. He specifically called out regulatory costs and that there’s basically political pressure from people who don’t want them bringing their home values down to charge the ridiculous costs. I believe his estimate was per-lot in California they spend ~$100k just in government BS fees to turn a piece of undeveloped land into a saleable lot ready to put a house on. That’s in addition to the actual costs like prepping streets, utilities, etc. and of course then the cost of actually constructing a house on the lot is after that too.
It doesn’t even have to be half, a 25% dip in most neighborhoods would immediately open up affordability for most of the country. That’s even less than the accrued bubble in the past 5 years.
Our biggest problem is we’re letting smaller towns die out when states could easily be incentivizing their growth. That’s a massive amount of potential homes for businesses and growth that doesn’t exist because boomers in cities are terrified of competition in pricing. Just like boomers pulled the ladder up behind them for jobs, it’s all such a joke anymore.
They've absolutely driven everyone to cities even if opportunities were there not to. I saw this big in the corporate world when everything was going flawlessly during Covid shutdowns, everyone working from home (which would give them flexibility on where to live), then all of a sudden a switch flipped and oh yeah by the way we need everyone in person again.
I know a handful of people, friends and kids of friends etc. from small towns. A couple of the younger ones I've known since they were elementary school age and in mid 20s now. They've done really well, but they were forced to leave. The type of good family people that would be totally happy staying in their hometown, raising their own kids there, etc. The kind of people we here would generally like. There's just zero jobs for them. Their parents jobs were already dead or dying as it was. They are forced to at least get close to a city.
Yep, one of the biggest lies of the past century was that there were no businesses attracted to small towns. State governments both republican and democrat did everything in their power to kill towns. In this day and age it’s easier to build up medium sized towns or even start new ones from scratch, it never happens because cities lose their shit every time a state offers anything aside from chemical dumping grounds to towns.
Our biggest problem is we’re letting smaller towns die out when states could easily be incentivizing their growth.
All part of the plan.
Do you remember Pearl Jam's 'Do the Evolution' music video? Do you remember the end of that video where they had all the humans corralled into their 'smart cities'? And then the autonomous drones nuked every city across the planet entirely?
That's what their plans are (eventually)/ Remove people from the rural (out of surveillance), concentrate them in the cities, and then nuke em' (to reduce 'carbon' of course).
Meanwhile, there are lots o smaller towns in the South that are being turned into actual company towns, while The Powers That Be fight against them. Abbeville, Alabama is Yellawood's headquarters, and Bluffton, Georgia is becoming White Oak Pastures' company town.
The problem has many layers, like how even if you managed to get the cost of housing down the quality of house being built now is catastrophically bad, both from a structural integrity standpoint as well as aesthetics.
No, it pretty much only has one layer: overpopulation. Too many people means wages go down, taxes and prices of everything go up, and everything and every where gets crowded.
If we’d just beat the cost of housing down it would fix so many problems, but you can’t touch those boomers net worth.
It's pathetic that so many boomers have a generic house as their biggest or only source of net worth. And then they still find a way to piss away the equity with a HELOC or reverse mortgage.
I heard interesting podcast this week it was with CEO of Meritage Homes, a fairly large home builder. He specifically called out regulatory costs and that there’s basically political pressure from people who don’t want them bringing their home values down to charge the ridiculous costs.
I'm skeptical of the idea that boomers are trying to prevent their houses from dropping in value (since what would be the point, really?) but that's an interesting tidbit.
I wonder if the people he's talking about own multiple homes, because that's the only way I could make sense of that. A boomer who owns a single house doesn't really benefit from home inflation. Unless maybe it comes to leveraging the equity, but most boomers aren't going to do that.
It makes a lot more sense when you realize half of boomers think they can “downsize” into something that doesn’t exist in the market anymore because prices have skyrocketed across the board. Boomers have never existed in a period when home ownership wasn’t expected for almost everyone and still believe they deserve it for no reason. That’s why boomer dominated states like Florida are trying to make individual homes exempt from property taxes, it’s all to coddle boomers about to retire.
It wasn't something they talked about in depth regarding the actual reasoning behind the why, more of a side comment and we aren't talking about an edgy podcast where they were trying to talk about boomers specifically.
The regulatory costs in places where you'd expect sounded asinine though.
I do still think boomers have attached some sense of their self worth into the value of their property. Not just their house, they do care about that though, but it really bothers them when they learn that all their "things" are really just not desirable to others. That's just my opinion from observation though. It could be connected to some of the well now late boomers I was around. They'd never say it was, ever, but their actions betrayed them as money and possessions was something they always went on about.
Boomers let society rot just to secure more gibs and fake currency while already being the richest generation in western history. The 2008 crash showed liberalism was a lie and handing just anyone a loan did not get equitable outcomes, the only thing boomers took from that lesson was to vote for the most government gibs possible because the stock market is fake and pull the ladder up after themselves in gated neighborhoods.
This is also why state and local governments absolutely refuse to build new town/cities and disperse businesses because it would impact boomer home values. The last city built in America was by fucking Disney in the 80s/90s. Every single aspect of our country is entirely controlled by boomer greed.
Isn't kind of sad that all the boomers whose kids are all grown up are living in 3-bedroom mcmasions and their kids are lucky to rent a 1-bedroom apartment to themselves.
If the housing market crashed tomorrow, and my house lost 90% of its value... It's still my house, nothing's changed. Generally speaking, the reason you sell your house, is to buy a house. So if the market crashes, as long as my house's value crashes the same amount as everyone else's, I'm still good.
As long as my house maintains enough value that damaging or harming it is costly enough that it puts the perpatrators in prison, and thus discourage such from happening, the rest is... meaningless. I will always need shelter, so I cannot sell my house to gain money, no matter how much money it is worth, because I will need to then spend that money on a similarly overpriced lodging.
In fact, thanks to inheritance taxes and municipal taxes adjusted for house "value", a housing market crash would actually HELP me financially: I'd pay less taxes now, and either me, or my co-signer, wouldn't need to pay off a huge tax bill on one of our deaths from the cap-gains when it flows through inheritance-wise.
before 1971 housing prices stayed about stable, they were considered a domicile, not an investment. Than the USD was decoupled from gold and money began to become worthless, but "stuff" became "valuable", especially property because no new land can be created. But the way we think about money after 1971 has not changed, but it should. The "dollar value" of something, say a property increased, but you should look at it in a different way: the property value has stayed the same, but the value of the dollar has decreased over time thus needing more dollars to buy the same property years/decades later. The graph of house prices plotting the wrong data.
This is to maintain a system where house worth is treated like savings not as a property to build a family in.
We point to 2020 and 2014 as big times of change, I'm starting to suspect 2008 housing crash scared the Boomers enough that led to them putting housing worth above EVERYTHING else.
If we’d just beat the cost of housing down it would fix so many problems, but you can’t touch those boomers net worth. I’d accept it and I own property and if I woke up tomorrow and it was worth half I’d be fine with it as I can still live there and it’s a net benefit to the greater economy. I’m significantly more benefitted by a strong economy than a some illiquid house value dollars.
I heard interesting podcast this week it was with CEO of Meritage Homes, a fairly large home builder. He specifically called out regulatory costs and that there’s basically political pressure from people who don’t want them bringing their home values down to charge the ridiculous costs. I believe his estimate was per-lot in California they spend ~$100k just in government BS fees to turn a piece of undeveloped land into a saleable lot ready to put a house on. That’s in addition to the actual costs like prepping streets, utilities, etc. and of course then the cost of actually constructing a house on the lot is after that too.
It doesn’t even have to be half, a 25% dip in most neighborhoods would immediately open up affordability for most of the country. That’s even less than the accrued bubble in the past 5 years.
Our biggest problem is we’re letting smaller towns die out when states could easily be incentivizing their growth. That’s a massive amount of potential homes for businesses and growth that doesn’t exist because boomers in cities are terrified of competition in pricing. Just like boomers pulled the ladder up behind them for jobs, it’s all such a joke anymore.
They've absolutely driven everyone to cities even if opportunities were there not to. I saw this big in the corporate world when everything was going flawlessly during Covid shutdowns, everyone working from home (which would give them flexibility on where to live), then all of a sudden a switch flipped and oh yeah by the way we need everyone in person again.
I know a handful of people, friends and kids of friends etc. from small towns. A couple of the younger ones I've known since they were elementary school age and in mid 20s now. They've done really well, but they were forced to leave. The type of good family people that would be totally happy staying in their hometown, raising their own kids there, etc. The kind of people we here would generally like. There's just zero jobs for them. Their parents jobs were already dead or dying as it was. They are forced to at least get close to a city.
Yep, one of the biggest lies of the past century was that there were no businesses attracted to small towns. State governments both republican and democrat did everything in their power to kill towns. In this day and age it’s easier to build up medium sized towns or even start new ones from scratch, it never happens because cities lose their shit every time a state offers anything aside from chemical dumping grounds to towns.
All part of the plan.
Do you remember Pearl Jam's 'Do the Evolution' music video? Do you remember the end of that video where they had all the humans corralled into their 'smart cities'? And then the autonomous drones nuked every city across the planet entirely?
That's what their plans are (eventually)/ Remove people from the rural (out of surveillance), concentrate them in the cities, and then nuke em' (to reduce 'carbon' of course).
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI
*Yes, I know I'm might be going a bit hyperbole, but these faggots like to flash their intentions in your face before doing the deed.
A big reason homes are so expensive is the loan industry. Low interest rates lead to people being able to borrow more and this drives up home prices.
Meanwhile, there are lots o smaller towns in the South that are being turned into actual company towns, while The Powers That Be fight against them. Abbeville, Alabama is Yellawood's headquarters, and Bluffton, Georgia is becoming White Oak Pastures' company town.
The problem has many layers, like how even if you managed to get the cost of housing down the quality of house being built now is catastrophically bad, both from a structural integrity standpoint as well as aesthetics.
No, it pretty much only has one layer: overpopulation. Too many people means wages go down, taxes and prices of everything go up, and everything and every where gets crowded.
Construction quality went to shit because of overpopulation?
Uh huh. Go on, pull the other one.
kek. not even close.
Only if "number of jobs" is a constant. It's obviously not.
Yea, we stopped building new suburbs, and nothing is made to be repaired, they have their thumb on the scale.
"overpopulation." christ. georgia guidestones mindset right here.
It's pathetic that so many boomers have a generic house as their biggest or only source of net worth. And then they still find a way to piss away the equity with a HELOC or reverse mortgage.
I'm skeptical of the idea that boomers are trying to prevent their houses from dropping in value (since what would be the point, really?) but that's an interesting tidbit.
I wonder if the people he's talking about own multiple homes, because that's the only way I could make sense of that. A boomer who owns a single house doesn't really benefit from home inflation. Unless maybe it comes to leveraging the equity, but most boomers aren't going to do that.
It makes a lot more sense when you realize half of boomers think they can “downsize” into something that doesn’t exist in the market anymore because prices have skyrocketed across the board. Boomers have never existed in a period when home ownership wasn’t expected for almost everyone and still believe they deserve it for no reason. That’s why boomer dominated states like Florida are trying to make individual homes exempt from property taxes, it’s all to coddle boomers about to retire.
It wasn't something they talked about in depth regarding the actual reasoning behind the why, more of a side comment and we aren't talking about an edgy podcast where they were trying to talk about boomers specifically.
The regulatory costs in places where you'd expect sounded asinine though.
I do still think boomers have attached some sense of their self worth into the value of their property. Not just their house, they do care about that though, but it really bothers them when they learn that all their "things" are really just not desirable to others. That's just my opinion from observation though. It could be connected to some of the well now late boomers I was around. They'd never say it was, ever, but their actions betrayed them as money and possessions was something they always went on about.
Boomers let society rot just to secure more gibs and fake currency while already being the richest generation in western history. The 2008 crash showed liberalism was a lie and handing just anyone a loan did not get equitable outcomes, the only thing boomers took from that lesson was to vote for the most government gibs possible because the stock market is fake and pull the ladder up after themselves in gated neighborhoods.
This is also why state and local governments absolutely refuse to build new town/cities and disperse businesses because it would impact boomer home values. The last city built in America was by fucking Disney in the 80s/90s. Every single aspect of our country is entirely controlled by boomer greed.
Isn't kind of sad that all the boomers whose kids are all grown up are living in 3-bedroom mcmasions and their kids are lucky to rent a 1-bedroom apartment to themselves.
As a house-owner... I use my house as a house.
If the housing market crashed tomorrow, and my house lost 90% of its value... It's still my house, nothing's changed. Generally speaking, the reason you sell your house, is to buy a house. So if the market crashes, as long as my house's value crashes the same amount as everyone else's, I'm still good.
As long as my house maintains enough value that damaging or harming it is costly enough that it puts the perpatrators in prison, and thus discourage such from happening, the rest is... meaningless. I will always need shelter, so I cannot sell my house to gain money, no matter how much money it is worth, because I will need to then spend that money on a similarly overpriced lodging.
In fact, thanks to inheritance taxes and municipal taxes adjusted for house "value", a housing market crash would actually HELP me financially: I'd pay less taxes now, and either me, or my co-signer, wouldn't need to pay off a huge tax bill on one of our deaths from the cap-gains when it flows through inheritance-wise.
No, something would change: Your taxes and insurance costs would drop substantially.
before 1971 housing prices stayed about stable, they were considered a domicile, not an investment. Than the USD was decoupled from gold and money began to become worthless, but "stuff" became "valuable", especially property because no new land can be created. But the way we think about money after 1971 has not changed, but it should. The "dollar value" of something, say a property increased, but you should look at it in a different way: the property value has stayed the same, but the value of the dollar has decreased over time thus needing more dollars to buy the same property years/decades later. The graph of house prices plotting the wrong data.