boognish_bear said:

---

UNITED STATES: 15 million more adults under 35 are now living with their parents compared to a decade ago, according to Fortune report.

— The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex) November 9, 2025

---

Just in this thread multiple people were talking about generational mortgages so this must be a good thing, right?

new paper finds rising housing costs to be a major causal driver of declining fertility.

Benjamin Couillard finds higher rents lead to 11 percent fewer US births (~13 million kids) since 1990. That's just over half of the decline in total fertility rate in that time period pic.twitter.com/VNwtSP1TE0

— Rachel Cohen Booth (@rcobooth) November 10, 2025

This is a good illustration of a general principle:

As you build new high-end apartments, people move up, freeing up supply of lower-tier apartments.

Building luxury housing thus lowers downmarket rents. You don't need to build 'affordable housing' to make housing affordable. https://t.co/rOQmhGOuJm pic.twitter.com/hbAk3rkWcb

— Crémieux (@cremieuxrecueil) November 11, 2025

Redbrickbear said:

---

This is a good illustration of a general principle:

As you build new high-end apartments, people move up, freeing up supply of lower-tier apartments.

Building luxury housing thus lowers downmarket rents. You don't need to build 'affordable housing' to make housing affordable. https://t.co/rOQmhGOuJm pic.twitter.com/hbAk3rkWcb

— Crémieux (@cremieuxrecueil) November 11, 2025

---

yep. and.......if in addition to a shortage of supply at the top of the market you also insert millions of refugees into the bottom of the market......you are escalating demand in a way which squeezes hardest the people between the poor and the rich.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

This is a good illustration of a general principle:

As you build new high-end apartments, people move up, freeing up supply of lower-tier apartments.

Building luxury housing thus lowers downmarket rents. You don't need to build 'affordable housing' to make housing affordable. https://t.co/rOQmhGOuJm pic.twitter.com/hbAk3rkWcb

— Crémieux (@cremieuxrecueil) November 11, 2025

---

yep. and.......if in addition to a shortage of supply at the top of the market you also insert millions of refugees into the bottom of the market......you are escalating demand in a way which squeezes hardest the people between the poor and the rich.

---

You gotta build housing at all income levels quickly

And deport at a massive scale

PS

No wonder California is totally unaffordable

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

This is a good illustration of a general principle:

As you build new high-end apartments, people move up, freeing up supply of lower-tier apartments.

Building luxury housing thus lowers downmarket rents. You don't need to build 'affordable housing' to make housing affordable. https://t.co/rOQmhGOuJm pic.twitter.com/hbAk3rkWcb

— Crémieux (@cremieuxrecueil) November 11, 2025

---

yep. and.......if in addition to a shortage of supply at the top of the market you also insert millions of refugees into the bottom of the market......you are escalating demand in a way which squeezes hardest the people between the poor and the rich.

---

You gotta build housing at all income levels quickly

And deport at a massive scale

PS

No wonder California is totally unaffordable

---

it is a two way street, there are plenty of affordable homes. but not in SF, Boston, Miami, San Diego and places like that. At some point you live where you can afford, why do you think people commute an hour each direction? .

MacCallum: Are you a supporter of a 50 year mortgage plan?

Hassett: It reduces the monthly payment quite a bit.. We need to help people get back in the homes. First-time home buyers are over 40 years old and we are focusing on that problem

MacCallum: Isn’t the problem that… pic.twitter.com/t85bfOOkfM

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

MacCallum: Are you a supporter of a 50 year mortgage plan?

Hassett: It reduces the monthly payment quite a bit.. We need to help people get back in the homes. First-time home buyers are over 40 years old and we are focusing on that problem

MacCallum: Isn’t the problem that… pic.twitter.com/t85bfOOkfM

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2025

---

Housing stocks are at the highest in history. It is not a supply issue.

It is a geography issue, not everyone can have a house in Chestnut Hill, Boston because that is where they want to live. They couldn't do it in the 90's, 60's, 30's, or 1900's. Same with Manhattan, Westchester County, SF, SD, and numerous other places.

Back in the 80's you could not afford a house in SW Florida on the oceanside of the interstate. You want to live in Naples, better be prepared to live in the Everglades. Been like that forever... This is not some new issue. There are affordable houses, why do you think people commute an hour? You not wanting to drive? No one ever wanted to commute. Drive until you can afford the house you want, been that way since WW2.

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

MacCallum: Are you a supporter of a 50 year mortgage plan?

Hassett: It reduces the monthly payment quite a bit.. We need to help people get back in the homes. First-time home buyers are over 40 years old and we are focusing on that problem

MacCallum: Isn’t the problem that… pic.twitter.com/t85bfOOkfM

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2025

---

Housing stocks are at the highest in history. It is not a supply issue.

It is a geography issue, not everyone can have a house in Chestnut Hill, Boston because that is where they want to live. They couldn't do it in the 90's, 60's, 30's, or 1900's. Same with Manhattan, Westchester County, SF, SD, and numerous other places.

Back in the 80's you could not afford a house in SW Florida on the oceanside of the interstate. You want to live in Naples, better be prepared to live in the Everglades. Been like that forever... This is not some new issue. There are affordable houses, why do you think people commute an hour? You not wanting to drive? No one ever wanted to commute. Drive until you can afford the house you want, been that way since WW2.

---

faulty premise

google "frozen housing market" and read up

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

MacCallum: Are you a supporter of a 50 year mortgage plan?

Hassett: It reduces the monthly payment quite a bit.. We need to help people get back in the homes. First-time home buyers are over 40 years old and we are focusing on that problem

MacCallum: Isn’t the problem that… pic.twitter.com/t85bfOOkfM

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2025

---

Housing stocks are at the highest in history. It is not a supply issue.

It is a geography issue, not everyone can have a house in Chestnut Hill, Boston because that is where they want to live. They couldn't do it in the 90's, 60's, 30's, or 1900's. Same with Manhattan, Westchester County, SF, SD, and numerous other places.

Back in the 80's you could not afford a house in SW Florida on the oceanside of the interstate. You want to live in Naples, better be prepared to live in the Everglades. Been like that forever... This is not some new issue. There are affordable houses, why do you think people commute an hour? You not wanting to drive? No one ever wanted to commute. Drive until you can afford the house you want, been that way since WW2.

---

faulty premise

google "frozen housing market" and read up

---

No it is not. What we are experiencing is not just a supply issue. There is a difference between a physical shortage and an affordability shortage. We are building more in the US than ever, but they are not starter homes. There is no profit in starter homes. We are not building the Levittown's and Custerdale homes of the 50's. Even getting a contractor to do remodeling is tough, they all are working on upscale homes.

1 - We have builders not wanting to build what younger people can afford. Either they build upscale or they sit on the entitlements (Housing lots).

2 - We have liberals that want to kill the suburbs, which is where most of the first time homeowners went. The climate change idiots are trying to kill commuting and cars. You used to "drive to qualify". That is how the Boomers everyone blames got their homes, they lived on Long Island and worked in NY for example The Corey Bookers want us all in multi-family.

3 - The younger generations want to live in the most expensive areas of the nation, downtown Boston, SF, NY, Miami.


So personally, I think it is by design. A storm of Builders, Liberals and Buyers that all want their agenda.

So, how do you get them to build affordable housing in the premium areas they want to live?




Building Permits by State and Metro Area | NAHB

Increases in development costs; increases in building materials costs, increase in labor costs ……create more expensive new houses.

For those with low paying jobs…..such homes are inevitably out of reach.

Just the facts of life and there is nothing the government can do about it.

Case closed.

KaiBear said:

---

Increases in development costs; increases in building materials costs, increase in labor costs ……create more expensive new houses.

For those with low paying jobs…..such homes are inevitably out of reach.

Just the facts of life and there is nothing the government can do about it.

Case closed.

---

It has kind of always been the American dream to work hard and get that house with a white picket fence… we are entering pretty sad times if that cannot be the reality for the generations coming up.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

MacCallum: Are you a supporter of a 50 year mortgage plan?

Hassett: It reduces the monthly payment quite a bit.. We need to help people get back in the homes. First-time home buyers are over 40 years old and we are focusing on that problem

MacCallum: Isn’t the problem that… pic.twitter.com/t85bfOOkfM

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2025

---

Housing stocks are at the highest in history. It is not a supply issue.

It is a geography issue, not everyone can have a house in Chestnut Hill, Boston because that is where they want to live. They couldn't do it in the 90's, 60's, 30's, or 1900's. Same with Manhattan, Westchester County, SF, SD, and numerous other places.

Back in the 80's you could not afford a house in SW Florida on the oceanside of the interstate. You want to live in Naples, better be prepared to live in the Everglades. Been like that forever... This is not some new issue. There are affordable houses, why do you think people commute an hour? You not wanting to drive? No one ever wanted to commute. Drive until you can afford the house you want, been that way since WW2.

---

faulty premise

google "frozen housing market" and read up

---

So, how do you get them to build affordable housing in the premium areas they want to live?

Building Permits by State and Metro Area | NAHB

---

You don't. It's not even possible.

Strictly on an economic sense; if building those homes was profitable they would already exist. They don't exist for a multitude of reasons.

Miami is a market I'm very familiar with. You can buy "affordable" homes there but they are WAY South and West of the city. They don't sell well. No one wants to be in those areas and they know the resale will be terrible.

The overwhelming majority of Americans don't want to live in high density housing either.

The reality is Americans don't want "affordable" housing. They want $750,000 homes but they want them for $285,000.

boognish_bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Increases in development costs; increases in building materials costs, increase in labor costs ……create more expensive new houses.

For those with low paying jobs…..such homes are inevitably out of reach.

Just the facts of life and there is nothing the government can do about it.

Case closed.

---

It has kind of always been the American dream to work hard and get that house with a white picket fence… we are entering pretty sad times if that cannot be the reality for the generations coming up.

---

Tell me why? The white picket fence didn't become a "thing" until the 1950s give or take. 100 years before that the American dream was land and a farm. 100 years before that it was an apartment in London. Virtually no one owned land in this country and that was true of almost all of recorded history.

The next 100 years will look dramatically different. Needs shift.

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

MacCallum: Are you a supporter of a 50 year mortgage plan?

Hassett: It reduces the monthly payment quite a bit.. We need to help people get back in the homes. First-time home buyers are over 40 years old and we are focusing on that problem

MacCallum: Isn’t the problem that… pic.twitter.com/t85bfOOkfM

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2025

---

Housing stocks are at the highest in history. It is not a supply issue.

It is a geography issue, not everyone can have a house in Chestnut Hill, Boston because that is where they want to live. They couldn't do it in the 90's, 60's, 30's, or 1900's. Same with Manhattan, Westchester County, SF, SD, and numerous other places.

Back in the 80's you could not afford a house in SW Florida on the oceanside of the interstate. You want to live in Naples, better be prepared to live in the Everglades. Been like that forever... This is not some new issue. There are affordable houses, why do you think people commute an hour? You not wanting to drive? No one ever wanted to commute. Drive until you can afford the house you want, been that way since WW2.

---

faulty premise

google "frozen housing market" and read up

---

So, how do you get them to build affordable housing in the premium areas they want to live?

Building Permits by State and Metro Area | NAHB

---

You don't. It's not even possible.

Strictly on an economic sense; if building those homes was profitable they would already exist. They don't exist for a multitude of reasons.

Miami is a market I'm very familiar with. You can buy "affordable" homes there but they are WAY South and West of the city. They don't sell well. No one wants to be in those areas and they know the resale will be terrible.

The overwhelming majority of Americans don't want to live in high density housing either.

The reality is Americans don't want "affordable" housing. They want $750,000 homes but they want them for $285,000.

---

You got it. If you want affordable in South Florida, you are in the Everglades. In Tampa, a market I know well, if you want affordable you are driving and traffic is such that a 10 minute delay leaving in the morning can add 40 minutes. But, there are houses and they are building more than ever. We have been experiencing 650 people per day moving to Tampa Bay. There are homes, but you will pay.

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

MacCallum: Are you a supporter of a 50 year mortgage plan?

Hassett: It reduces the monthly payment quite a bit.. We need to help people get back in the homes. First-time home buyers are over 40 years old and we are focusing on that problem

MacCallum: Isn’t the problem that… pic.twitter.com/t85bfOOkfM

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2025

---

Housing stocks are at the highest in history. It is not a supply issue.

It is a geography issue, not everyone can have a house in Chestnut Hill, Boston because that is where they want to live. They couldn't do it in the 90's, 60's, 30's, or 1900's. Same with Manhattan, Westchester County, SF, SD, and numerous other places.

Back in the 80's you could not afford a house in SW Florida on the oceanside of the interstate. Y

---

Brother the young people complaining on the internet (and in real life) about unaffordable housing costs are not trying to live in Chestnut Hill Boston or Highland Park Texas....or on ocean front property in South Florida

These are young people posting from Columbus Ohio and Oklahoma City

My first house in a Mid size Texas city was bought in the $160k range.....its now on Zillow estimate at $320k

This is wild....decade difference and twice the price

KaiBear said:

---

Increases in development costs; increases in building materials costs, increase in labor costs ……create more expensive new houses.

For those with low paying jobs…..such homes are inevitably out of reach.

Just the facts of life and there is nothing the government can do about it.

Case closed.

---

Nuke zoning laws....on already created residential lots in any city you should be able to just build whatever housing you want up to a certain height....say 5 or 6 stories.

Eliminate parking requirements for apartment units.

And radically slash the time and cost in takes to get a approval to build.

That would help alot to create a building boom and in fill cities that are not built up

Also, maybe create a loan program for newly weds...something like newlyweds were eligible to receive an interest-free loan up to a certain amount. Forgive certain parts of it based on home many kids they have and how long they stay married. Etc.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

MacCallum: Are you a supporter of a 50 year mortgage plan?

Hassett: It reduces the monthly payment quite a bit.. We need to help people get back in the homes. First-time home buyers are over 40 years old and we are focusing on that problem

MacCallum: Isn’t the problem that… pic.twitter.com/t85bfOOkfM

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2025

---

Housing stocks are at the highest in history. It is not a supply issue.

It is a geography issue, not everyone can have a house in Chestnut Hill, Boston because that is where they want to live. They couldn't do it in the 90's, 60's, 30's, or 1900's. Same with Manhattan, Westchester County, SF, SD, and numerous other places.

Back in the 80's you could not afford a house in SW Florida on the oceanside of the interstate. Y

---

Brother the young people complaining on the internet (and in real life) about unaffordable housing costs are not trying to live in Chestnut Hill Boston or Highland Park Texas....or on ocean front property in South Florida

These are young people posting from Columbus Ohio and Oklahoma City

My first house in a Mid size Texas city was bought in the $160k range.....its now on Zillow estimate at $320k

This is wild....decade difference and twice the price

---

My first house was 67k in the Panhandle. Yeah, property has increased in value. My Dad's 1st house was 19k, 8 years later it was 40k, and when the Long Island RR came it went to 300k. That was the 70's and 80's and his interest rate was 12% with alot down. The Average in 1981 was 18%.

The 3% you guys act like is a God given right, was a fluke due to COVID. We are dealing with the backblast from 2020. So, prices are out of whack. It will take time to correct.

This sudden infatuation with no debt and paying off your mortgage is also a pipedream of what they want to be reality. Historically 40% of 30-year mortgages EVER got paid off. Talk to your retirement advisor and tell them you still have a mortgage, the response is that they don't worry about that. Bottomline YOU ALWAYS have to pay for somewhere to live, house mortgage, rent, property tax, or an Assisted Living Facility. You will always be paying.

This Baylor crowd is not the norm of the Nation or the World. This is the top .25% of the world. They have the ability and luxury of paying things off. Of fighting for the best rate and not taking bad deals. The vast majority of the US is not the same. If they can get a 50-year fixed rate mortgage that locks the payment into what they can afford each month they are ecstatic. When you have little to nothing, a bad deal to the elite that have multiple homes and jet set around is an opportunity that is worth taking that they can call their own. This has not changed throughout history. For someone that was eating out of Garbage Cans after WW1, being able to buy a house even under bad terms is beyond dreams (that was my Grandfather who immigrated from Czech.)

This site is spoiled. Go to the Panhandle and talk to Catholic Charities. Living out there changed my view on the world.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

MacCallum: Are you a supporter of a 50 year mortgage plan?

Hassett: It reduces the monthly payment quite a bit.. We need to help people get back in the homes. First-time home buyers are over 40 years old and we are focusing on that problem

MacCallum: Isn’t the problem that… pic.twitter.com/t85bfOOkfM

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2025

---

Housing stocks are at the highest in history. It is not a supply issue.

It is a geography issue, not everyone can have a house in Chestnut Hill, Boston because that is where they want to live. They couldn't do it in the 90's, 60's, 30's, or 1900's. Same with Manhattan, Westchester County, SF, SD, and numerous other places.

Back in the 80's you could not afford a house in SW Florida on the oceanside of the interstate. You want to live in Naples, better be prepared to live in the Everglades. Been like that forever... This is not some new issue. There are affordable houses, why do you think people commute an hour? You not wanting to drive? No one ever wanted to commute. Drive until you can afford the house you want, been that way since WW2.

---

faulty premise

google "frozen housing market" and read up

---

No it is not. What we are experiencing is not just a supply issue. There is a difference between a physical shortage and an affordability shortage. We are building more in the US than ever, but they are not starter homes. There is no profit in starter homes. We are not building the Levittown's and Custerdale homes of the 50's. Even getting a contractor to do remodeling is tough, they all are working on upscale homes.

1 - We have builders not wanting to build what younger people can afford. Either they build upscale or they sit on the entitlements (Housing lots).
because it is exceedingly difficult for them to build what younger people can afford. I'm involved in that, talk to builders directly about that. It's a borderline thing building a starter home that the average annual household income can service. We are changing up what we do to get builders to plat with more density, which will lower cost.

2 - We have liberals that want to kill the suburbs, which is where most of the first time homeowners went. The climate change idiots are trying to kill commuting and cars. You used to "drive to qualify". That is how the Boomers everyone blames got their homes, they lived on Long Island and worked in NY for example The Corey Bookers want us all in multi-family.

3 - The younger generations want to live in the most expensive areas of the nation, downtown Boston, SF, NY, Miami.

So personally, I think it is by design. A storm of Builders, Liberals and Buyers that all want their agenda.

So, how do you get them to build affordable housing in the premium areas they want to live?
Ben Shapiro gave the answer and was lambasted for it, but it's nonetheless true - people are going to have to move to where they can afford to live

Building Permits by State and Metro Area | NAHB

---

I don't know what spreadsheet you looked at but the one at your link shows Aug 2025 YTD nationwide numbers down 4% over same period in 2024, at barely over a million starts (versus total households in USA of 132m). So yes, the housing market is tightening. Population is growing at a half-percent or so and starts barely out-pace it, certainly not enough to overcome an obvious supply problem.

Building permits are also not a dispositive statistic. They tell us nothing about what's happening in distressed neighborhoods, for example. (green-tag, red-tag, demolished) Also tell us nothing about changes of numbers of people in households. And they tell us nothing about foreign ownership. or corporate ownership. Foreign buyers comprised 2.5% of purchases in NYC. That's in a market down 29% YOY (as of Aug 2025). Think that has an affect on prices? Yup. All the forces pulling people out of NYC are not creating housing supply.....because wealthy foreign buyers are stepping into buy second homes. Imagine that.....young families are getting priced out of the American Dream due to competition from rich foreigners buying 2nd homes.

lower interest rates will help. (and Trump has been beating up on the fed over that....) Cities changing development policy (like my community has) will help. Rising wages will help more people qualify for more expensive houses (which builders actually can build more easily). And in a perfect world, we get Commie Mamdani to quit promising free stuff and blaming capitalism for everything and try to put some limits on foreign ownership of residential property. Maybe Congress should think about whether or not we should provide policy disincentives for Blackrock to keep making mass purchases of single family residences for conversion into rental property.

And there are some positive signs on some of those things. But like it or not, supply/demand ultimately drives prices. The clearest sign of a problem with supply is....higher prices.

boognish_bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Increases in development costs; increases in building materials costs, increase in labor costs ……create more expensive new houses.

For those with low paying jobs…..such homes are inevitably out of reach.

Just the facts of life and there is nothing the government can do about it.

Case closed.

---

It has kind of always been the American dream to work hard and get that house with a white picket fence… we are entering pretty sad times if that cannot be the reality for the generations coming up.

---

The American Dream was never obtained by everyone .

In fact there never was a Golden Age of US history. Each decade had its own problems.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

MacCallum: Are you a supporter of a 50 year mortgage plan?

Hassett: It reduces the monthly payment quite a bit.. We need to help people get back in the homes. First-time home buyers are over 40 years old and we are focusing on that problem

MacCallum: Isn’t the problem that… pic.twitter.com/t85bfOOkfM

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2025

---

Housing stocks are at the highest in history. It is not a supply issue.

It is a geography issue, not everyone can have a house in Chestnut Hill, Boston because that is where they want to live. They couldn't do it in the 90's, 60's, 30's, or 1900's. Same with Manhattan, Westchester County, SF, SD, and numerous other places.

Back in the 80's you could not afford a house in SW Florida on the oceanside of the interstate. You want to live in Naples, better be prepared to live in the Everglades. Been like that forever... This is not some new issue. There are affordable houses, why do you think people commute an hour? You not wanting to drive? No one ever wanted to commute. Drive until you can afford the house you want, been that way since WW2.

---

faulty premise

google "frozen housing market" and read up

---

No it is not. What we are experiencing is not just a supply issue. There is a difference between a physical shortage and an affordability shortage. We are building more in the US than ever, but they are not starter homes. There is no profit in starter homes. We are not building the Levittown's and Custerdale homes of the 50's. Even getting a contractor to do remodeling is tough, they all are working on upscale homes.

1 - We have builders not wanting to build what younger people can afford. Either they build upscale or they sit on the entitlements (Housing lots).
because it is exceedingly difficult for them to build what younger people can afford. I'm involved in that, talk to builders directly about that. It's a borderline thing building a starter home that the average annual household income can service. We are changing up what we do to get builders to plat with more density, which will lower cost.

2 - We have liberals that want to kill the suburbs, which is where most of the first time homeowners went. The climate change idiots are trying to kill commuting and cars. You used to "drive to qualify". That is how the Boomers everyone blames got their homes, they lived on Long Island and worked in NY for example The Corey Bookers want us all in multi-family.

3 - The younger generations want to live in the most expensive areas of the nation, downtown Boston, SF, NY, Miami.

So personally, I think it is by design. A storm of Builders, Liberals and Buyers that all want their agenda.

So, how do you get them to build affordable housing in the premium areas they want to live?
Ben Shapiro gave the answer and was lambasted for it, but it's nonetheless true - people are going to have to move to where they can afford to live

Building Permits by State and Metro Area | NAHB

---

I don't know what spreadsheet you looked at but the one at your link shows Aug 2025 YTD nationwide numbers down 4% over same period in 2024, at barely over a million starts (versus total households in USA of 132m). So yes, the housing market is tightening. Population is growing at a half-percent or so and starts barely out-pace it, certainly not enough to overcome an obvious supply problem.

Building permits are also not a dispositive statistic. They tell us nothing about what's happening in distressed neighborhoods, for example. (green-tag, red-tag, demolished) Also tell us nothing about changes of numbers of people in households. And they tell us nothing about foreign ownership. or corporate ownership. Foreign buyers comprised 2.5% of purchases in NYC. That's in a market down 29% YOY (as of Aug 2025). Think that has an affect on prices? Yup. All the forces pulling people out of NYC are not creating housing supply.....because wealthy foreign buyers are stepping into buy second homes. Imagine that.....young families are getting priced out of the American Dream due to competition from rich foreigners buying 2nd homes.

lower interest rates will help. (and Trump has been beating up on the fed over that....) Cities changing development policy (like my community has) will help. Rising wages will help more people qualify for more expensive houses (which builders actually can build more easily). And in a perfect world, we get Commie Mamdani to quit promising free stuff and blaming capitalism for everything and try to put some limits on foreign ownership of residential property. Maybe Congress should think about whether or not we should provide policy disincentives for Blackrock to keep making mass purchases of single family residences for conversion into rental property.

And there are some positive signs on some of those things. But like it or not, supply/demand ultimately drives prices. The clearest sign of a problem with supply is....higher prices.

---

We agree. I spent 15 years doing traffic work for developments. We brought this on ourselves. There have been "affordable housing" requirements for all developments. They got creative to meet it, rather than build starter homes.

I like Shapiro and he is correct. You have to drive until you qualify, it is a fact of life. You are not getting 1400 mortgages in premium areas on the coast, not happening. Also, the younger generation has this notion that the house they buy at 30 is where they will stay and pay off. That does not happen often, usually it is the 3rd mortgage that gets paid off. Hell, my Grandparents paid rent their entire lives.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

MacCallum: Are you a supporter of a 50 year mortgage plan?

Hassett: It reduces the monthly payment quite a bit.. We need to help people get back in the homes. First-time home buyers are over 40 years old and we are focusing on that problem

MacCallum: Isn’t the problem that… pic.twitter.com/t85bfOOkfM

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2025

---

Housing stocks are at the highest in history. It is not a supply issue.

It is a geography issue, not everyone can have a house in Chestnut Hill, Boston because that is where they want to live. They couldn't do it in the 90's, 60's, 30's, or 1900's. Same with Manhattan, Westchester County, SF, SD, and numerous other places.

Back in the 80's you could not afford a house in SW Florida on the oceanside of the interstate. You want to live in Naples, better be prepared to live in the Everglades. Been like that forever... This is not some new issue. There are affordable houses, why do you think people commute an hour? You not wanting to drive? No one ever wanted to commute. Drive until you can afford the house you want, been that way since WW2.

---

faulty premise

google "frozen housing market" and read up

---

No it is not. What we are experiencing is not just a supply issue. There is a difference between a physical shortage and an affordability shortage. We are building more in the US than ever, but they are not starter homes. There is no profit in starter homes. We are not building the Levittown's and Custerdale homes of the 50's. Even getting a contractor to do remodeling is tough, they all are working on upscale homes.

1 - We have builders not wanting to build what younger people can afford. Either they build upscale or they sit on the entitlements (Housing lots).
because it is exceedingly difficult for them to build what younger people can afford. I'm involved in that, talk to builders directly about that. It's a borderline thing building a starter home that the average annual household income can service. We are changing up what we do to get builders to plat with more density, which will lower cost.

2 - We have liberals that want to kill the suburbs, which is where most of the first time homeowners went. The climate change idiots are trying to kill commuting and cars. You used to "drive to qualify". That is how the Boomers everyone blames got their homes, they lived on Long Island and worked in NY for example The Corey Bookers want us all in multi-family.

3 - The younger generations want to live in the most expensive areas of the nation, downtown Boston, SF, NY, Miami.

So personally, I think it is by design. A storm of Builders, Liberals and Buyers that all want their agenda.

So, how do you get them to build affordable housing in the premium areas they want to live?
Ben Shapiro gave the answer and was lambasted for it, but it's nonetheless true - people are going to have to move to where they can afford to live

Building Permits by State and Metro Area | NAHB

---

I don't know what spreadsheet you looked at but the one at your link shows Aug 2025 YTD nationwide numbers down 4% over same period in 2024, at barely over a million starts (versus total households in USA of 132m). So yes, the housing market is tightening. Population is growing at a half-percent or so and starts barely out-pace it, certainly not enough to overcome an obvious supply problem.

Building permits are also not a dispositive statistic. They tell us nothing about what's happening in distressed neighborhoods, for example. (green-tag, red-tag, demolished) Also tell us nothing about changes of numbers of people in households. And they tell us nothing about foreign ownership. or corporate ownership. Foreign buyers comprised 2.5% of purchases in NYC. That's in a market down 29% YOY (as of Aug 2025). Think that has an affect on prices? Yup. All the forces pulling people out of NYC are not creating housing supply.....because wealthy foreign buyers are stepping into buy second homes. Imagine that.....young families are getting priced out of the American Dream due to competition from rich foreigners buying 2nd homes.

lower interest rates will help. (and Trump has been beating up on the fed over that....) Cities changing development policy (like my community has) will help. Rising wages will help more people qualify for more expensive houses (which builders actually can build more easily). And in a perfect world, we get Commie Mamdani to quit promising free stuff and blaming capitalism for everything and try to put some limits on foreign ownership of residential property. Maybe Congress should think about whether or not we should provide policy disincentives for Blackrock to keep making mass purchases of single family residences for conversion into rental property.

And there are some positive signs on some of those things. But like it or not, supply/demand ultimately drives prices. The clearest sign of a problem with supply is....higher prices.

---

We agree. I spent 15 years doing traffic work for developments. We brought this on ourselves. There have been "affordable housing" requirements for all developments. They got creative to meet it, rather than build starter homes.

I like Shapiro and he is correct. You have to drive until you qualify, it is a fact of life. You are not getting 1400 mortgages in premium areas on the coast, not happening. Also, the younger generation has this notion that the house they buy at 30 is where they will stay and pay off. That does not happen often, usually it is the 3rd mortgage that gets paid off. Hell, my Grandparents paid rent their entire lives.

---

that in bold is the slot for the 50yr mortgage. In markets with strong value growth, a 50 yr mortgage might be the difference between qualifying and not. Once they're in, the annual rise in value will build equity, allowing starter families to "get on the escalator." Sort of a bridge loan, in a way.

no, a 50yr mortgage is not a big fix or even a long-term fix, and it's certainly not the wisest of all options in building a personal balance sheet. But for some, it might have its place. The analogies to long term car loans is not exactly appropriate. Cars depreciate the moment you turn the key, and every day thereafter. Real Estate is typically the opposite - value and equity rises over time.

We've got to address the entry of institutional investment into the residential real estate markets. That's 4% of the market. At some point, "Horatio Alger competing with Blackrock to buy a home" is going to become a political issue entirely unhelpful for limited government conservatism.

That's a straight pipe dream. You need equity for that to happen and at 50 years equity doesn't happen until year 30 and even then it's not much.

So in your fantasy land you need value to rise fast, like really fast. If home values are rising fast enough to cover the fact that you are building no equity then it would be near impossible to move because whatever you want to purchase would also have been rising in value.

In reality on a 50 year note by year 10 you probably don't have enough equity to pay the realtor fees and closing costs.

Your last paragraph is 100% spot on. Like root cause of the problem.

nein51 said:

---

That's a straight pipe dream. You need equity for that to happen and at 50 years equity doesn't happen until year 30 and even then it's not much.
Equity is not built by principal reductions alone. It is also built by inflation over time.

So in your fantasy land you need value to rise fast, like really fast. If home values are rising fast enough to cover the fact that you are building no equity then it would be near impossible to move because whatever you want to purchase would also have been rising in value.
"no equity" is something of a strawman. I haven't seen anyone proposing the idea suggesting that we do zero-down loans....

In reality on a 50 year note by year 10 you probably don't have enough equity to pay the realtor fees and closing costs.
true, but only in a scenario where there is zero appreciation of market value of the home. Real estate appreciates 5% per year or so, and of course when you get into certain areas of certain cities, that number can be quite a bit higher.

Your last paragraph is 100% spot on. Like root cause of the problem.

---

It's a multi-factoral problem. It'll take a multi-factoral solution.

I'd way rather Blackrock et al keep their powder dry for cleaning up market messes. Think private sector Resolution Trust Corporation stuff.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

MacCallum: Are you a supporter of a 50 year mortgage plan?

Hassett: It reduces the monthly payment quite a bit.. We need to help people get back in the homes. First-time home buyers are over 40 years old and we are focusing on that problem

MacCallum: Isn’t the problem that… pic.twitter.com/t85bfOOkfM

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2025

---

Housing stocks are at the highest in history. It is not a supply issue.

It is a geography issue, not everyone can have a house in Chestnut Hill, Boston because that is where they want to live. They couldn't do it in the 90's, 60's, 30's, or 1900's. Same with Manhattan, Westchester County, SF, SD, and numerous other places.

Back in the 80's you could not afford a house in SW Florida on the oceanside of the interstate. You want to live in Naples, better be prepared to live in the Everglades. Been like that forever... This is not some new issue. There are affordable houses, why do you think people commute an hour? You not wanting to drive? No one ever wanted to commute. Drive until you can afford the house you want, been that way since WW2.

---

faulty premise

google "frozen housing market" and read up

---

No it is not. What we are experiencing is not just a supply issue. There is a difference between a physical shortage and an affordability shortage. We are building more in the US than ever, but they are not starter homes. There is no profit in starter homes. We are not building the Levittown's and Custerdale homes of the 50's. Even getting a contractor to do remodeling is tough, they all are working on upscale homes.

1 - We have builders not wanting to build what younger people can afford. Either they build upscale or they sit on the entitlements (Housing lots).
because it is exceedingly difficult for them to build what younger people can afford. I'm involved in that, talk to builders directly about that. It's a borderline thing building a starter home that the average annual household income can service. We are changing up what we do to get builders to plat with more density, which will lower cost.

2 - We have liberals that want to kill the suburbs, which is where most of the first time homeowners went. The climate change idiots are trying to kill commuting and cars. You used to "drive to qualify". That is how the Boomers everyone blames got their homes, they lived on Long Island and worked in NY for example The Corey Bookers want us all in multi-family.

3 - The younger generations want to live in the most expensive areas of the nation, downtown Boston, SF, NY, Miami.

So personally, I think it is by design. A storm of Builders, Liberals and Buyers that all want their agenda.

So, how do you get them to build affordable housing in the premium areas they want to live?
Ben Shapiro gave the answer and was lambasted for it, but it's nonetheless true - people are going to have to move to where they can afford to live

Building Permits by State and Metro Area | NAHB

---

I don't know what spreadsheet you looked at but the one at your link shows Aug 2025 YTD nationwide numbers down 4% over same period in 2024, at barely over a million starts (versus total households in USA of 132m). So yes, the housing market is tightening. Population is growing at a half-percent or so and starts barely out-pace it, certainly not enough to overcome an obvious supply problem.

Building permits are also not a dispositive statistic. They tell us nothing about what's happening in distressed neighborhoods, for example. (green-tag, red-tag, demolished) Also tell us nothing about changes of numbers of people in households. And they tell us nothing about foreign ownership. or corporate ownership. Foreign buyers comprised 2.5% of purchases in NYC. That's in a market down 29% YOY (as of Aug 2025). Think that has an affect on prices? Yup. All the forces pulling people out of NYC are not creating housing supply.....because wealthy foreign buyers are stepping into buy second homes. Imagine that.....young families are getting priced out of the American Dream due to competition from rich foreigners buying 2nd homes.

lower interest rates will help. (and Trump has been beating up on the fed over that....) Cities changing development policy (like my community has) will help. Rising wages will help more people qualify for more expensive houses (which builders actually can build more easily). And in a perfect world, we get Commie Mamdani to quit promising free stuff and blaming capitalism for everything and try to put some limits on foreign ownership of residential property. Maybe Congress should think about whether or not we should provide policy disincentives for Blackrock to keep making mass purchases of single family residences for conversion into rental property.

And there are some positive signs on some of those things. But like it or not, supply/demand ultimately drives prices. The clearest sign of a problem with supply is....higher prices.

---

We agree. I spent 15 years doing traffic work for developments. We brought this on ourselves. There have been "affordable housing" requirements for all developments. They got creative to meet it, rather than build starter homes.

I like Shapiro and he is correct. You have to drive until you qualify, it is a fact of life. You are not getting 1400 mortgages in premium areas on the coast, not happening. Also, the younger generation has this notion that the house they buy at 30 is where they will stay and pay off. That does not happen often, usually it is the 3rd mortgage that gets paid off. Hell, my Grandparents paid rent their entire lives.

---

that in bold is the slot for the 50yr mortgage. In markets with strong value growth, a 50 yr mortgage might be the difference between qualifying and not. Once they're in, the annual rise in value will build equity, allowing starter families to "get on the escalator." Sort of a bridge loan, in a way.

no, a 50yr mortgage is not a big fix or even a long-term fix, and it's certainly not the wisest of all options in building a personal balance sheet. But for some, it might have its place. The analogies to long term car loans is not exactly appropriate. Cars depreciate the moment you turn the key, and every day thereafter. Real Estate is typically the opposite - value and equity rises over time.

We've got to address the entry of institutional investment into the residential real estate markets. That's 4% of the market. At some point, "Horatio Alger competing with Blackrock to buy a home" is going to become a political issue entirely unhelpful for limited government conservatism.

---

We agree. I think there will be a niche market for the 40-50 year mortgage and the location may be the tipping point. Access.

By the way, the last few weeks of posts (from all) have been a cut above. The conversations seem to be more about problems and how to solve them. I don't know if the messaging changed after the special elections or what. But, the tenor has changed for the positive in my opinion.

This is an interesting idea I have not heard of before. Not exactly sure how it would work logistically or if it's realistic.... but we definitely need to be looking at new ideas.

Although… this would not be any direct help to first time homebuyers.

BREAKING: Trump admin is looking into normalizing portable mortgages, allowing Americans to keep their interest rate, term and lender when moving to a different home.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) November 12, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

This is an interesting idea I have not heard of before. Not exactly sure how it would work logistically or if it's realistic.... but we definitely need to be looking at new ideas.

Although… this would not be any direct help to first time homebuyers.

BREAKING: Trump admin is looking into normalizing portable mortgages, allowing Americans to keep their interest rate, term and lender when moving to a different home.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) November 12, 2025

---

So only new buyers would pay higher rates?

boognish_bear said:

---

This is an interesting idea I have not heard of before. Not exactly sure how it would work logistically or if it's realistic.... but we definitely need to be looking at new ideas.

Although… this would not be any direct help to first time homebuyers.

BREAKING: Trump admin is looking into normalizing portable mortgages, allowing Americans to keep their interest rate, term and lender when moving to a different home.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) November 12, 2025

---

indirectly it would. It would make it easier (particularly in a "frozen market" like the one we're in) for people already in a home to sell it & buy another perhaps a little more expensive home....to roll their equity into a more expensive home. that would in turn create opportunities for buyers the next tier down to buy up, and so on...

To prevent home prices from falling and making homeownership more affordable, Fannie Mae just eliminated its 620 FICO score minimum so it can guarantee riskier mortgages to borrowers with bad credit, enabling them to overpay for expensive homes they can’t really afford. No IPO.

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) November 12, 2025

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

This is an interesting idea I have not heard of before. Not exactly sure how it would work logistically or if it's realistic.... but we definitely need to be looking at new ideas.

Although… this would not be any direct help to first time homebuyers.

BREAKING: Trump admin is looking into normalizing portable mortgages, allowing Americans to keep their interest rate, term and lender when moving to a different home.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) November 12, 2025

---

indirectly it would. It would make it easier (particularly in a "frozen market" like the one we're in) for people already in a home to sell it & buy another perhaps a little more expensive home....to roll their equity into a more expensive home. that would in turn create opportunities for buyers the next tier down to buy up, and so on...

---

We stayed in our last home about 3 years longer than we wanted because we had 1.9%. If I could have kept my 1.9% rate we would have move (to a much nicer house) at least 24 months before we did.

So in theory that would have opened a starter home to someone else. Surely there are plenty of people in that same position.

Hell if I could shave 3% off the new loan I would refi to 15 years on this one and we would be ready to move to our forever home inside of 10 years. So it would work a second time though our current house isn't a starter house.

nein51 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

This is an interesting idea I have not heard of before. Not exactly sure how it would work logistically or if it's realistic.... but we definitely need to be looking at new ideas.

Although… this would not be any direct help to first time homebuyers.

BREAKING: Trump admin is looking into normalizing portable mortgages, allowing Americans to keep their interest rate, term and lender when moving to a different home.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) November 12, 2025

---

indirectly it would. It would make it easier (particularly in a "frozen market" like the one we're in) for people already in a home to sell it & buy another perhaps a little more expensive home....to roll their equity into a more expensive home. that would in turn create opportunities for buyers the next tier down to buy up, and so on...

---

We stayed in our last home about 3 years longer than we wanted because we had 1.9%. If I could have kept my 1.9% rate we would have move (to a much nicer house) at least 24 months before we did.

So in theory that would have opened a starter home to someone else. Surely there are plenty of people in that same position.

Hell if I could shave 3% off the new loan I would refi to 15 years on this one and we would be ready to move to our forever home inside of 10 years. So it would work a second time though our current house isn't a starter house.

---

Same here. Although the financial gurus would tell you that your 30 is really a 15, if you just make higher payments. : )

FLBear5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

This is an interesting idea I have not heard of before. Not exactly sure how it would work logistically or if it's realistic.... but we definitely need to be looking at new ideas.

Although… this would not be any direct help to first time homebuyers.

BREAKING: Trump admin is looking into normalizing portable mortgages, allowing Americans to keep their interest rate, term and lender when moving to a different home.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) November 12, 2025

---

indirectly it would. It would make it easier (particularly in a "frozen market" like the one we're in) for people already in a home to sell it & buy another perhaps a little more expensive home....to roll their equity into a more expensive home. that would in turn create opportunities for buyers the next tier down to buy up, and so on...

---

We stayed in our last home about 3 years longer than we wanted because we had 1.9%. If I could have kept my 1.9% rate we would have move (to a much nicer house) at least 24 months before we did.

So in theory that would have opened a starter home to someone else. Surely there are plenty of people in that same position.

Hell if I could shave 3% off the new loan I would refi to 15 years on this one and we would be ready to move to our forever home inside of 10 years. So it would work a second time though our current house isn't a starter house.

---

Same here. Although the financial gurus would tell you that your 30 is really a 15, if you just make higher payments. : )

---

That's true but my last 15 was paid in 9. This house just cost too much for me to do that. But if I could go from 6% to 3% less than 15 might be an option.

boognish_bear said:

---

To prevent home prices from falling and making homeownership more affordable, Fannie Mae just eliminated its 620 FICO score minimum so it can guarantee riskier mortgages to borrowers with bad credit, enabling them to overpay for expensive homes they can’t really afford. No IPO.

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) November 12, 2025

---

Horrible decision.

Another wave of foreclosures on the horizon.