I noticed that with this vid, they’ve been uploading videos regarding the elections for the last couple weeks but I really only realized just now they want to keep people informed regardless of the candidate, in order to make a good voting decision
You should have to pay! You’re a for-profit builder! Why should everybody else in the area have to suffer for expenses like stormwater, sewer infrastructure. Not to mention the roadways that are congested. And that doesn’t include services like Fire and Police that become overloaded. That’s why people have the right to complain. They were already there. Your building was not. You have the freedom to build but there’s a reason for the cost.
The biggest hurdle is clearly the NIMBYs, which are the majorityof home owners. And since most of Americans are home owners, thats ALOT of NIMBYs. All other issues can be solved but nobody dares to go against the NIMBYs because they vote so politicians on both sides doesn't dare to offend them.
Make laws to take power away from NIMBY If I had to quickly come up with a proposal I'd say, maybe there's a way to give that power to a regional institution that isn't the elected officials, but a chamber of city planners. Allow for unnaffordable apartment complexes too, because they will increase the housing supply. Weaken the NIMBYs using past strategies: concentrate on weak and poorer regions, push them around and push them out of their homes, build high density housing there, and develop good schools and let a 30+ year gentrification plan unfold. As for established suburbian NIMBY, try to encourage rich foreign investors to push our the local residents and break up HOAs, then rezone the lots when the locals are gone, and the foreign agents have no real power.
Your logic makes little sense- if “most” Americans already have homes then we wouldn’t have the demand side pressure to buy more houses. A better argument and the fact is that most Americans don’t own homes; but almost all homeowners are NIMBY’s because it’s a vicious cycle. Plus no one wants to live next to someone with old car parts lying in their yard! 😂
@HeliosHarish7 100%. For those homeowners that take pride in where they live and their community, they don't want riffraff running the streets of their neighborhoods.
Our economy struggling with uncertainties, housing issues, foreclosures, global fluctuations, and pandemic aftermath, causing instability. Rising inflation, sluggish growth, and trade disruptions need urgent attention from all sectors to restore stability and stimulate growth
In particular, amid inflation, investors should exercise caution when it comes to their exposure and new purchases. It is only feasible to get such high yields during a recession with the guidance of a qualified specialist or reliable counsel.
True, initially I wasn't quite impressed with my gains, opposed to my previous performances, I was doing so badly, figured I needed to diversify into better assets, I touched base with a portfolio-advisor and that same year, I pulled a net gain of 550k...that's like 7times more than I average on my own.
Julianne Iwersen Niemann is the licensed fiduciary I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment...
It's all about excessive public hearings and overly strict zoning laws. In some areas of the country even modest triplexes can get stuck in the approval process for years. During that time the builder is paying interest on their loans without being able to build and that cost gets passed on to buyers or renters. Public hearings should be reserved only for large projects.
Yes! Uytae Lee did a great video about this. I didn't realize the length of the process can cost developers millions of dollars. th-cam.com/video/XnFVvyu2zGY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Ctvd9UCTQByDKolJ
First time home buyers grant is going to backfire massively!! Australia did that years ago. It only increases house prices the moment that policy is implemented. If buyers have more money, sellers will ask for more money. As simple as that. EDIT: for anyone reading this comment and not understanding why government subsidies drive up house prices, please read up on how a first time home buyers grant has affected the Australian housing market.
And when the house price increases, it also increases the debt burden, property taxes, and maybe insurance. So, it actually makes the problem a lot worse for homebuyers
It won’t because it’s only for first time home buyers and not everyone. The hardest thing for first time homebuyers is the downpayment and keeps them away from becoming a home owners. This helps first time home buyers but because it’s only eligible for a small group of people, so minimal impact on rising house prices but huge impact on affordability
The use of the subsidy will depend on the competition in the area. In an area with low competition, the developer will be able to increase the price, in an area we home buyers have different alternatives, the consumer will be the one benefited. It basic micro economics.
Obviously it doesnt matter anymore, but a 25k first time home buyer credit would not have caused a $25k increase in the cost of houses. Since it is a demand side subsidy it would cause an increase in demand (specifically for first time home buyers), this eventually would lead to prices increasing as the supply adjusts to higher demand for houses. This helps everyone that would be a first time home buyer, and would help evryone thats a home owner because the value of your house is increasing. This doesnt tell the whole story as the other part of her plan was to increase the supply. This would cause a shift in supply which would lower prices at any quantity demanded, though the effect on the equilibrium price would depend on which policy had the greater impact. If you ask me this is better than removing zoning restrictions in national parks, which obviously should be protected if you want to preserve the landscape and fight global warming which has a negative impact on the pricing of literally everything
As always, North Americans don't want to face the real problem, which is urban sprawl/lack of density. The problem in North America is that we build our homes as if land was unlimited, but it's not. All land around cities is already saturated by single-family homes, huge highways and parking lots everywhere. This makes that the few lands left are insanely expensive.
That's actually not the problem at all. The cities with lots of sprawl have the cheapest housing. The places with the most expensive housing are places with growth management - which is a policy put in place to force density on a region.
@ISpitHotFiyaa That's a completely baseless statement. All North American cities, even small towns, have insane urban sprawl. Cities in North America that are cheap are cheap because fewer people want to live there. Not because of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is what makes land so expensive, but also the maintenance of all road infrastructures
You almost got me since houses in Europe is affordable. 😂 Europe, China and Japan has much higher density housing than US, however, their housing costs are also way higher. Chinese income/housing price multiplies are among highest in the world, Japan and South Korea also have high density housing all over the place while having extremely high income/housing prices multiple. And it is not just capital city or first tier city, it is entire country. Based on your claim, China and Japan, Korea should have one of the cheapest housing in the world since rural land and housing should be cheap thanks to all these people living in high density housing in central urban areas. But it is not the case
@ Japan is very cheap even after accounting for incomes. Rent in Tokyo is only about 12-17% of income. Much better than pretty much anywhere in the US.
How about stopping big investments firms into buying family houses? Some things shouldn't be invesments in this country, and that's also what also home owners need to understand, their home price increasing isn't heping them at all because everything else is also increasing, not only their home price!
Most investments are private equity. Meaning retirement savings or private shareholders. Try telling some middle-aged family, Dad, that he is not allowed to invest his retirement saving. It's all a big bubble funded by debt, and everyone is invested in it.
Because it doesn’t matter, it’s not impacting home prices in most markets. I know the it gives an easy bad guy to point to, it’s easy to point at some vague unknown rich people and say “it must be them!” but it just doesn’t matter. You would ban this and see absolutely 0 change in house prices, and just add more red tape.
You're only telling part of the story, either deliberately or because you're ignorant of the full story. Canadian lumber producers were dumping their product into the U.S. market far below their own cost of production in order to undercut U.S. producers and capture market share by driving the U.S. producers out of business. Canadian lumber producers are also heavily subsidized by the Canadian government. U.S. lumber producers are not subsidized by the U.S. government.
@@taylorlibby7642 The latter, rather than the former. It's infeasible to pay detailed attention to everything. Regardless, tariffs are the wrong approach in that scenario. The proper counter to Canada would have been to either buy the lumber off them cheap, and let developers profit off their intentional underpricing, or it would be to subsidize the American lumber industry proportional to what the Canadians are, keeping our industry alive and competitive. Both of those approaches would have lead to lower prices for lumber, and avoided the current problem created by tariffs in terms of higher input costs to housing.
@@taylorlibby7642 you trying to justify the cost of a product going up purely because it was the cheapest around is asinine, to say the least. Tariffs don’t work and this is the direct effect of them. Costs go up for consumers. This is the ONLY way trickle down economics has EVER worked.
Democrats want to push for rent control which always disincentivizes development and building of new housing, causing higher prices of existing housing due to simply supply and demand.
just tariff canadian lumber at the level that the canadian government is subsidizing them? its not that hard to comprehend to have industries to be at a level playing field - sure you are "harming" consumers, but you are also benefiting american lumber, which is not propping up an unsustainable buisness that could be better achieved elsewhere but evening the playing field
Key things: 1) Around 1:30 when the video talks about protesters. Very true on anything from environment to zoning regulations. People love to just blame everything on govenrment process but this is what you asked for... you want democracy then it means people can go protest no matter how stupid or incorrect you think it is. You can't have the cake and eat it too... you laugh at Chinese citizens not having freedom but when it's your turn you want to shut down opposition voices. See the irony? (Not talking to anyone specific, just in general for those that love chanting government sucks) 2) 2:40 About infrastructure cost. Exactly, infrastructure is very expensive to build/maintain. To the far right folks that think government needs to go away, who exactly pays for infrastructure like roads? Amazon might be willing to build a few roads that connect the city to their mega warehouse, but most businesses aren't going to be able to organize efforts to connect pipes, roads, etc. People often discount infrastructure as if it was free born out of the air or that it can simply be pritivized which anyone with common sense knows you can't... there's no profit motive behind it. Only government can say, we need to connect all these areas whether it has a mom&pop shop or if it's a Walmart which obviously produces different economic values. I don't think anyone would argue only walmart should get roads. 3) 4:45 Another classic example of Trump meaning well but his supporters aren't seeing reality. It sounds nice to open up federal land but it doesn't help if it's not where housing shortage is, does it? He also talks about protecting single family zoning but this is actually what kills cities like SF. To be 100% fair, democrat voters are just as guilty in this. They vote against any non-SF zoning to protect their own SF there. Anyone who insists on SF zoning only, are the folks that make housing crisis worse. 4) 5:50 Example of Harris meaning well but aren't attacking the core issue. Incentive for first time buyer doesn't solve the problem and why should people who are moving from home to home not be able to afford houses? It's like affirmative action that means well but don't hold up in real world logic. 5) Both sides need to listen to actual experts that talk about tariff on lumber, zoning to be eased, and trade labor to go up. I don't see any voters from either side doing much besides following their candidates blindly.
Radical idea (I mean it, Im not beinf sarcastic its gonna be seen as radical). Take federal land where there is no shortage and build. Provide those in high demand areas relocation tax incentive. Force employers to allow work from home where its possible (and not just "improving culture"). You reduce emmisions from commutes, bring down high demand location prices, provide a big win to employees, and utilize a resource we havent been able. Feels like wins all around
@@Newksypoo You're describing China. That's essentially what they do with new cities, often called "ghost cities". Why are they built? Their local government is given a $ target for GDP growth, and the only asset they have are land so they give out land to developers cheaply and incentivizes them to build before demand is there. For a country to pull off the kind of plan you're describing, it requires centralized governance which Americans don't want
Helping people with their downpayment makes zero sense. The whole point of the downpayment is to illustrate that the buyer has surplus income/assets, which assures the creditor that they'll pay back the loan. The government assisting with the downpayment only helps if the government is also pitching in to pay back the loan; otherwise it's just contributing to inflation.
The purpose of it is to help people starting off. When given chance to build more wealth people will generally be able to do that. How well off would've you been if your parents tossed you out when you were 14 to fend off for yourself?
@@valtonen77 it's honestly sad that you actually belive that. If you gave millions of people $25k, homes will go up by at least $25k. The total amount of homes remain the same. Increasing the money supply & demand, and there's only one outcome. It's truly pathetic.
@@TheRealDionysos so what are the options in your mind? Regulations, or keep half the population in poverty for sake of billionaires and their profits?
Minneapolis, and Austin are two great examples. They reduced the regulatory burden of zoning, and voila, more building and a reduction of rent or at least stabilization.
@ maybe that has to do with the massive population growth and the higher difficulty terrain? It’s about trends. The moment Austin eased building restrictions prices dropped. It’s a pretty clear relationship
The problem is investors buying up all the supply causing a shortage which then causes home prices to go up and rents follow. Get investors out of single family residential properties!
Probably not because, in Harris’ plan, there are so many requirements that very few homebuyers will actually receive the $25k. Your parents can’t own a home and it has to be your first home. If your parents own a home, but you’re a first time homebuyer, you get $10k. How long will the verification process take? How much will verification cost the government? Probably too long and too much. Then again, while Harris’ plan has faults, Tramp’s plan is utterly braindead. It’s attempting to solve manhattan’s housing shortage by opening up Nevada’s federal lands for development. Housing affordability depends on local and state policies. As the video said, the federal government only affects it at the margins.
@@blipblop92 that is not how it works, the sellers do not know if you are qualifying to buy as a first time homebuyer for a grant until much of the negotiating is already done. If you try to insert an increase in the price after finding out they have a first time homebuyer's grant, you would likely be attempting to do it well past the point of negotiation which is illegal, it is also illegal to do that beforehand, it is called housing discrimination. If your suggesting sellers would raise home prices unilaterally based on the assumption of first time homebuyers grants being available, then they likely won't sell their house, because their house will be $25,000 above market value and the grant is usually for closing cost assistance and to reduce their financing rate by paying more money upfront. The $25,000 is not to save the buyer $25,000, the $25,000 makes financing the home purchase possible, where without it, the buyer might not qualify for the financing based on their income to debt ratio after adding in a mortgage. The grant servers to make the down payment larger, so the mortgage payment will be lower and the debt to income ratio within a qualifying amount for the buyer. Also, many people don't qualify for the grants and many who do, don't seek them. Finally, it is the market that determines housing prices, the seller can put whatever price they want on a house, that does not mean it will sell. The existence of these grants will not significantly change the market in the way you think they will. What the grants will do is create more liquidity in the housing market, which will lower prices, not raise them. Many first time homebuyers programs exist and if Harris had won, this might have been a significant policy to help working class families purchase homes.
There's an easier way. Build new manufacturing in smaller towns where land is cheaper. Like southwest Alabama, for example. This eliminates zoning problems, land problems, and land cost problems, creating a path to harvest more of our own lumber. Mining and manufacturing our own steel etc etc. Bringing materials costs down. Notice. There are no money giveaways in this plan. Just more manufacturing jobs and cheaper housing.
They want to build homes where there is large demand. Which is usually major cities, because there is more things to do there. Not many people want to live somewhere with not much to do.
@theonewhosleptin4378 I agree fully. I was speaking purely on manufacturing. Which then in turn the small towns need more homes. Cities are failing. To expensive. To many permits. To much zoning. Making manufacturing impossible in large population areas.
Why don't they build more apartments? plenty of people would happily live in a 500sqft apartment alone, then share a 2000sq ft house with parents or a roomates.
mainly because that lands zoning only allows for single family homes to be build. if they changed the zoning (and minimum parking requirements), you could build an apartment building with space for way more people, but neighbors fear that their properties might decrease in value because of it.
You have to have the infrastructure for high density housing. You can't just throw hundreds of people in a tight area and not expect traffic issues, insufficient supply/services, etc.
@@janaroowit is a legitimate fear though, if you own a home especially in a nice area and you bring in low income housing or apartments, your property value goes down that is a fact. Especially low income housing. I'm not paying half a million dollars or more on a house so bunch of bombs can live next to me
I’m very skeptical of additional funding unless its to subsidize building costs associated with all of the regulation. We need to get rid of the tariffs and find other ways of lowering material costs. Then we need to change regulations on environmental, zoning, and building requirements to reduce building time and costs associated with more expensive resources and processes.
I live in California and are insane environmental laws are making it really hard to get out of the housing crisis we have. It would be one thing if it was just a problem affecting my state but the problem is it's creating home price increases in Arizona and Nevada too.
Subsidies to first time homebuyers just lead to increased prices, because in a scarce market, all of the buyers are bidding with each other, and limited only by what they can afford. It's ultimately a handout to home owners, who will see larger proceeds for their sale, not buyers. The rest of Harris plan seems smart. Part of me wonders if she is smart enough to know that the $25,000 subsidy proposal is a bad idea, and is only advocating for it because she knows it will get her votes.
So, what I'm getting from this video is... that even if either the President actually do what they promised (which is suspect), the Housing situation actually won't improve by much or at all.
In 2024, I sold two houses, and now I'm waiting for a housing crisis so I can buy cheaply. I've been considering buying equities after the election as a fallback option. What are your suggestions for the ideal time to purchase? At the same time, I continue to read about traders making over $700k every week. Conversely, I frequently hear that the market is in a dead cat bounce and is already out of control. Why does this occur?
Because they are used to bull markets, most investors are unable to handle a fall, but you can make a sizable profit if you know where to look and how to navigate. Your entry and departure strategy will determine this.
The fact that the US stock market had been on its longest bull run ever makes the widespread worry and enthusiasm understandable given that we are not used to such unstable markets. As you pointed out, it wasn't tough for me to earn over $750k in the last 13 months, so there are chances if you know where to go. I hired a portfolio advisor since I was aware that I needed a solid and trusted plan to survive these trying times.
My portfolio has been in ruins for the entire year, so I looked into ways to make money in the present market, but all of my attempts proved to be ineffective. Please include the name of your asset manager.
As a first-time homebuyer, it's a nightmare process. Extremely long, complex and expensive. Housing prices keep going up and up, especially in my area because there is no where left to build, especially because of NIMBY situations. I'm glad I got in now because there's no end in sight on prices rising. Before we even disclosed the purchase price, Zillow was already estimating the home value 20k more than we bought it for, and it only took a month. I really emphasize with people looking right now because I was just there and it's only getting more cut throat.
I'm hoping there will be a housing crisis so I can buy cheaply when I sell a few houses in 2025. As a backup plan, I've been thinking about purchasing stocks. What advice do you have for choosing the best buying time? On the one hand, I continue to read and see trading earnings of over $500k each week. On the other side, I keep hearing that the market is out of control and experiencing a dead cat bounce. Why does this happen?
Investing in real estate and stocks might be a wise choice, particularly if you have a sound trading plan that can get you through profitable days, also employing the service of an advisor would be great
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.
Recently, I've been considering the possibility of speaking with consultants. I need guidance because I'm an adult, but I'm not sure if their services would be all that helpful.
'Sharon Ann Meny' is the licensed advisor I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment
Building is not a sustainable solution. Not that it wouldn’t help… but the answer cannot be “keep building as cheaply and quickly as possible”… We need extra-market policies that very transparently and consistently keep the cost of housing on pace with wage growth across the country. The first of which is banning corporate ownership or single family homes aside from some rare exceptions.
She’s going to pay $25k to first time home buyers. So in other words houses are going to instantly become $25k more expensive and the buyers out of pocket expense is still the exact same. Paying more doesn’t increase supply at all
None of this really addresses the core issue: investors. Building more houses just means the rich investors will eat up majority of them. Which means no matter who gets in office it will be a problem until the next election or it turns into another 2008 financial disaster.
It's disingenuous to only talk about the supply side (lack of homebuilding capacity) but totally ignore the demand side (too much immigration in a short time)
How did you get that? Trump has been boasting about deporting 20 million “undocumented immigrants” and closing the border. Did you get hit on the head or something?
In 1800s Americans would conquer more land to solve housing issues, in 1900s new city, subdivisions were built to solve housing issues, in 2000s can’t we dream bigger, and do things beyond debating some policies?
the blanket check for the government to first time homebuyers is extremely concerning to me. it sounds exactly like what the government did to college funding: guarantee everyone a loan & then the price went up every year… now my generation (me included) have a lot of college debt. if they just hand everyone a down payment… well, everyone also gets one and all that we’ve gained is inflation. kinda you know, *exactly* like the housing situation in Ontario.
Housing costs are also coming out of the value of the location and everything in proximity. It’s essentially unearned income for landowners, and it includes owner-occupants (homeowners) to the tune of over 60% of the supply, often on plots that are underdeveloped for their location (single family homes in big cities).
This is a very one-sided argument from the perspective of the builder, particularly corporate or big company builders. More density does mean more problems in all areas and who’s going to pay that the taxpayer. What they don’t bring up in this video is where the education system, police, fire. The roadway infrastructure. And infrastructure you don’t see like stormwater and sewer. All of which everybody in the area already has to pay for.
Every height, width and length has to be affordable no matter the size. There are too many homes that look the same size, but with fluctuating prices that keeps rising than falling. We need more people with the right to build their own hime at any size as long as it is affordable and is allowed the option to be off grid.
It’s the natural progression of things. Anyone who thinks lower home prices is a good thing, while real wages or purchasing power remains the same, is a moron
I had a buddy who did that. He turned what was a “man-cave” shed into a guest house and then rented it dirt cheap to another mutual friend who was down on his luck hard. Big dog had a job and eventually got married and lives in his own place now, a couple years later.
Prices are determined by supply AND demand. End all the zillion tax breaks we give landlords of single-family homes and watch home ownership increase FOR FREE. Our investor tax breaks essentially pay investors to buy single-family homes away from live-in owners, and drive up home prices.
@@Jeffhowardmeade An example from down under. Australia has negative gearing. Where the owner of the property can let their property operate at a loss but instead of taking a loss/paying it off, they can "write it off" on their taxes. In other words, landlords can legally dodge debt.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Invisible Subsidies to Landlords of Single-Family Houses - Depreciation - Bonus Depreciation - 1031 Exchange - Mortgage Interest & Property Taxes. All landlords can deduct from their taxes all the state and local property taxes and mortgage interest they pay on all their rentals. Only about 12% of personal income tax filers even itemize their tax returns which is needed for live-in home owners to be able to deduct their property taxes and mortgage interest payments from their taxes. - No Social Security Taxes. The landlord next door doesn’t have to pay Social Security or Medicare taxes on their rental income or on their profits when they sell the house like you do on your ordinary wage and salary income. - Tax-Free Profit Taxing. Landlords can take capital gains profits tax-free by doing cash-out refinancings. In addition, the interest on their new cash-out, profit-taking, refi mortgage is also tax deductible. - Capital Gains Tax Rate. The tax rate on landlord capital gains - when and if paid - is usually a lot lower than the taxes the live-in home owner next door pays on their ordinary wage and salary income.
A major issue are AirB&B’s. There are currently 2.25 million units that used to be rented out long term that are no longer being used for that purpose. Not to mention all the people that just have multiple units sitting around vacant. The government would be able to do something about housing without having to actually build anything!
Still no talk about private companies that own all the property like Redfin and the like. Also nothing about taxing people much much higher that own more than one or two homes?
The biggest problem here is that this is a crisis requiring solutions at all levels of government, state, local and federal. This makes it especially challenging to solve, especially since postive results will take years, and no politician wants credit to be taken by someone else.
There is some reasonable aspects to it which this video kinda glosses over. You can’t just keep increasing the number of people in an area without also fixing the infrastructure and opportunities in said area. If more housing is to be built, and let’s say it’s targeted at nuclear families, then amenities need to increase to support the rising number of people in that area. Many times (not always, but many times) when an area is complaining that others are moving or trying to prevent new housing it’s because the needs of those already there aren’t being met. If someone is struggling to carry 20lbs of weight you don’t just add 10lbs without first assisting to make sure they can manage the original 20lbs
This is a growing trend across the world. It’s a vicious cycle of not being able to build enough affordable homes since it’s too expensive to build houses causing an expensive and eye watering price. Plus not enough people investigating if the land is even safe for housing.
Anyone who thinks that a California Democrat will make housing more affordable needs to get their head examined. I mean have they never been to California?
The housing crisis involves people wanting to buy their own houses, not live in someone else’s ADU. Most wannabe first-time home buyers are already living in someone else’s too-small house.
@Jeffhowardmeade I Think U Missed the Point. A Whole Floor is A Whole House. Most ppl have Family, also. U Wanna BUY? That's U. Space Needs to Be MADE.
@ Didn’t miss it at all. There’s plenty of space already. It’s just a matter of who owns it. Prices wouldn’t be going through the roof if everyone wasn’t competing to own the roof. You build ADUs and basement flats when there are people working and able to rent but there isn’t anywhere TO rent. That’s not currently the case.
Oh, good luck solving zoning problem. You can do anything, but if people in living in X place are not interested in more houses its going to be as usual - impossible to sit on two chairs. There's a clear conflict of interest that you will have to accept breaking contract with society if u want to solve it. That said, its the homeowners usually that are voting, so until that changes, its unlikely thing will turn in opposite direction.
Nimby's are more active in local government, safe to assume they're also active presidential voters, local government officials won't oppose their majority supporter base sentiment because then they'll lose their cushy easy money desk jobs.
Going 3D with apartments (not everywhere, just enough of them in key locations) is the only way to solve this for good. Somehow people understand this when it comes to highway interchanges but not when it comes to homes. 😒
Maybe also restrict foreign buyers from purchasing homes in the US. How about we also abolish residential REITs and force them to sell their assets over 10 years? I love the idea of REITs but in practice it really just drives up the cost of homes and limits supply.
nothing will change with all the lobbying of home owners and companies like black rock. Politicians want to keep the rich rich, that's how they stay in power...
Why doesn’t anyone ever challenge Harris’ plan to give first time, first generation homeowners a pile of cash? What effect does that have on home prices and is it constitutional?
Because that is not as big an issue. What little research I've done shows hedge funds and rich private investors own relatively small amount of homes. It really boils down to supply and demand. Vox has a good video on it.
@@gatzt3r As of June 2022, institutional investors owned roughly 574,000 single-family homes in the United States, which is about 3.8% of the country's single-unit rental properties. This number is based on the definition of an institutional investor as an entity that owns at least 100 single-family homes.
One thing that needs to change that the government cant effect is attitude. Housing is seen as an investment more than anything. Also NIMBYs prevent new houses from being built
Does it really have to be lumber? No. We can build homes out of concrete/cement, and it will be much sturdier than lumber. The cost of concrete/cement . . .
From what I saw, lumber tariffs were imposed because Canada was exporting tons of cheap lumber to the US. That would hurt the US lumber companies, so the tariffs were introduced. But if they just take away the tariffs, what would happen? Well, the same thing when the US starts moving businesses overseas, or when a big business like Walmart comes to town: smaller businesses shut down. The US lumber companies wont be able to compete with the cheaper Canadian companies, they shut down, then when we are left to rely on imported lumber, they have essentially eliminated all competition and can raise prices. Sure some guys managed to get cheaper lumber lucked out at the cost of everyone coming after.
same as in the us as it is in Canada, in Australia and the UK. stop big investment firms from owning family homes. build more mixed use developments, townhouses, units, 3 level apartment buildings, attached bigger row houses. All we build in Australia are these huge sub developments of single family homes in culd de sacs 2 hours drive from the city with no public transport, no access to shops or amenities, yet its the only thing they build so people have to buy them.
The supply isn’t low. There’s plenty of housing. The problem is all of the government policies that make it possible for Boomers to hoard houses that, in an actual free market, they’d have had to sell long ago.
Easy solution is to remove the ability for local people to block schemes with affordable housing included. If a scheme has say 50% affordable housing, regardless of what else it has, it can be built. Irrespective of zoning. The only requirements are environmental and financial. it must remain 50% affordable housing and it must have sustainability in mind. Secondly give local government legal mandates to build affordable housing in their areas. It can be government lead or private funded but if every county in America was mandated to build enough affordable housing for 1% of the population each year then the problem will disappear.
It's a supply issue. Giving people a home buyers credit simply increases demand and does nothing to increase housing inventory. Just a way to buy votes. - from an independent voter
@@Genebriss The jobs in Philly are not the same as in Nevada. It's hard enough to leave everything behind for different states, let alone switching occupations all together.
As I builder I don't see either policies as being helpful. My biggest costs now are land development (not the land itself) and dealing with all the new codes and regulations. Undeveloped land is still fairly cheap in all my markets, labor and materials have gone up for sure, but that's not a significant cost driver. Taking 2-3 years to even get started building because of zoning, permitting is what costs. In some areas we have to go through 5 different local, state and federal agencies just to start moving dirt.
Pennsylvania has already become ground zero for election-fraud claims: on.wsj.com/4hpfpWB
Rupert Murdoch owns WSJ, NY Post, and Fox News. They try to hide this, but you deserve to know.
Huge shock
What do you think happens when everything is online?
Hope they sue your rag for billions. All in on the Big Lie part 2
Of course there is magically no election fraud since Trump won.
Finally content that covers actual issues and ways to improve on them without having biases.
I noticed that with this vid, they’ve been uploading videos regarding the elections for the last couple weeks but I really only realized just now they want to keep people informed regardless of the candidate, in order to make a good voting decision
The WSJ did a survey of top economists and over 60% said Trump's plan was far worse for the economy than Harris's plan.
they are not talking about demand side but only talking about supply side. which is disingenous truthful reporting.
neither politician said anything useful.
@@scottmcshannon6821 Sad
I’m a builder and it’s very expensive in Houston. $20k in permits that’s before even putting a single rock on the land
You're in texas and you're complaining bro? Imagine being in CA where they dont even allow building in the first place.
It will just bid up the price of homes by $20,000 or more. 😅😆😂🤣
Keep open your mouth and there would be nothing you will complain about it 😂
Gotta pay to play
You should have to pay! You’re a for-profit builder! Why should everybody else in the area have to suffer for expenses like stormwater, sewer infrastructure. Not to mention the roadways that are congested. And that doesn’t include services like Fire and Police that become overloaded. That’s why people have the right to complain. They were already there. Your building was not. You have the freedom to build but there’s a reason for the cost.
The biggest hurdle is clearly the NIMBYs, which are the majorityof home owners. And since most of Americans are home owners, thats ALOT of NIMBYs. All other issues can be solved but nobody dares to go against the NIMBYs because they vote so politicians on both sides doesn't dare to offend them.
Make laws to take power away from NIMBY
If I had to quickly come up with a proposal I'd say, maybe there's a way to give that power to a regional institution that isn't the elected officials, but a chamber of city planners.
Allow for unnaffordable apartment complexes too, because they will increase the housing supply.
Weaken the NIMBYs using past strategies: concentrate on weak and poorer regions, push them around and push them out of their homes, build high density housing there, and develop good schools and let a 30+ year gentrification plan unfold.
As for established suburbian NIMBY, try to encourage rich foreign investors to push our the local residents and break up HOAs, then rezone the lots when the locals are gone, and the foreign agents have no real power.
@ayoCC Again, politicians don't dare offend their NIMBY voters. Will NEVER happen......next idea.
Your logic makes little sense- if “most” Americans already have homes then we wouldn’t have the demand side pressure to buy more houses.
A better argument and the fact is that most Americans don’t own homes; but almost all homeowners are NIMBY’s because it’s a vicious cycle. Plus no one wants to live next to someone with old car parts lying in their yard! 😂
@HeliosHarish7 100%. For those homeowners that take pride in where they live and their community, they don't want riffraff running the streets of their neighborhoods.
Trump ran appealing to them in 2020.
Our economy struggling with uncertainties, housing issues, foreclosures, global fluctuations, and pandemic aftermath, causing instability. Rising inflation, sluggish growth, and trade disruptions need urgent attention from all sectors to restore stability and stimulate growth
In particular, amid inflation, investors should exercise caution when it comes to their exposure and new purchases. It is only feasible to get such high yields during a recession with the guidance of a qualified specialist or reliable counsel.
True, initially I wasn't quite impressed with my gains, opposed to my previous performances, I was doing so badly, figured I needed to diversify into better assets, I touched base with a portfolio-advisor and that same year, I pulled a net gain of 550k...that's like 7times more than I average on my own.
This aligns perfectly with my desire to organise my finances prior to retirement. Could you provide me with access to your advisor??
Julianne Iwersen Niemann is the licensed fiduciary I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment...
She appears to be well-educated and well-read. I ran an online search on her name and came across her website; thank you for sharing.
It's all about excessive public hearings and overly strict zoning laws. In some areas of the country even modest triplexes can get stuck in the approval process for years. During that time the builder is paying interest on their loans without being able to build and that cost gets passed on to buyers or renters. Public hearings should be reserved only for large projects.
Nope.
Yes! Uytae Lee did a great video about this. I didn't realize the length of the process can cost developers millions of dollars. th-cam.com/video/XnFVvyu2zGY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Ctvd9UCTQByDKolJ
@@Semper_Iratushe’s right. Adam something, city beautiful, and virtually all city planners agree with this statemeng
Tax policy as well. Taxing improvements penalizes development. Taxing land alone encourages productivity.
Builders make a lot of money already
First time home buyers grant is going to backfire massively!! Australia did that years ago. It only increases house prices the moment that policy is implemented. If buyers have more money, sellers will ask for more money. As simple as that.
EDIT: for anyone reading this comment and not understanding why government subsidies drive up house prices, please read up on how a first time home buyers grant has affected the Australian housing market.
If they're giving me more money than the price increase, I'm fine with that. I still get housing for cheaper.
100 percent. Its a band aid that's going to cause all kinds of problems.
@@goodfortunetoyou and that is just not going to be the case
@@kaiefalam elaborate
And when the house price increases, it also increases the debt burden, property taxes, and maybe insurance. So, it actually makes the problem a lot worse for homebuyers
Yes give away free $25,000. I’m sure people wont see it as being able to charge $25,000 more for their house.
Better not raise wages either because clearly everyone will just raise prices
It won’t because it’s only for first time home buyers and not everyone. The hardest thing for first time homebuyers is the downpayment and keeps them away from becoming a home owners. This helps first time home buyers but because it’s only eligible for a small group of people, so minimal impact on rising house prices but huge impact on affordability
@@sepehr20626 it's incredible how people don't understand that concept.
The use of the subsidy will depend on the competition in the area. In an area with low competition, the developer will be able to increase the price, in an area we home buyers have different alternatives, the consumer will be the one benefited. It basic micro economics.
@@sepehr20626Supply and demand. If more people show up with $25k in their pockets, house prices will rise accordingly.
Obviously it doesnt matter anymore, but a 25k first time home buyer credit would not have caused a $25k increase in the cost of houses. Since it is a demand side subsidy it would cause an increase in demand (specifically for first time home buyers), this eventually would lead to prices increasing as the supply adjusts to higher demand for houses. This helps everyone that would be a first time home buyer, and would help evryone thats a home owner because the value of your house is increasing. This doesnt tell the whole story as the other part of her plan was to increase the supply. This would cause a shift in supply which would lower prices at any quantity demanded, though the effect on the equilibrium price would depend on which policy had the greater impact. If you ask me this is better than removing zoning restrictions in national parks, which obviously should be protected if you want to preserve the landscape and fight global warming which has a negative impact on the pricing of literally everything
As always, North Americans don't want to face the real problem, which is urban sprawl/lack of density.
The problem in North America is that we build our homes as if land was unlimited, but it's not. All land around cities is already saturated by single-family homes, huge highways and parking lots everywhere. This makes that the few lands left are insanely expensive.
That's actually not the problem at all. The cities with lots of sprawl have the cheapest housing. The places with the most expensive housing are places with growth management - which is a policy put in place to force density on a region.
@ISpitHotFiyaa That's a completely baseless statement. All North American cities, even small towns, have insane urban sprawl.
Cities in North America that are cheap are cheap because fewer people want to live there. Not because of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is what makes land so expensive, but also the maintenance of all road infrastructures
@@ISpitHotFiyaa By that statement, Los Angeles and every major Californian city should be extremely affordable then.
You almost got me since houses in Europe is affordable. 😂 Europe, China and Japan has much higher density housing than US, however, their housing costs are also way higher. Chinese income/housing price multiplies are among highest in the world, Japan and South Korea also have high density housing all over the place while having extremely high income/housing prices multiple. And it is not just capital city or first tier city, it is entire country. Based on your claim, China and Japan, Korea should have one of the cheapest housing in the world since rural land and housing should be cheap thanks to all these people living in high density housing in central urban areas. But it is not the case
@ Japan is very cheap even after accounting for incomes. Rent in Tokyo is only about 12-17% of income. Much better than pretty much anywhere in the US.
How about stopping big investments firms into buying family houses?
Some things shouldn't be invesments in this country, and that's also what also home owners need to understand, their home price increasing isn't heping them at all because everything else is also increasing, not only their home price!
Most investments are private equity. Meaning retirement savings or private shareholders. Try telling some middle-aged family, Dad, that he is not allowed to invest his retirement saving. It's all a big bubble funded by debt, and everyone is invested in it.
@@tackaerep but then this stops the elite.
Only .05% of homes is bought by large investment firms
Because it doesn’t matter, it’s not impacting home prices in most markets. I know the it gives an easy bad guy to point to, it’s easy to point at some vague unknown rich people and say “it must be them!” but it just doesn’t matter.
You would ban this and see absolutely 0 change in house prices, and just add more red tape.
@ govbot post.
Didn't trump impose the lumber tariffs on canadian lumber? I'm pretty sure he did.
You're only telling part of the story, either deliberately or because you're ignorant of the full story. Canadian lumber producers were dumping their product into the U.S. market far below their own cost of production in order to undercut U.S. producers and capture market share by driving the U.S. producers out of business. Canadian lumber producers are also heavily subsidized by the Canadian government. U.S. lumber producers are not subsidized by the U.S. government.
@@taylorlibby7642
The latter, rather than the former. It's infeasible to pay detailed attention to everything.
Regardless, tariffs are the wrong approach in that scenario. The proper counter to Canada would have been to either buy the lumber off them cheap, and let developers profit off their intentional underpricing, or it would be to subsidize the American lumber industry proportional to what the Canadians are, keeping our industry alive and competitive. Both of those approaches would have lead to lower prices for lumber, and avoided the current problem created by tariffs in terms of higher input costs to housing.
@@taylorlibby7642 you trying to justify the cost of a product going up purely because it was the cheapest around is asinine, to say the least. Tariffs don’t work and this is the direct effect of them. Costs go up for consumers. This is the ONLY way trickle down economics has EVER worked.
Democrats want to push for rent control which always disincentivizes development and building of new housing, causing higher prices of existing housing due to simply supply and demand.
just tariff canadian lumber at the level that the canadian government is subsidizing them? its not that hard to comprehend to have industries to be at a level playing field - sure you are "harming" consumers, but you are also benefiting american lumber, which is not propping up an unsustainable buisness that could be better achieved elsewhere but evening the playing field
Key things:
1) Around 1:30 when the video talks about protesters. Very true on anything from environment to zoning regulations. People love to just blame everything on govenrment process but this is what you asked for... you want democracy then it means people can go protest no matter how stupid or incorrect you think it is. You can't have the cake and eat it too... you laugh at Chinese citizens not having freedom but when it's your turn you want to shut down opposition voices. See the irony? (Not talking to anyone specific, just in general for those that love chanting government sucks)
2) 2:40 About infrastructure cost. Exactly, infrastructure is very expensive to build/maintain. To the far right folks that think government needs to go away, who exactly pays for infrastructure like roads? Amazon might be willing to build a few roads that connect the city to their mega warehouse, but most businesses aren't going to be able to organize efforts to connect pipes, roads, etc. People often discount infrastructure as if it was free born out of the air or that it can simply be pritivized which anyone with common sense knows you can't... there's no profit motive behind it. Only government can say, we need to connect all these areas whether it has a mom&pop shop or if it's a Walmart which obviously produces different economic values. I don't think anyone would argue only walmart should get roads.
3) 4:45 Another classic example of Trump meaning well but his supporters aren't seeing reality. It sounds nice to open up federal land but it doesn't help if it's not where housing shortage is, does it? He also talks about protecting single family zoning but this is actually what kills cities like SF. To be 100% fair, democrat voters are just as guilty in this. They vote against any non-SF zoning to protect their own SF there. Anyone who insists on SF zoning only, are the folks that make housing crisis worse.
4) 5:50 Example of Harris meaning well but aren't attacking the core issue. Incentive for first time buyer doesn't solve the problem and why should people who are moving from home to home not be able to afford houses? It's like affirmative action that means well but don't hold up in real world logic.
5) Both sides need to listen to actual experts that talk about tariff on lumber, zoning to be eased, and trade labor to go up. I don't see any voters from either side doing much besides following their candidates blindly.
Well said
☝️ absolutely true..I don't even waste time on politics anymore. Both sides blindly follow...
Radical idea (I mean it, Im not beinf sarcastic its gonna be seen as radical). Take federal land where there is no shortage and build. Provide those in high demand areas relocation tax incentive. Force employers to allow work from home where its possible (and not just "improving culture").
You reduce emmisions from commutes, bring down high demand location prices, provide a big win to employees, and utilize a resource we havent been able. Feels like wins all around
@@Newksypoo You're describing China. That's essentially what they do with new cities, often called "ghost cities". Why are they built? Their local government is given a $ target for GDP growth, and the only asset they have are land so they give out land to developers cheaply and incentivizes them to build before demand is there.
For a country to pull off the kind of plan you're describing, it requires centralized governance which Americans don't want
TLDR:
They won't
Helping people with their downpayment makes zero sense. The whole point of the downpayment is to illustrate that the buyer has surplus income/assets, which assures the creditor that they'll pay back the loan. The government assisting with the downpayment only helps if the government is also pitching in to pay back the loan; otherwise it's just contributing to inflation.
The purpose of it is to help people starting off. When given chance to build more wealth people will generally be able to do that. How well off would've you been if your parents tossed you out when you were 14 to fend off for yourself?
@@valtonen77 it's honestly sad that you actually belive that. If you gave millions of people $25k, homes will go up by at least $25k. The total amount of homes remain the same. Increasing the money supply & demand, and there's only one outcome. It's truly pathetic.
@@pilot88pro I guess you believe to no one should ever receive raise either because that would just mean everyone would raise prices as well
@@valtonen77 thats kind of true. Dont you think that raising minimum wage increases cost of supermarkets? It will be given to customer 1:1.
@@TheRealDionysos so what are the options in your mind? Regulations, or keep half the population in poverty for sake of billionaires and their profits?
Minneapolis, and Austin are two great examples. They reduced the regulatory burden of zoning, and voila, more building and a reduction of rent or at least stabilization.
Austin is first or second in Texas for most expensive city only close with dalllas. Everything Austin is doing is wrong.
@ maybe that has to do with the massive population growth and the higher difficulty terrain? It’s about trends. The moment Austin eased building restrictions prices dropped. It’s a pretty clear relationship
The problem is investors buying up all the supply causing a shortage which then causes home prices to go up and rents follow. Get investors out of single family residential properties!
5:04 this clip is incredibly ironic. how can you campaign on affordable housing but protect single family zoning?
25k just goes straight to the price tag, right? Sellers will just raise their price.
Probably not because, in Harris’ plan, there are so many requirements that very few homebuyers will actually receive the $25k. Your parents can’t own a home and it has to be your first home. If your parents own a home, but you’re a first time homebuyer, you get $10k. How long will the verification process take? How much will verification cost the government? Probably too long and too much. Then again, while Harris’ plan has faults, Tramp’s plan is utterly braindead. It’s attempting to solve manhattan’s housing shortage by opening up Nevada’s federal lands for development. Housing affordability depends on local and state policies. As the video said, the federal government only affects it at the margins.
Sellers will demand 25k higher for offers coming from first-time homebuyers.
@@blipblop92 that is not how it works, the sellers do not know if you are qualifying to buy as a first time homebuyer for a grant until much of the negotiating is already done. If you try to insert an increase in the price after finding out they have a first time homebuyer's grant, you would likely be attempting to do it well past the point of negotiation which is illegal, it is also illegal to do that beforehand, it is called housing discrimination. If your suggesting sellers would raise home prices unilaterally based on the assumption of first time homebuyers grants being available, then they likely won't sell their house, because their house will be $25,000 above market value and the grant is usually for closing cost assistance and to reduce their financing rate by paying more money upfront. The $25,000 is not to save the buyer $25,000, the $25,000 makes financing the home purchase possible, where without it, the buyer might not qualify for the financing based on their income to debt ratio after adding in a mortgage. The grant servers to make the down payment larger, so the mortgage payment will be lower and the debt to income ratio within a qualifying amount for the buyer. Also, many people don't qualify for the grants and many who do, don't seek them. Finally, it is the market that determines housing prices, the seller can put whatever price they want on a house, that does not mean it will sell. The existence of these grants will not significantly change the market in the way you think they will. What the grants will do is create more liquidity in the housing market, which will lower prices, not raise them. Many first time homebuyers programs exist and if Harris had won, this might have been a significant policy to help working class families purchase homes.
There's an easier way.
Build new manufacturing in smaller towns where land is cheaper. Like southwest Alabama, for example.
This eliminates zoning problems, land problems, and land cost problems, creating a path to harvest more of our own lumber. Mining and manufacturing our own steel etc etc. Bringing materials costs down.
Notice. There are no money giveaways in this plan. Just more manufacturing jobs and cheaper housing.
They want to build homes where there is large demand. Which is usually major cities, because there is more things to do there. Not many people want to live somewhere with not much to do.
@theonewhosleptin4378 I agree fully. I was speaking purely on manufacturing. Which then in turn the small towns need more homes. Cities are failing. To expensive. To many permits. To much zoning. Making manufacturing impossible in large population areas.
Why don't they build more apartments? plenty of people would happily live in a 500sqft apartment alone, then share a 2000sq ft house with parents or a roomates.
Zoning codes are actively used to prevent multi-unit development.
Short term solution that cause more problem due to social welfare taxes.
mainly because that lands zoning only allows for single family homes to be build. if they changed the zoning (and minimum parking requirements), you could build an apartment building with space for way more people, but neighbors fear that their properties might decrease in value because of it.
You have to have the infrastructure for high density housing. You can't just throw hundreds of people in a tight area and not expect traffic issues, insufficient supply/services, etc.
@@janaroowit is a legitimate fear though, if you own a home especially in a nice area and you bring in low income housing or apartments, your property value goes down that is a fact. Especially low income housing. I'm not paying half a million dollars or more on a house so bunch of bombs can live next to me
I’m very skeptical of additional funding unless its to subsidize building costs associated with all of the regulation. We need to get rid of the tariffs and find other ways of lowering material costs. Then we need to change regulations on environmental, zoning, and building requirements to reduce building time and costs associated with more expensive resources and processes.
Reduce labor costs also
I live in California and are insane environmental laws are making it really hard to get out of the housing crisis we have.
It would be one thing if it was just a problem affecting my state but the problem is it's creating home price increases in Arizona and Nevada too.
Dam what a good video I'm sure the comments will be peaceful. 😊
Great video. Hats off to the graphics teams -- looks great and helps with so many moving pieces. Upvoted and subscribed.
Subsidies to first time homebuyers just lead to increased prices, because in a scarce market, all of the buyers are bidding with each other, and limited only by what they can afford. It's ultimately a handout to home owners, who will see larger proceeds for their sale, not buyers.
The rest of Harris plan seems smart. Part of me wonders if she is smart enough to know that the $25,000 subsidy proposal is a bad idea, and is only advocating for it because she knows it will get her votes.
Lol is she buying votes or too dumb to know it won't help the problem. 😂 I don't like either possibility.
So, what I'm getting from this video is... that even if either the President actually do what they promised (which is suspect), the Housing situation actually won't improve by much or at all.
It is not about too many people and not enough houses, it is about some people own too many houses.
In 2024, I sold two houses, and now I'm waiting for a housing crisis so I can buy cheaply. I've been considering buying equities after the election as a fallback option. What are your suggestions for the ideal time to purchase? At the same time, I continue to read about traders making over $700k every week. Conversely, I frequently hear that the market is in a dead cat bounce and is already out of control. Why does this occur?
Because they are used to bull markets, most investors are unable to handle a fall, but you can make a sizable profit if you know where to look and how to navigate. Your entry and departure strategy will determine this.
The fact that the US stock market had been on its longest bull run ever makes the widespread worry and enthusiasm understandable given that we are not used to such unstable markets. As you pointed out, it wasn't tough for me to earn over $750k in the last 13 months, so there are chances if you know where to go. I hired a portfolio advisor since I was aware that I needed a solid and trusted plan to survive these trying times.
My portfolio has been in ruins for the entire year, so I looked into ways to make money in the present market, but all of my attempts proved to be ineffective. Please include the name of your asset manager.
Her name is Annette Christine Conte can't divulge much. Most likely, the internet should have her basic info, you can research if you like
Thank you for this Pointer. It was easy to find your handler, She seems very proficient and flexible. I booked a call session with her.
Airbnb is one of the biggest culprits causing a housing shortage and high home prices and rent.
Remove all tax incentives from people who own more than one house.
That will financially impact developers, a cost that will then be passed to the homebuyer and lead to increased home prices
There already are disincentives to own more than one home. Try owning a non principle residence and see how much your property tax is
As a first-time homebuyer, it's a nightmare process. Extremely long, complex and expensive. Housing prices keep going up and up, especially in my area because there is no where left to build, especially because of NIMBY situations. I'm glad I got in now because there's no end in sight on prices rising. Before we even disclosed the purchase price, Zillow was already estimating the home value 20k more than we bought it for, and it only took a month. I really emphasize with people looking right now because I was just there and it's only getting more cut throat.
Nothing will improve until the BBs are gone
BB’s? Like Big Banks?
@@alexberkowitz5897 It's referring to a generation
I'm hoping there will be a housing crisis so I can buy cheaply when I sell a few houses in 2025. As a backup plan, I've been thinking about purchasing stocks. What advice do you have for choosing the best buying time? On the one hand, I continue to read and see trading earnings of over $500k each week. On the other side, I keep hearing that the market is out of control and experiencing a dead cat bounce. Why does this happen?
Investing in real estate and stocks might be a wise choice, particularly if you have a sound trading plan that can get you through profitable days, also employing the service of an advisor would be great
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.
Recently, I've been considering the possibility of speaking with consultants. I need guidance because I'm an adult, but I'm not sure if their services would be all that helpful.
'Sharon Ann Meny' is the licensed advisor I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment
Thanks, i did a quick web search and i found Sharon, i hope she responds to my mail.
Building is not a sustainable solution. Not that it wouldn’t help… but the answer cannot be “keep building as cheaply and quickly as possible”… We need extra-market policies that very transparently and consistently keep the cost of housing on pace with wage growth across the country. The first of which is banning corporate ownership or single family homes aside from some rare exceptions.
She’s going to pay $25k to first time home buyers. So in other words houses are going to instantly become $25k more expensive and the buyers out of pocket expense is still the exact same. Paying more doesn’t increase supply at all
Great video! Very well structured. Do more of these please!
None of this really addresses the core issue: investors.
Building more houses just means the rich investors will eat up majority of them. Which means no matter who gets in office it will be a problem until the next election or it turns into another 2008 financial disaster.
All good intentions, and thats what they are, nothing will change with these two politicians.
Thank Trump for tariffs on Canadian Lumber and Brandon for not keeping then. 😅😆😂🤣
So the price of homes goes up well over $25000 awesome
It's disingenuous to only talk about the supply side (lack of homebuilding capacity) but totally ignore the demand side (too much immigration in a short time)
Both want mass legal immigration so demand will continue to outpace supply. Prices will rise.
How did you get that? Trump has been boasting about deporting 20 million “undocumented immigrants” and closing the border. Did you get hit on the head or something?
In 1800s Americans would conquer more land to solve housing issues, in 1900s new city, subdivisions were built to solve housing issues, in 2000s can’t we dream bigger, and do things beyond debating some policies?
You mean to invade others so america would have more lands?
Don't forget! Trump began a trade war with steel and concrete. Making houses more expensive to build.
the blanket check for the government to first time homebuyers is extremely concerning to me. it sounds exactly like what the government did to college funding: guarantee everyone a loan & then the price went up every year… now my generation (me included) have a lot of college debt.
if they just hand everyone a down payment… well, everyone also gets one and all that we’ve gained is inflation. kinda you know, *exactly* like the housing situation in Ontario.
Housing costs are also coming out of the value of the location and everything in proximity. It’s essentially unearned income for landowners, and it includes owner-occupants (homeowners) to the tune of over 60% of the supply, often on plots that are underdeveloped for their location (single family homes in big cities).
Trying to buy a house for 3 yrs now and prices skyrocket. I missed the bus.
Trump was in office 4 years ago and homes are still expensive. I highly doubt both of them will do anything.
@@OneManOnFire how to tell everyone you are a child who don’t own a thing.
Housing was cheap under trump and interest were low.
@@NPAMike He took over an amazing economy from Obama and still manage to screw it all up.
@@NPAMike Housing was still expensive regardless
@@OneManOnFire if you are poor.
This is a very one-sided argument from the perspective of the builder, particularly corporate or big company builders. More density does mean more problems in all areas and who’s going to pay that the taxpayer. What they don’t bring up in this video is where the education system, police, fire. The roadway infrastructure. And infrastructure you don’t see like stormwater and sewer. All of which everybody in the area already has to pay for.
Every height, width and length has to be affordable no matter the size.
There are too many homes that look the same size, but with fluctuating prices that keeps rising than falling.
We need more people with the right to build their own hime at any size as long as it is affordable and is allowed the option to be off grid.
Higher home price means more property tax revenue for local governments, so why would governments want lower home prices ?
It’s the natural progression of things. Anyone who thinks lower home prices is a good thing, while real wages or purchasing power remains the same, is a moron
I need low income housing in my backyard. I’m sure the HOA McMansion behind me won’t mind.
I had a buddy who did that. He turned what was a “man-cave” shed into a guest house and then rented it dirt cheap to another mutual friend who was down on his luck hard. Big dog had a job and eventually got married and lives in his own place now, a couple years later.
Federal land isn’t a great idea when the land we already have developed is so inefficient.
Trump needs to address the apprenticeship ideas that Kamala brought up, not enough people are talking about that
Prices are determined by supply AND demand. End all the zillion tax breaks we give landlords of single-family homes and watch home ownership increase FOR FREE. Our investor tax breaks essentially pay investors to buy single-family homes away from live-in owners, and drive up home prices.
Will boxabl solve the problem?
What tax breaks are they getting?
@@Jeffhowardmeade An example from down under. Australia has negative gearing. Where the owner of the property can let their property operate at a loss but instead of taking a loss/paying it off, they can "write it off" on their taxes. In other words, landlords can legally dodge debt.
@@to101md That's creative accounting for you! I don't think they have anything like that stateside.
@@Jeffhowardmeade
Invisible Subsidies to Landlords of Single-Family Houses
- Depreciation
- Bonus Depreciation
- 1031 Exchange
- Mortgage Interest & Property Taxes. All landlords can deduct from their taxes all the state and local property taxes and mortgage interest they pay on all their rentals. Only about 12% of personal income tax filers even itemize their tax returns which is needed for live-in home owners to be able to deduct their property taxes and mortgage interest payments from their taxes.
- No Social Security Taxes. The landlord next door doesn’t have to pay Social Security or Medicare taxes on their rental income or on their profits when they sell the house like you do on your ordinary wage and salary income.
- Tax-Free Profit Taxing. Landlords can take capital gains profits tax-free by doing cash-out refinancings. In addition, the interest on their new cash-out, profit-taking, refi mortgage is also tax deductible.
- Capital Gains Tax Rate. The tax rate on landlord capital gains - when and if paid - is usually a lot lower than the taxes the live-in home owner next door pays on their ordinary wage and salary income.
It’s because of big companies like Black Rock who are buying all the properties and not selling them. They only want to rent them out
A major issue are AirB&B’s. There are currently 2.25 million units that used to be rented out long term that are no longer being used for that purpose. Not to mention all the people that just have multiple units sitting around vacant. The government would be able to do something about housing without having to actually build anything!
Excellent video, nice job WSJ!
Still no talk about private companies that own all the property like Redfin and the like. Also nothing about taxing people much much higher that own more than one or two homes?
We need to ban private equity from buying residential properties period.
The biggest problem here is that this is a crisis requiring solutions at all levels of government, state, local and federal. This makes it especially challenging to solve, especially since postive results will take years, and no politician wants credit to be taken by someone else.
Imagine living in a city and complaining that other people are also living there
There is some reasonable aspects to it which this video kinda glosses over. You can’t just keep increasing the number of people in an area without also fixing the infrastructure and opportunities in said area.
If more housing is to be built, and let’s say it’s targeted at nuclear families, then amenities need to increase to support the rising number of people in that area. Many times (not always, but many times) when an area is complaining that others are moving or trying to prevent new housing it’s because the needs of those already there aren’t being met.
If someone is struggling to carry 20lbs of weight you don’t just add 10lbs without first assisting to make sure they can manage the original 20lbs
This is a growing trend across the world. It’s a vicious cycle of not being able to build enough affordable homes since it’s too expensive to build houses causing an expensive and eye watering price. Plus not enough people investigating if the land is even safe for housing.
Or they can convert rental properties into homesteads, problem solved.
Anyone who thinks that a California Democrat will make housing more affordable needs to get their head examined. I mean have they never been to California?
We need more homes. Not laws
Build all you want, big corporations will buy all of it if it’s not regulated.
You like to forget "big corporation" is still normal people 401k. They are just an investment management company.
Not if there’s excess homes and the rents aren’t high enough.
To recap theres too much bureaucracy before building anything
Build UP: Brownstone The Burbs, Out Back: Tiny Shed House, Down in rhe Back: Yard Basements.
The housing crisis involves people wanting to buy their own houses, not live in someone else’s ADU. Most wannabe first-time home buyers are already living in someone else’s too-small house.
@Jeffhowardmeade I Think U Missed the Point. A Whole Floor is A Whole House. Most ppl have Family, also. U Wanna BUY? That's U. Space Needs to Be MADE.
@ Didn’t miss it at all. There’s plenty of space already. It’s just a matter of who owns it. Prices wouldn’t be going through the roof if everyone wasn’t competing to own the roof. You build ADUs and basement flats when there are people working and able to rent but there isn’t anywhere TO rent. That’s not currently the case.
Oh, good luck solving zoning problem. You can do anything, but if people in living in X place are not interested in more houses its going to be as usual - impossible to sit on two chairs. There's a clear conflict of interest that you will have to accept breaking contract with society if u want to solve it. That said, its the homeowners usually that are voting, so until that changes, its unlikely thing will turn in opposite direction.
Too many people going into college not enough builders
Nimby's are more active in local government, safe to assume they're also active presidential voters, local government officials won't oppose their majority supporter base sentiment because then they'll lose their cushy easy money desk jobs.
None of the plans will work, but Kamala will at least try
The first time home buyers down payment assistance will cause irreversible damage to housing prices.
Going 3D with apartments (not everywhere, just enough of them in key locations) is the only way to solve this for good.
Somehow people understand this when it comes to highway interchanges but not when it comes to homes. 😒
"If China can do it why America can't stop with all these excuses"😤
The executive branch may do their efforts but it is ultimately the legislative branch that can make huge impact by easing the zoning regulations.
What a load of hooey. Everyone already knows no matter what these politicians say, neither will do anything about this issue.
Maybe also restrict foreign buyers from purchasing homes in the US. How about we also abolish residential REITs and force them to sell their assets over 10 years? I love the idea of REITs but in practice it really just drives up the cost of homes and limits supply.
Build where? I don’t see people wanting to live in the middle of nowhere
Well, we shut down the country for 2.5 years, which killed access to supply and lead to a spending spiral
nothing will change with all the lobbying of home owners and companies like black rock. Politicians want to keep the rich rich, that's how they stay in power...
Why doesn’t anyone ever challenge Harris’ plan to give first time, first generation homeowners a pile of cash? What effect does that have on home prices and is it constitutional?
Great video, EVERY American should watch this!
Here in New Jersey, they're building all kinds of housing. All unaffordable to the common man. The middle class is being priced out.
One thing the WSJ didn’t talk about was to keep hedge fund managers away from buying entire neighborhoods.
Because that is not as big an issue. What little research I've done shows hedge funds and rich private investors own relatively small amount of homes. It really boils down to supply and demand. Vox has a good video on it.
@@gatzt3r As of June 2022, institutional investors owned roughly 574,000 single-family homes in the United States, which is about 3.8% of the country's single-unit rental properties. This number is based on the definition of an institutional investor as an entity that owns at least 100 single-family homes.
@@mikeb5664 those homes are usually concentrated, driving up priced area by area
@ most estimates indicate 30% before the rate hikes. That’s way too high in my opinion.
It wouldn’t matter if the supply was large enough
One thing that needs to change that the government cant effect is attitude. Housing is seen as an investment more than anything. Also NIMBYs prevent new houses from being built
That’s what this video is about
Imagine if they both worked together and used both of their plans
Does it really have to be lumber? No.
We can build homes out of concrete/cement, and it will be much sturdier than lumber.
The cost of concrete/cement . . .
bro has clearly never built a house
Depends entirely on where in the U.S. you're talking of building. And concrete/cement housing isn't automatically more durable.
Problem : Costs of building homes are too much
Solution : Replace the affordable lumber with costly and labor intensive cement and concrete
🤔
We built with concrete, i dont know why u guys cannot 😗
You're probably not from the US, this is where wood is the cheapest material to build
From what I saw, lumber tariffs were imposed because Canada was exporting tons of cheap lumber to the US. That would hurt the US lumber companies, so the tariffs were introduced. But if they just take away the tariffs, what would happen? Well, the same thing when the US starts moving businesses overseas, or when a big business like Walmart comes to town: smaller businesses shut down. The US lumber companies wont be able to compete with the cheaper Canadian companies, they shut down, then when we are left to rely on imported lumber, they have essentially eliminated all competition and can raise prices. Sure some guys managed to get cheaper lumber lucked out at the cost of everyone coming after.
Question, what's the difference about housing/transportation developments if they had hired in-house consultants? 🤔
same as in the us as it is in Canada, in Australia and the UK. stop big investment firms from owning family homes. build more mixed use developments, townhouses, units, 3 level apartment buildings, attached bigger row houses. All we build in Australia are these huge sub developments of single family homes in culd de sacs 2 hours drive from the city with no public transport, no access to shops or amenities, yet its the only thing they build so people have to buy them.
"They dont want a line in Starbucks" is one of the funniest things i heard this week
Subsidies are also contributing to the high prices. Look at historical data and you see that whenever subsidies were introduced home prices went up.
The supply isn’t low. There’s plenty of housing. The problem is all of the government policies that make it possible for Boomers to hoard houses that, in an actual free market, they’d have had to sell long ago.
Let’s not forget a department of government efficiency would drastically drop all of these prices.
The fact that there’s 10k more houses in the area for me to buy won’t magically increase my buying power.
Easy solution is to remove the ability for local people to block schemes with affordable housing included. If a scheme has say 50% affordable housing, regardless of what else it has, it can be built. Irrespective of zoning. The only requirements are environmental and financial. it must remain 50% affordable housing and it must have sustainability in mind. Secondly give local government legal mandates to build affordable housing in their areas. It can be government lead or private funded but if every county in America was mandated to build enough affordable housing for 1% of the population each year then the problem will disappear.
Why do we need lumber? we can use concrete, blocks, or bricks, and for the roof, we can use steel truss and cement based roof
How much do building permits cost?
Small correction: There ARE enough houses for people to own. Most of them lay vacant, owned by corporations that trade them like stocks.
It's a supply issue. Giving people a home buyers credit simply increases demand and does nothing to increase housing inventory. Just a way to buy votes. - from an independent voter
Trump plan: Fix housing costs in Philly, by opening up Federal Lands in Nevada. 4Z Chess.
Yeah that's not what he said
@@BusyBodyVisawhat did he say?
People can move between states so what's your point?
@@Genebriss The jobs in Philly are not the same as in Nevada. It's hard enough to leave everything behind for different states, let alone switching occupations all together.
As I builder I don't see either policies as being helpful. My biggest costs now are land development (not the land itself) and dealing with all the new codes and regulations. Undeveloped land is still fairly cheap in all my markets, labor and materials have gone up for sure, but that's not a significant cost driver. Taking 2-3 years to even get started building because of zoning, permitting is what costs. In some areas we have to go through 5 different local, state and federal agencies just to start moving dirt.