Do We Actually Want Affordable Housing? | The Housing Affordability Crisis We Don't Want To Solve
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 พ.ค. 2021
- Housing is getting more expensive. Here's why.
Join Trends today and get your first week for just ONE dollar!
👉 trends.co/ee
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Enjoyed the video? Comment below! 💬
⭑ Subscribe to Economics Explained 👉 bit.ly/sub2ee
⭑ Enjoyed? Hit the like button! 👍
Q&A Streams on EEII (2nd channel) → / @economicsisepic
🎧 Listen to EE on Spotify! 👉 anchor.fm/EconomicsExplained
Follow EE on social media:
Twitter 🐦 → / economicsex
Facebook → / economicsex
Instagram → / economicsexplainedoffical
The Economics of Real Estate
➡️ • The Economics of Real ...
Hyperinflation is Already Here - You Just Haven't Realised It Yet
➡️ • Hyperinflation is Alre...
#Housing #RealEstate #Economics
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
ECONOMICS EXPLAINED IS MADE POSSIBLE BY OUR PATREON COMMUNITY 👊🙏
Support EE by becoming a Patron today! 👉 / economicsexplained
The video you’re watching right now would not exist without the monthly support provided by our generous Patrons:
Morgon Goranson, Andy Potanin, Wicked Pilates, Tadeáš Ursíny, Logan, Angus Clydesdale, Michael G Harding, Hamad AL-Thani, Conrad Reuter, Tom Szuszai, Ryan Katz, Jack Doe, Igor Bazarny, Ronnie Henriksen, Irsal Mashhor, LT Marshall, Zara Armani, Bharath Chandra Sudheer, Dalton Flanagan, Andrew Harrison, Hispanidad, Michael Tan, Michael A. Dunn, Alex Gogan, Mariana Velasque, Bejomi, Sugga Daddy, Matthew Collinge, Kamar, Kekomod, Edward Flores, Brent Bohlken, Bobby Trusardi, Bryan Alvarez, EmptyMachine, Snuggle Boo Boo ThD, Christmas
Huge thanks to Trends for making this video possible.
Join Trends today and get your first week for just ONE dollar!
👉 trends.co/ee
Doing nothing assumes that the market will correct itself quickly enough and in a better direction to limit human suffering affordability. While markets will level out over time, it is the duration of suffering that needs to be addressed. Current trends seem to indicate that a market rebalancing won't happen in at least a generation. This is not a solution.
Shelter is not a human right.
Most people don't have nearly enough retirement funds to retire. Companies used to have decent retirement funds.
Until rich societies resolve retirement funding, home owners will jealously protect their one appreciating asset. I know parents one and only retirement plan is their house. Born in '59 and '60, they've never worked in places that offered secure pensions. Their savings were wiped out in the 80's and then they lost their first house in the 90's. They lost their savings again in the 2000's.
Society has wiped out their investments repeatedly. Their house is their only asset of any significant value and they're reaching retirement age. A lot of people are like them.
And look at our LTC's and assisted living centre's. No one wants to live in those places. We have demographic time bomb and vilifying older generations without pensions terrified of where they're going isn't going to fix the problem.
Want affordable housing? Offer retiree's a way to live that isn't just basic survival with risk of resident dumping.
Thanks for including race in this video. In previous videos, it was noticeably absent when it played a significant role so I'm glad to see it being factored into the analysis
Where did you get all of the stock footage of ugly houses for this video?
“Assuming their kids move out, which might not be a given these days”
Yes, it’s almost as if they can’t afford to move out….because of high housing prices
I think that's the exact point he was making
@@Turkey936 I think he made that point poorly
It can be done it just sucks
@@feral5404 Yeah, if you're stupid enough to take out a loan that will take 45 years to pay off. You'll be paying for that home from your early 20s all the way to retirement.
Same with "which means that whatever money they do have coming in does not need to be diverted into paying for housing which is a surprisingly large portion of most people's budgets".
If houses were cheaper, we wouldn't *need* to use them as "investment vehicles" just so we can have a place to live.
“tried to buy a house, but the bank determined i couldn’t afford a $1900 mortgage payment every month. so now i pay $3000 in rent every month.”
yep!.. this is some real bullshit, isn't it...
@@crystalquinonez3668 if you pay 3k a month for rent. That's on you. You could downsize, move and save for a down payment.
@@toomuchtrashpodcast7412 What if there is nowhere cheaper to move to?
@@gemini6613 dude I'm renting a 2 bedroom home in Tucson for $675 a month you can go cheaper. That's a victim mentality dems want you to think to keep you in large democratic cities. Over pay for poor quality of life because of high taxes they put on everything
@@toomuchtrashpodcast7412 lol no. I'm glad you found what you found, but that isn't easy to find everywhere. And in some places, those are the hidden gems. There just aren't enough hidden gems to meet the need.
“It’s actually not that bad just make sure you already own a home first” oh fantastic why didn’t I think of that
Right! Who ARE these people??
Even if you own a house, upgrading is hard because even if they appreciate at the same/similar rates, the difference in capital required to buy them is appreciating at rates higher than income.
Basically this is only good for people looking to downgrade.
what you are poor ? just get rich bro its so easy. idk why people dont understand
@@siliconhawk9293Captain Rich would ask why the poors don’t just have their butlers fetch them money 🤣
Yeah, why aren't you rich😂
“Do we want housing to be affordable”
Yes. Housing isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) an investment, its a consumer good. Its one of the basic things a human needs to survive, on the same level as food and water. To say that more people having them is a bad thing is ridiculous, and this isn’t a partisan argument.
Guess a restaurant or owning a farm should not be an investment either.
Housing isn’t on the level of food and water. You can survive on rent as I know friends and relatives who live on rent their whole lives. Owning a home is a privilege, not a necessity
@@BruteDion How dare you use logic.
@@BruteDion That’s completely irrelevant though.
@@nopens What logic?😂😂 Commercial investments are completely different to **residential property.
It seems to be the moral of this story is, rising house prices are good for those who already own a home
not if they keep raising the property taxes on them
Pull the ladder up after you, the adage no one promotes but everyone does.
But they're not if you need a bigger home. It's this whole fallacy of wealth being tied up in bricks & mortar and not being spent productively on education, wellbeing such as holidays, better public transport etc. Say you have a house worth a $1 million, you're not a millionaire since if you sell your house to buy a used Veyron for $1 million you'll have nowhere to live.
House prices have raised by 1/3 and I'm looking for a home. No its not fine the people can't earn their first home and live independently
@@NoOne-le2jvExactly, I sell my house to get a new one. The new house also costs more by roughly same amount. The only people who benefit are those who own multiple houses.
The next burning question: "Is not being able to afford food a bad thing?"
Here’s another viral video idea: “Why grandma skipping on her insulin in order to pay for her meals might not be the issue you think it is…”
@@zacharymorritt I got one. "Food, Running Water, and Shelter: Basic Human Needs or Myth?"
@@WOLFZLLA That’s a good one too
@Michelle I know - I live in Canada - but this video was quite American-centric which is why I made a joke about it, and there are still certain areas of medical care which aren’t covered, or are underfunded. Think mental healthcare, or often dental care, or pharmacological care. The privatization of healthcare does not have two modes (on or off), but instead a gradient between them, and every nation struggles with balancing it. Personally, I believe all should be provided.
@Michelle In the UK too. I hope they never get rid of universal healthcare because we’re slowly turning into the US in other sectors 🤢
“We don’t want prices to crash” actually I pray for it every day.
We all normal persons do.
"You think the economy crashing is funny???"
"I do. And I'm tired of pretending it's not"
So you want the economy to crash?
Why?
@@youtubesucks1499 Why not?
@TH-cam Sucks because if the economy doesn't crash the price of everything will keep going up and it would crash in a MUCH worse and more dystopian way. Despite what you have probably been fed, a crash is only bad for the 1%, who are still fine afterwards. However the working class needs prices to go back down. Prices don't go back down without a crash. It's the way our trash system works.
"If you can't afford a house, then just pay for it by selling a house"
Gee, thanks. I'll make sure to eat lots of cake when the mortgage starts encroaching on my food budget.
Right! Cause we all have a bunch of houses just sitting there collecting dust! News flash! The vast majority of people who own a house at all, own one. And the bank owns most of those!
It’s the equivalent of telling the poor to eat cake or in this case “just buy a house to sell and then buy a new one lol”
@@alansach8437 well "we" dont, but "they" sure do, i believe theres around 15 million empty homes in the us
I think having affordable housing available is much more important than a house being an appreciating asset.
I agree. What we have is a completely unnecessary slow motion disaster inflicted on the younger generation. (I speak as someone who is fortunate enough to own his own home and has nearly paid it off completely. High housing prices is causing enormous damage to our society, even if it is so easy to overlook it once I have mine.)
The real question is would you give up half your income in taxes to build it?
@@PWingert1966 Yep
@@PWingert1966 Is that a trick question? I would need to pay way more than half my income to a mortgage to have even a moderate house in my city lol. Only half my income would be a bargain if it guaranteed houses that were as easy to buy as there were in the 70s.
@@nabagaca For affordable housing to bbe built in the quantity needed to house the 75,000 people currently on just the Toronto housing list the figure to build is in the billions. An actuary worked out taxes would have to triple to fund the level of housing needed. So it would be a question of how much of you pay cheque in taxes are you willing to off to build affordable housing for others to live in? That includes seniors, low income workers, those with disability and those suffering from mental health and addictions (total of about 4 million people and growing)
The fact that your section on "is this a problem?" covers only the perspective of a home owner, and thus concluding it's not that bad, is so perfectly indicative on why so little is being done to address this issue. OBVIOUSLY the problem is for the people who don't own a home yet, not for the home owners. But alas, the majority voting population are home owners who couldn't care less about future generations and just like to see their net worth grow, ignoring the fact that it's fictional gain most of the time anyways considering they can't cash it in without having to buy back into the same inflated market. It's so short sighted and absolutely depressing as someone who does not own property.
EE mentions they own a home in the video omegalul must be nice
I'd say he adresses it during the last 5 minutes
Actually, they do care about future generations, as long as these individuals are their family members. If you're not one of them, why should they care?
Well unfortunately you’re wrong at the end there because homeowners won’t have to cash out and buy back in to the same market…. If they own multiple homes :(
Well I think (should say I hope) we'll see a change when future generation of politicians get into office, and that older audience is now reliant on them to pass terms that benefit them in pension or long term care. To which I hope they decide to make sacrifices there (as much as it pains me to say). I love my grandparents (born 1940s), but they over spent and got to enjoy a lot of life. Now they are wanting people to take care of them in their lack of self-reliance wealth generation. The only wealth they have is a high value home which they would never sell because they couldn't afford to move into another property and downsizing or even renting would be considered a failure to their life's accomplishments. It's the definition of privilege and they don't want to give that up willingly.
I love my parents (born 1960s) very much but they are equally in the same boat, with a worse outlook because their home is their only form of retirement and it's not a great one. They will not be able to afford retiring in the next 5-10 years. That burden will start to come back to me and younger generations to support both older classes with their pension and long term care requirements. I will not see wealth from inheritance of my grandparents, and by the time I likely see from my parents (if there is any), I'll be in my 60s myself (hopefully I and they live that long).
If the moment you get to buy your first home is when you are 60, that's a problem. Sure I'll be setup for "retirement" but at that point, I'd probably look to pass on the wealth sooner to benefit any children or grandchildren I had. No one should be going through the world feeling despair this way. It's not right for developing countries but it's even worse in what are considered developed ones.
The time for looking at properties as a form of appreciating asset, an "investment" to generate wealth has come to an end. We need to try housing for what it is, a right to have a place to live, where when all other life mishaps kick in you will own something that no one can take away from you (under reasonable limitations of course). You think the problem is bad today? Wait another 15 years when people who have never been able to afford start getting close to retirement and have rising rents and inflation to their annual income requirements. They won't have enough money saved and it won't be about being stupid or making poor choices - those people literally couldn't afford to get ahead in life and are now at the other side stuck with the hand they were dealt. I fear even worse for those coming after me (gen Z and on).
Ironic how investors buying homes didn’t make the list of reasons why prices are increasing.
Maybe because they're doing their damnedest to paint a picture of a rental market or high mortgage rates being a good thing so they can increase their returns.
In the 70s, you could buy a house on one year’s salary. This blew my mind.
Retiring would be a lot easier if you didn’t have to spend 30 years paying off a massive home loan.
Yeah home loan cuts into your spending power heavily for 30 years. And that's assuming you have 2 working people with above average salary, one person can't do it (or would starve).
Why 30 years? Pay the principal down monthly.
@@briannadickson2884 Umm.... you have to pay monthly anyway to avoid penalty %?
Idk if you can pay the principal only. The way loans work you pay interest AND principal, mostly interest at start or repayment process. Bank wants to get their profit first.
If your income is so high you don't need 30 year loans.... good for you. I need to take one to afford a ruined shed. If I also want to have electricity, gas and food.
@@Mic_Glow Yes you can pay on principal only. There is a catch if your loan is not a simple interest loan (most home loans are not unless private). You have write them a note telling them to apply the extra to the principal or they will apply it to the interest, as you stated.
Weird. In 1973 I was taught (at school in Australia) that your family could 'afford' a home valued at 3 X your gross income. Big mismatch with figures quoted
If you wanna know how screwed our economy has been for decades, consider the fact that ONE income earner used to be able to afford all this, while TWO are barely able to scrape by now. We've gone from "the woman doesn't work" to "the woman doesn't _have_ to work" to "dear god, woman, if you don't start pulling your weight around here we're gonna be out on the street."
It is not easy to compare, because homes today have a much higher standard and are usually much larger per resident.
Homes today are better than they were back then .
@@niklasmolen4753 My one bedroom house has no washing machine and no shower with no way of putting them in and I still had to put down a minimum of 60k to buy it and I earn average money for my area, also modern houses have much smaller rooms and are made of cardboard.
All changed when women entered the workforce and suddenly people started putting joint incomes into a mortgage
@@niklasmolen4753 So, where are low standard houses with small space? Is there some magic making each house built big and high quality?
Land itself is expensive, most ppl would be happy living in van or shipping container, still where to park it/put it on?
"Is it really a problem?"
For all of us young people who are going to inherit debt, poverty, and homelessness, yes it just might be a problem.
The author clearly owns a home already.
The young, at least here in the States, tend to skew wildly to the progressive side of the spectrum, and the shutdowns and restrictions over Covid fears were driven entirely by the progressives, so... shot themselves in the foot? Shot me in the foot too, which is why I don't have much sympathy. The young might be able to recover economically. My savings were wiped out by the financial hit to the service sector, which I work in. At my age, it's not just home ownership that's a pipe dream, retirement entirely is out the window. I've resigned myself to the fact I'm just going to work until I fall over dead.
@@michaeltorrisi7289 Restrictions over COVID are not matter of left vs right. They are necessary, period.
@@antonteodor6305 very true. Economic security and covid recovery is not a right or left issue.
@@antonteodor6305 after a certain period of time, it became entirely a right vs left here in the states
“Do people actually want affordable homes?” How far down the dystopian rabbit hole are we going next?
2000 Me: When I grow up, I want to have a cozy 5 bedroom house in the suburbs just like my parents!
2010 Me: In a few years I'll be able to afford a mortgage that will get me a small 3 bedroom house on the edge of town!
2020 Me: If I'm lucky, by the time I'm 40 I can have a double wide trailer paid off...
2022 Me: If I can pay someone to park my truck and trailer somewhere for a small fee every month... that would be great...
Funny and tragic at the same time. But don't think it was that much different for previous generations. When I first started working you could buy a nice house for 30,000.00. By the time I could afford that they were 100,000.00! It wasn't as bad as now, but it wasn't a cakewalk either.
2005 me: when I grow up I want a cabin in the woods!
2013 me: when I graduate high school I want to save to built a tiny house
2021 me: I wanna get my bachelors so I can move to Spain and buy a small apartment in cash.
2023 me: okay I'm almost graduated, but now I can only afford a down payment on that apartment....
Lolll in a nutshell haha 😂
2023 Me: They fucked us out of every opportunity we had, and they still want to take more. Maybe this bout of unfettered capitalism really wasn't that great, after all. I want a good job, a nice place to live, a reliable car, and all of my other needs met, but they'd rather me scrape the bottom of the barrel for the stuff they haven't consumed.
@Alan Sach the sad part is I would kill to find a house worth 100,000
"majority of people are homeowners."
No. The graph you show, says: the majority of *houses* are occupied by their owners.
Right?! I do Not want the government involved in housing, but it is INCREDIBLY FALSE to say the majority of people are homeowners!!
@@KalonOrdona2 why wouldnt you want the govt involved? basic needs such as housing, healthcare and the such should be regulated by the govt
lol, statistics
@@haitharu Yeah so what we'll do is create a government owned corporation that will make it mandatory for banks to lend to sub-prime (usually minority) borrowers so they can get their piece of the American Dream. Maybe call it the "Dream Act". Then when banks try to figure out how to make money off these mortgages by selling them to each other we'll insure them in case they go bust and then when they go bust we'll bail out the banks using the taxes from the people who got the phoney mortgages in the first place.
Oh wait a minute
@@haitharu I agree with you but the problem I feel with your statement is you should not be happy whatsoever about that reality lol
“A majority of people are homeowners”
*Angry young person noises*
Cries in hk
It's also not true. Most people don't own a home.
And I took that personally!
@@HooverVilleify I personally disagree. There are many young people who own their own home. The issue is most young people who can't afford their homes live in places with extremely high housing costs like NYC or Los Angeles. Obviously it doesn't make sense for someone on a budget to buy a home there. The problem is, many millennials have been indoctrinated that they have to live in an expensive city to have a high paycheck when that absolutely is not the case. Some of the highest paying jobs for example have been in farming, in places where you can buy a huge property for a fraction of the cost of an apartment's yearly rent in a big city.
EDIT: A lot of ignorant comments down below. I'm a millennial myself that grew up in Silicon Valley and left. I still live in CA, less than an hour from LA. You all have to stop having the close minded idea that the city rat race is the only way to live, because it isn't. It's like the gold rush, you don't make the big bucks doing what everyone else is doing looking for gold, you get rich by doing the jobs no one thinks of but everyone needs. Farming is one of those things. Everyone has to eat, which means all those dollars from people trying to be big and rich are being funneled right into your pockets.
I got to love how by me just mentioning the opportunities people hurting for housing can have by just living outside of city limits, there are actually some people angry at ME for considering the possibility. Okay lol. Clearly EE is right that there can't be a housing affordability crisis, especially evident considering people here can be so picky. I'm reminded of that certain spongebob episode:
th-cam.com/video/9YiYC0sdKWE/w-d-xo.html
Probably not true for people in their twenties, but nonetheless the reality is that most people do indeed own a home.
As a homeowner, I don't necessarily appreciate the insane growth in the value of my home. If current trends continue, it will have doubled in value in the space of about 5 years, which is simply insane. I don't need it to grow in value so dang fast. What I do need is to be able to continue to afford to live in it. Though my mortgage has a fixed interest rate, the value of my home is taxed. The tax man may end up pushing me out of my home in the end.
I'm surprised more people aren't talking about this!
Bruh, you’re not even taxed on the full value of your house.
@@organizedchaos4559 But I think his point is when the value of his home goes up, so does the property tax. And the value of the home going up is not even a win for him. Sure, he keeps up with the market which is much better than someone who doesn't own a home at all, but when he goes to sell his house, he has to buy another house and its value has gone up monumentally too. The only winner in this situation is Uncle Sam, not the property owner.
Also your home's true value to you depends on the cost of alternative housing. If you were to sell, are the houses in your desired area just as expensive. Are you planning on downgrading? Renting? So many people are stuck in their homes even though they've shot up in sticker price because so have all the other homes. Some houses that need major work are selling the same as turn key.
Yes. This is where even current owners benefit from affordable housing. You're paying more just to maintain what you already have. That increase in valuation might be ok if you're selling, but if not, you're simply paying more.
Yes, yes we do. Houses being treated as a commodity instead of a necessity is DIRECTLY involved in the continuous market crashes we experience.
This^ also, this started immediately after Lyndon Johnson passed the laws subsidizing the building market, when they control markets first they inject government influence
"Is it a problem?" It depends on who are you asking. For someone that already own the house or maybe a few more investment properties, it is not a problem at all. But for the young people who want buy a house to live in, that is a huge problem.
"Why did this happen during a pandemic."
Crises don't create trends, they accelerate existing ones.
and since it's capitalism the customer and employee don't matter, it's the investor that is important.
@@badass6300 It's not capitalism.
@@johncounts2182 yes it is.
@@badass6300 Fascistic over regulation by the state at the behest of the investor caste is not capitalism. get your enemies straight
you're right, rising housing prices isn't an issue for people that already own a house.
I'm looking forward to sleep on the street in front of an empty house I can't afford with my friends.
If you were smart and hardworking enough, you could one day own a home.
@@tuele4302 This isn’t the case at all. Plenty of veterans are homeless, some of the most hardworking people in the world can hardly afford a place to stay.
@@LordJesusDiedforUs Veterans deserve some extra help. For the other able-bodied people, no.
@@tuele4302 veterans can't afford houses so they need little help everybody else needs to work more than veterans did and without help afford a home.
Ah yes your logic is so sound people go deaf around you.
@@jackb.207 Veterans are not equal to other able-bodied persons unwilling to work.
As someone who’s living at home with his parents, two older brothers, still sharing a room…
YES! I WANT HOUSE PRICES TO BE MORE AFFORDABLE!
I think that at least one reason people aren't asking, "Is this really a bad thing?" is because that, for anyone who doesn't already own a home but would like to, the answer seems sufficiently obvious that there's no need to ask in the first place.
Is rising housing prices bad for people who own a home or more?
No.
wow thanks economics explained.
The way he slips in suspect conservative ideas into an otherwise fairly sound overview makes me think he is some sort of psyop. Or at least a neoliberal mouthpiece for the status quo
@@sgwinenoob2115 neoliberals want to increase affordability by increasing supply, this guy just sounds conservative
@@jinkiskhan1967 this guy together with whatifalthist are the biggest pretend centrists on youtube. They pick and choose evidence and put on a faux intallectualism but they are in reality the biggest supporters of the conservative status quo. You should watch the amount of China (anti socialist) baiting that goes on in that channel
@@sgwinenoob2115 definitely, I remember another moment I felt like this in a video about how socialism doesn't work and used the Netherlands as an example using cherrypicked data to show it creates inequality... despite the Netherlands being EXTREMELY equal
@@eVill420 It’s almost as if...very small, compact, ethnically homogeneous countries which didn’t fight wars of independence that defined their culture as being skeptical of government, have very high taxes, don’t have as much respect for individual property rights, were rebuilt on the US’s dime after WWII, and live under the US defense umbrella so they don’t have to spend much money on it, have an easier time being “equal!” Amazing how that works!
Last time I was this early, you could buy a house and support a family with a single job at a factory
Good old 1950s. And yet, these old folks dare to criticize the youger generations for not owning a 600k home. Lol
Factory jobs were pretty important during the industrial revolution. The equivalent today would be in tech / information industry which most engineers or computer technical vocations can definitely be middle class to afford most things. Factory jobs are trying to become automated by robots that cost pennies of electricity rather than paying a person a living wage.
Back when the rich were highly taxed and income inequality was low. Also that was only for white people.
@@TK-gd9td There is a difference between free public schooling (plus some on the job training) and spending several years at a place that charges the equivalent of house deposit, then working un-(or barely) paid jobs; so you meet the experience requirements for an "entry" level job in a relevant field.
So no; those 'relatively well paid' factory/office jobs of yesteryear -are not equivalent to modern white collar engineering or IT jobs.
@David Lightman I'm sorry you got so triggered over me stating a historical fact.
Hey look no dislikes, this video must be completely balanced and informative
Idk if you do know, but TH-cam removed the dislikes from the plebs, content creators can see the dislikes they get though
@@leeeyles1864 idk if you do know, but my comment was laced with sarcasm
@@tylermitchell185 I just try to be helpful ;p
Or it hasn't been viewed by a Right winger.
@@theresedavis2526 or a left winger
So he accidentally came to the conclusion that house flippers are good for the market actually.
You know, that hot trend that's driving up the cost of housing and stripping the market of entry level units.
Yeah, not sure I agree with you on that.
"Is it a bad thing? It creates a self funded retirement fund." Yep. For about one generation.
iS tHiS a BaD tHiNg fOr HoMeOwNeRs?
and then pensions were almost all universally closed in 2008 and 401k's suck at replacing them. GOOD LUCK EVERYBODY ELSE!
Were rising house prices in China a bad thing?
@@AsbestosMuffins It's almost like retirement savings are fundamentally unsustainable
And by stealing from the next generation by squeezing the supply of housing which is the only way for a non-productive asset to appreciate in value. This puts those who can't afford homes at risk of homelessness and those that can "afford" them be just one financial disaster away from losing their homes because they pay a dangerous proportion of their income on their mortgage i.e. house poor. How is it good for the economy at all for most of people's earnings just going to shelter? Oh but I suppose all those boomers can take out a home equity loan, which they still need to pay back, to buy a jet ski? Yeah that'll carry the economy.
"I'd go and live on some remote island somewhere" Mate you already do...
Spot on!
That’s funny.
Underrated comment haha
where is the like of the "Economics Explained" ? :D
@@VloggingCastles The joke you
I'm saving 95% of a full time salary and am getting further away from owning a home now because the average house near me earns money faster than I do (by no means a major city or expensive neighbourhood). I definitely don't see a problem with this situation.
That's absolutely horrible, I wish you luck dude
I felt like I was the only one, good to know I'm not. I'm fortunate in that I can save a lot of my income, and I would still need 20 years of savings to pay off a home.
And at this rate by the time we save enough, that home will be worth 4x more and we will be at square 1
Yes we do actually want affordable homes, i think I would prefer to be able to buy a house, then having to live with my parents forever or pay 3000 in rent every month thank you very much
You clearly own a house and don't care about the next generation that will need to buy homes
you can already buy a house. you just dont want to save, and want to live exactly where you want. there are houses you wouldnt like that you could afford, or you could do more to earn more, but youre just a choosing beggar so you want exactly what you want and its other people's job to give it to you. lol
@@johnsmith-fk7fw
>Need place to survive
>Everywhere you can rent near your work is extremely expensive
>Pay expensive rent to survive
>No money to save
>"Just save lol"
You're a not very intelligent person
@@sylviethetg7598 wow yeah when you lay it out like that, i guess there really is no solution! I guess just stay poor 🤗 thanks for the rent check
@@johnsmith-fk7fw See you're half correct. While it's still possible for Gen Z to own homes, there aren't many options. You could move to the midwestern US, which is what I'm doing. But that won't be an option forever. The housing prices in the midwest of the US are going to skyrocket soon, they already are. And it's because there is a mass exodus from the more expensive urban and coastal areas. On top of this, not everyone has the ability to just pack up and move whenever they need to.
Saving is harder than ever. if you live in a coastal and urban area, you're rent is like 2000-3000 a month, plus raising food prices(especially if you eat healthy, healthy food is expensive), ridiculous gas prices, etc. Need I go on? Like I said, there is the just move option, but even that's hardly feasible because moving is quite the process, and requires a lot of saving. I'm able to do it because I have help, I'm a poor college student who works a minimum wage job.
You're flippant and unapathetic attitude is why civilizations collapse.
@@johnsmith-fk7fw people like you are why this world deserves to get cleansed
“Do we want to solve the housing crisis”
What kind of question is that? So it’s not a crisis if someone is benefitting from it? That’s every crisis ever.
Well, to be fair. It is a problem mostly in car dependant cities.
The good thing of living close to the city center is that you have to drive less. But if you had good public transportation, that's no longer a problem.
@@santiherrera6768 youre incredibly wrong even rural land is spiking like crazy, people asking 2000+per acre of undeveloped land
well, we turned a commodity into an investment for the rich and undoing that would be bad for them, so it's better to just leave it the way it is, right? It's not like the people being left out of the opportunity to own a place to live are suffering more than the investors would by halting their profits.
@@santiherrera6768 If you live in a city with good public transportation without owning a car it becomes even more useful to live in the center (that's one of the reasons why the suburban lifestyle is more an American thing than a European one): you will save much more time.
@@santiherrera6768 just like in Paris, where they have no subway
Yes.. We want affordable homes. That way, people can afford to live in homes, which is kind of the point.
ᗯᕼᗩTՏᗩᑭᑭ💯
But you can't arbitrarily make them affordable
@@blocks4857 but they're arbitrarily made expensive?
@@polimana they're expensive due to regulations
@@blocks4857 so why exactly are new homes cheaper than a 50 year old home then??
Housing prices are unlikely to significantly decrease until there's a substantial increase in housing supply. In the USA , there's a shortage of millions of housing units, and construction isn't keeping pace. The constant demand for housing, coupled with population growth, means that even a slight price drop attracts numerous buyers who quickly absorb the available supply. I'm considering purchasing affordable houses in 2024 and possibly venturing into stock investments. When is the best time to enter the stock market? Some people say it is profitable , but others say it's risky. Any advice?
Consider investing in stocks especially during a recession . While recessions can be tough, they can also offer good chances to buy low and sell high in the markets if you're cautious. Just remember, this is not financial advice, but it's a good time to think about buying stocks since having cash on hand isn't always the best option.
You're right! With the help of an experienced coach, I made some changes in my investments. I started with $321k, and now I have more than $750k by investing in stocks, ETFs, and bonds. I think housing prices won't go down much until there are more houses available.
Mind if I ask you to recommend this particular coach you using their service?
My advisor is Natalie Lynn Fisk, a renowned figure in her line of work. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market.
Thank you for this tip. it was easy to find your coach. Did my due diligence on her before scheduling a phone call with her. She seems proficient considering her résumé
I think there needs to be an exponential tax on property taxes depending on how much land is owned. People owning a home should be encouraged, people or companies owning multiple homes that dont have people living in them and holding onto them as speculative assets should be frowned upon.
Georgism. It was a thing in the early 1800's in America. Went away(sorta) in the late 1800's.
There should also be more incentive for mixed use dwellings and medium/high densities residential. These sorts of building codes are very limited right now, resulting in sprawl and land scarcity in job rich areas.
@@travisissoocool Or give tax incentives for employers to move away from large cities so people stop concentrating there.
@@bluemarlin8138 you know infrastructure cost money right... the cities are funding your suburbs
More taxes is rarely the solution. I wonder what would happen to rent if that happened....
only an economist could make a 23 minute video where the conclusion is "IDK, maybe people should be allowed to live in houses, that might be good for the economy I think"
Or at least provide more affordable housing. Not everyone needs a ten bedroom McMansion for $3000/month. Some of us will be happy to pay $300 for something not much bigger than a motel room, where we have a locking door, a toilet, a shower, and a kitchenette to cook our dinners - particularly younger workers and singles.
@@cerebraldreams4738 Haven't watched the video yet but what you said. Tiny living spaces for the bare essentials, like Japan for example. Micro, mini sized housing with a twin sized bed, personal bathroom (I know a personal bathroom is a luxury but much better than shared bathroom, but downgrade to a shared bathroom of course if it keeps the person from being homeless), mini kitchenwith fridge big enough for a week's worth of food and enough space for a work table.
But the rich have more power than the poor so they dictate the construction projects that will be made so poor have no say other than voting. Also demand of bigger spaces by middle class to people who can afford big spaces drives poor people to rent with roommates or change cities I'm guessing.
If tiny spaces are possible the space will be extremely small but livable. I know it is livable (maybe not mentally healthy long term living inside a small space but better than homelessness) because the necessities in an rv I camp with my parents is about (one car lane width) 6 by 20 feet making it 120-150 sq ft . Way better than being homeless and I heard renting cheap takes multiple roommates.
Or maybe renting with roommates is cheaper overall and the small separate individual living space is a luxury all along since a shared kitchen and bathroom means splitting the cost of electrical wiring and plumbing of a kitchen and bathroom.
@@geforcenow2839 The rich aren't dictating. Instead builders aren't slaves who have to do what you want, but instead can make their own decisions of who to work for.
@@OtherDAS tipping every concievable scale with vast amounts of money counts as dictating in my book, albeit indirectly.
@@boarfaceswinejaw4516 Paying people for their work is now tipping the scales? If those wealthy people would just stop paying people for their labor then we could use the labor at cheaper rates?!
That's a bold take.
"Has anyone stopped to ask if this is actually a good thing?"
Considering homelessness completely isolates people from being able to even participate in the economy, yeah. No. It's not a good thing. Not even for the home owners.
and look at the homeless problems in all major US cities with bustling economies... how long can that continue at this rate, it just cant and its making it shitty for everyone allowing these companies like BlackRock to purchase housing like an investment and rent them out indefinitely.
The fact that a one year's salary was enough to buy a house says a lot. The view on whether a house should remain an appreciating asset in my mind does not seem to correlate to the fact that the price has already grown beyond what it ever should be.. I am a house owner and ( I know its a complicated issue ) I really think the price should stay around that one year salary mark.
I am aware that means my house would be worth considerably less , but just because the prices are where they are now does not mean they should remain nor does it mean that it is how it should be..
Material costs and the soft in labour force causing a decline in specialty trades wouldn’t make that possible.
Normal market rise has always been $10k a year, which is not impossible to save for. These past 15 years, the market was monopolized buy ibuyers gobbling up small affordable homes (some 22 million), to sit EMPTY and create an artificial "shortage" to make prices skyrocket. So the global real estate was fully monopolized by giants like Zillow.
Wage stagnation in a lot of areas is also not helping much. In the USA, the same 2-bed, 1-bath house may cost 1M on the west coast, but only 10K in the southeast. Hence, what we've seen in my area is west coast folks moving in droves to the Carolinas to take advantage of the "cheap" real estate that's just barely affordable for the people already living there. The American South is still struggling with self-righteous attitudes concerning how much an individual deserves to make given how they make a living, and we still refuse to unionize, so wages are already lower here. The average resident is finding it harder and harder to compete, and affordable areas to live are increasingly hard to find as people from wealthier parts of the country move in to buy land and housing on the cheap to rent back to us for ludicrous prices. It's a problem, and we can't exactly solve it by kicking people out. :/
The price of a home should reflect the amount of work that went into it. If all the workers who built it put in a total of one year worth of work, then the house should cost about a year worth of their wages.
I just think it's absolutely f-ed that a human necessity is viewed as an investment. That's a huge problem.
gaddafi made it a human right, they killed him.
"Do we want to solve the housing affordability crisis"
"Yes" : said the young person who can't afford a house
"No" said the new home owner who will loose money on their new investment
" No, there is no crisis you just need to save like we did in my day" Said the Boomer who owns 4 properties whos first house had 3 bedrooms, located 10 mins from the city which only cost less then 50 grand back in the day
It's not an investment if you can't resell your assets. That's the stupidity in the logic of current homeowners, they assume rising housing costs means they'll make a profit, yet completely ignore that by doing so, they shut out most buyers. Everyone is forced into a stalemate, it's a false win for homeowners. The only thing they ensure is future generations will end up migrating out of homeownership into renting - or migrating altogether out of the country to affordable places like Thailand, Sri Lanka, Turkey, or Portugal.
Boomer cluelessness to what they did to the world is pretty amazing.
As a relatively young person (mid 30s) who was fortunate enough to save a deposit with the intent of buying a city apartment while living with family before moving regional where that money went much further and therefore paid our house off in our late 20s and are now debt free home owners I still want the issue to be solved. Basic housing is a fundamental right, different to any commodity. This is a market failure that has occurred over decades. It should have been rectified before it got to this point, unfortunately someone has to lose out now and it still won't be the boomer who is debt free, it will be the Millennial who has recently entered the market and has mortgage greater than the value of their home.
I reject those answers. I chose something different. I chose the impossible.
@@YourMajesty143 I agree with what you say but the problem is that "they shut out most buyers" isn't a problem when all you n ed is just ONE buyer who can offer you the money you're asking. As a renter, this is the reality I am faced with...
It's very simple: if you own land, you are on the escalator; if you don't, you are on the treadmill that powers the escalator.
Depends on what land you buy. In some places, it is better long term to be a renter. With land/home ownership, you are responsible for all the maintenance yourself, and the amount you pay could easily overcome any appreciation in value you experience or savings you get from not renting.
@J J Owning a home never ruined anyone's finances. GOING INTO DEBT to BUY a home could ruin someone's finances, but that's the risk you take when you jump for the escalator from a precarious place on the treadmill.
@@ianandersen265 Land does not require any maintenance (landscaping might, but it is an improvement), and you don't lose money owning land unless you borrow at too high an interest rate to buy it:
"The most comfortable, but also the most unproductive way for a capitalist to increase his fortune, is to put all monies in sites and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, has to pay his price" -- Andrew Carnegie
@@ianandersen265 "Could easily overcome any appreciation in value you experience or saving you get from not renting." I hear a lot of people use this to justify their lifestyle but it is simply not true.
So you're saying that because I own real estate, someone else is using their financial power for my benefit? Why didn't someone tell me this? I've been working 10-12 hours a day when I could've just been chillin' at home?
I think the biggest issue I see around me (Baltimore / DC metro area) is a shortage of more affordable NEW housing. It seems every new development that goes in is bigger and more expensive than the last. I would be interested in the statistics of 3 vs 5 bedroom houses being build over the years. The average house keeps getting larger and larger, thus more expensive. Lawmakers could easily force a more even supply of smaller, more affordable homes in comparison to larger more expensive ones, but they never will.
They aren't building those small houses anymore
@@bract62 Once you go in on building a house, kitchen, bathrooms, etc, adding more SF/bedroom space is very cost effective, the cheapest part of constructing the house is the bedroom/livingroom space and adding a bedroom increases price significantly
Even if they are building gaudy new big homes that’s fine it means the old crappy homes aren’t as expensive. Move to a 1950s ranch and let the people who would’ve paid 800,000$ for that ranch pay 800k for the 5 bedroom 5.5 bathroom with the 3 car garage instead. Even luxury housing helps add supply and take buyers away from affordable homes. Look at San Francisco. They added no luxury housing to their supply and their crappy houses are 1.6 million dollars
I mean if they are building it, someone must be buying it otherwise the builders wouldn’t be making money though
Yes, we do want affordable housing! Everything else is a long-winded excuse.
As a contractor in the United States, tell me how I can build affordable housing and still make a profit?
Land isn't cheap neither are raw materials and framing.
So how do I build a 1500 sf home for $80 a sf?
@@youtubesucks1499 No one is blaming it on you.
@@youtubesucks1499it really won't matter when your inventory just sits empty
@@alansach8437 I never said they were.
I agree, housing prices are insane.
@@youtubesucks1499 simple, you dont charge 80k-100k extra for ""labor"" that doesnt happen at all.
i know this aint every contractor, but ive seen contractors basically scam land owners out of alot of money for next to no work, and then they put a lein on the building to draw it out further so they can renegotiate their pay to be above market standard.
I love being in the generation that got crunched by this economic insanity. My immigrant father fell off the turnip truck, landed in Canada, dropped out of school in Grade 10 and still had his first mortgage by 22, lol. Now his generation are renting me and 3 other 30 year olds their first bungalow for 2200$ a month.
Yes I would like a solution please!
Wait awhile, then you'll own that house.
so agree.... i was born in 74, told get a job work hard and you will be fine.... lol sure. no education about how to navigate in this economy, then hit with severe health issues, the government not thinking i was sick enough yet to need help....
yup.... solution please.....
for now i OWN my 5th wheel, looking to own my own property, and stayed out of the credit game....
anyone born 70s and later were destine to struggle
@@katiedangelo404 haha, seems to coincide with the start of a purely fiat monetary system and financialization of almost everything. Imagine if markets did that with wheat … food riots anyone?
@@kensurrency2564 the 70s was the beginning of the end... its when the united states started getting fat too...thanks capitalism!!! how ever of all the governments so far...id rather live in a capitalist country then socialist or communist soooooo. fat nation of silent invisible control and slavery for the win... at least im free to join the broken system or go rouge.. i love what america is suppose to be i dont love what we are becoming
“Are high home prices a bad thing? No way, it helps people who are wealthy enough to be homeowners get more money without having to do anything!” Ah yes, because they need the help more than people who don’t own a home.
@@marceiiopaz-criptocapitaii6898 stop it spammer
Well a vote is a vote...
@@apc9714 what do you mean?
One home per person or family is the solution.
@@Hoops590 in countries with an increasing population, yes
🎉 Genius. I propose that we put mortgages on oxygen next.
Next “do we really want affordable water?”
It seems to me that economies and societies do best when everyone can afford the basics and everything else is aspirational. You work a bit harder for the nicer things in life.
If half the population can't even come close to affording the essentials you'd best watch your back and hope you or your loved ones are never in the wrong place at the wrong time.
What is “everything else” out of curiosity?
@@alecfranklin3827 Why don't you tell me what you consider to be the basics, it should be a shorter list than everything else.
I'm not sure how to take "should we solve this affordability crisis" as a serious question. I've been a working adult for 2 decades now, through 3 major bursts / recessions, and the possibility of owning a home gets farther away every year.
Young people today get constantly accused of being lazy, of having no drive and no ambition. But really, is that so strange? How many of them have grown up watching their parents and other adults around them working themselves to near death chasing promises of a better life in the future that never came? How many of them look at the future and see that things are looking more likely to get worse than to get better? Is it really so odd that facing the prospect of having to go down the same path as their parents that so many of them seem reluctant? Who wants to play a game that they can't win? Who wants to make a bet when the odds are stacked so heavily against them?
I don't think it's strange at all.
@@Fraggr92 Exactly! There's really no way of winning anymore, and even the far off 'goal' of retirement is a mirage at best to most. We're well and truly fucked at this point.
The title being insulting is the least of it. I'm slowly becoming convinced that this channel's creator is just a fence sitter detached from any real problems he covers because he boomed in popularity during the pandemic and makes those big TH-cam bucks now.
Hopefully I'm wrong.
@@SolarFlareAmerica it’s “economics explained” not “how to fix the economy”. Draw your own conclusions, he gives you multiple ways to look at a situation.
@@Fraggr92 literally every generation for the last 100 years has worked more than the last, this is the first time the previous generation pays them LESS than the previous generation in US history
Stay tuned for the next video:
“Do we really want edible foods?”
In the developed world, most people are food owners with a fridge full of groceries and pantries stocked with canned goods. Prices of food going up is only good for these food owners, and edible food becoming more "affordable" can put food owners in a difficult position when they try to liquidate their positions.
@@AUniqueHandleName444 brb I gotta go liquidate my position on last nights dinner 😂.
Jokes aside, yea you've got it right. Appreciating house prices are great if you've already got a house. Not great if you're a young guy at the start of your career ( like me)
Stay tuned for the our upcoming series: "Iraqi and Afghan refugees, are they really OUR problem?"
short answer, maybe because non-edible foods will lead to lower overall food consumption, but it will also lower demand for food over time.
@Carlos Spiceywhiener Right?
Great video from the perspective of folks who have homes and want them to appreciate.
Now do a video from the perspective of the folks who cannot afford a home and are either renting or, worse yet, homeless.
The problem is that homeowners think they're entitled to endless above-inflation appreciation on their property, so they see any efforts to slow housing cost inflation as an assault on their perceived rights. This creates a dysfunctional housing market where homeowners have a financial incentive to block new construction and keep the housing supply artificially low in order to inflate their own home values, even though the gains are imaginary because you can't cash out the value of your home without simultaneously buying right back into the same inflated market. Not to mention that taking this attitude to its logical conclusion just results in a reductio ad absurdum where every house in the world is eventually worth (effectively) infinite dollars if the value just keeps endlessly appreciating for all eternity.
Until homeowners get over their entitlement and stop seeing a house as an investment (which historically is not the way it was seen until recent decades) nothing is going to change because they will block any attempt to fix the issue. Which means we aren't going to see the situation really addressed until a large majority of people living in the west are not homeowners...which will happen in a few decades if trends continue how they're going.
I agree. They all think they are going to sell their homes for millions to a generation that is broke. If anything, corporations will buy up all the housing and keep it to perpetually rent it out. Controlling whole communities and lives. Raising the rent with no end then lobbying the government to make homelessness illegal. The weak and injured will be thrown in for profit prisons also owned by huger corporations. Hoping something changes soon. This housing situation is unsustainable unless you are an evil crop
Its not entitlement
Its just good old humans acting in their self interest
In economics we ASSUME this rather than BLAME people for it
@@mariolishe is not blaming the people. Of course people have to act in their personal best interest. He is blaming the policies that made it possible in the first place.
If you'd give me a possible investment so efficient and secure as a house is I would take it immediately, BUT I still think that the government should make it impossible in the first place, via taxation and removing privileges on houses
As another commenter has pointed out, continually increasing home values isn't actually that good, because their property taxes will keep going up. Even if their mortgage is fixed or even paid off, it's not sustainable in the long run. But not enough homeowners seem to have pieced this together.
I mean plenty of homeowners have already purchased homes at inflated prices, so is it not unreasonable for them to expect a return back?
Also any situation in which inflation out paces home appreciation puts the homeowner at a negative equity which is not good.
If inflation is at x% then homes at least need to appreciate at x%+1% while wages go up at x%+2% otherwise some gets screwed. And at that point we’re just making biased value judgements on who deserves to get screwed
ONE generation basically had all the luck and grabbed everything
Boomers are a defective generation.
That, plus real estate has become one of the biggest targets of investing.
It is not about luck or generation. Something fundamentally broken in our economy if wealth fails to propagate evenly to the new generation. Competition if fine as long as everybody has equal starting position.
I wish the ratios were the same. It can be higher but the difference between income and expense i wish was the same as the '50's
Sometimes I think things are okay.
And then I think of stories about baby boomers picking up a job somewhere they walked in at,
who got risen up the ladder because the company expanded out and needed internal filling, rather than replacing every position outside basic workers with people from other companies.
Who didn't feel the need to retire until Social Security says they can, even if they have the money and assets to do so
Who removed many of the benefits put in place to make sure first time home owners wouldn't get denied home loans.
Who act like they still live in the 80's, and not some failing hellhole where the average worker has been making less for the last 30 years while working harder, and have the audacity to tell us things are fine.
Starter homes also get scooped up by investors which are the homes that normally 1st time home buyers would try to purchase.
There aren’t enough homes to keep up with demand
Investors want some but they aren’t the problem; after all they sell the homes eventually. It’s a lack of supply and low rates
@@foff3554 X
It's a lot of retirees doing it too though. They want to downsize. Oddly enough, I helped build a starter home for Habitat last week that was only 1200 sq ft.
@@TheLouisianan Alot of the homes in South Florida are only 1,200 sq ft (not including the lot of land).
7th factor, people with too much money buying multiple homes just so they can keep them, rent them out for crazy rental prices, and use the profits to buy and rent more properties because the government is too messed up to be able to pass a law that says people can rent one house out, if they want to rent more out and run their monopoly then they should have to build the homes from the ground up so the number of homes available stays in the positive
@Kara G - True for the USA and Canada. Perhaps for other financially developed countries also. However, that has only been significant enough to be a visible factor within the last year. The video was posted about a year ago. I would hope that if the channel creator did an update video, he would include that as the 7th factor. Or perhaps as a higher ranked factor considering that in some parts of the USA private equity investment fund block buying and rental conversion of homes represents more than 15% of the housing market activity.
Great point! Tax the rent they would make to discourage it
@@travisjones640it already is taxed like any other income though.
Also most people who rent out only have one or two properties and still need a day-job to live. For vast majority of landlords, renting is a side hustle. And even beyond that, some people actually prefer to rent due to being more flexible with getting to move more easily, and someone needs to provide that
@@alecfranklin3827 good point. I think it should be more applied when it’s not a side huddle, buying homes with no intention to live in, like Blackrock does
I'm somewhat uninspired by the recommendations of this video, which is actually the norm when it comes to advice from economists. The basic blind spot of economics is its blindness to political psychology: when the eroding middle class is cleft in two by those whose homes continue to appreciate in value and those who increasingly will never be able to afford it, it creates destabilizing populism. I don't know any economist who incorporates this into their thinking in a robust enough way that encourages me to take faith in market-driven solutions. At least that's what it looks like from this vantage point.
At the end of the day market-driven capitalism always has been and always will be the most effective way to run an economy the size of the US's. I get what you mean by the divisions growing between upper and lower middle classes. The truth is the elites want us to all be renters in the next couple decades. Just listen to Klaus Schwab from World Economic Forum which is infiltrated basically all major institutions with their slogan "you will own nothing and be happy". Unfortunately the American dream of owning a home, raising a family, and using the appreciation on that home to comfortably retire in a smaller, rural area will soon be dead.
Its because market driven solutions really are fairy tale level stuff.
@@AbstractTraitorHero so what's your solution, communism? 😂
@@ryanscaggs1674 I can tell that you are from the US of A just by reading your comment. Like there isn't anything else between extrem capitalism and communism
Absolutely. Economics is is a religion based on faith in some particular 'school of thought'. Can't get their heads around GDP doesn't put food on the table
You rightly point out that if things continue on the current trajectory we'll reach a point where only the very wealthy will be able to own homes before concluding that the best thing to do about this -- wait for it -- basically nothing.
If the price is right, then an exchange will be made.
Okay! I thought I was going crazy because that is how I interpreted the video as well. Insanity.
That's neoclassical economists for you.
@@tuele4302 BritMonkey and Some-More-News
covered this topic epicly, if i may uncalled-for say.
@@cyropox8235 Exactly, he's advocating for a change in attitude among homebuyers, and for the resulting change in mindset to cause prices to stagnate. I don't see that actually happening, but it's a nice idea. He uses Japan as an example of this mindset, but that's a different level of population density than in the US or Australia.
Historical perspectives like this are always important so that when someone says "but it's always been this way" you can say "wrong." The necessity of shelter was *not* always priced as a luxury and it's a very real problem.
I say it's the investment-ification of housing. Along with restricting house building.
@@shorewall so TLDR the Boomers and the Government did it
And older people love saying back in my day it was just as bad. A couple years ago we hit over 45 below where I live so naturally they closed the schools and a lot of older people where saying it's ridiculous because back in their day they went to school in that cold despite us breaking the record for coldest day and then breaking it again the next day.
you know what else is a luxury? people not going to college to get a psych degree then complaining then can't get a job or pay their loans for the useless college degree no one asked them to get
@@raglanheuser1162 found the boomer.
We need to have an extra tax on any person or legal entity that owns a home they don't live in. Also make the tax proportional to the number of homes owned so that it makes it increasingly difficult for anyone or corporation to own large numbers of homes just to rent them back to others. It would also give incentives to banks that foreclose on a home to sell it as quick as they can.
I think that tax should be limited to single family or duplex houses only. An exemption for people who build new houses for a set number of years just to add more supply. If we create policy that discourages building we make the problem worse.
@@Junglelove20mm I would agree that details like what you proposed would have to be added to make my idea an actual working policy. We would just need to be careful that added exemptions aren't just used to allow corporations to continue buying up homes.
@@Junglelove20mm Also I'm really thinking those sort of houses should have some sort of sin tax if they are anywhere near downtown. Basically something that goes up as cities grow thus forcing them to be replaced with more dense buildings.
Some jurisdictions implemented 'empty homes' taxes to attempt to curtail buying homes as speculative assets. However they don't attempt to prevent rentals.. not everyone wants to own a house or apartment. British Columbia in Canada is one example.
Plenty of people actually depend on their one or two rental properties for retirement though. And there are people that want to rent rather than own, particularly individuals that are t gonna stay in one location for a long time frame or those who don’t want to do maintenance work of a house. Also your idea punishes people who buy a home for their family members like their children or their parents etc..
Yes. Its more important for more people to be sheltered than for anyone to make/keep money. It’s not up for debate.
Plus it's time for all jobs to provide their workers a living wage
@@Nick84525 indeed, their pay should be proportional to the profit they create
From paying your house in 4 -5 years to pay it in 25-30 years with a mortgage, sheeesh.
I'll knock my mortgage out in ~3 years (4 years including saving up for the down payment), so it's still doable.
I recall in 2006-2007 the market had gone up so much they were selling people on *40* year mortgages. That turned out well....
@@ordinaryhuman5645 You either live in North Dakota or are some sort of Vice President of Finance
That’s America for you. Just about all major purchases are done in payment plans. Cars, smart phones, computers, furniture, etc...
@@lordstarlin Nope, an ordinary wage slave for a big corporation, doing IT things. I'm in WI, but I imagine outside of major urban areas in non-coastal states you'd have similar house prices.
Sure it may be great for homeowners but not for the millions who would like a home instead of dishing out rent. Its making it extremely difficulty for anyone to make that transition. So yes, this is something we want to solve.
Per the video the majority of people are homeowners though. I thought we all liked Democracy???
I want a Lambo, like millions around me. We need to get government to solve this as well, Lambo for everyone!
@@z3rz112 strawman much?
@@benjaminphillips5639 Not really. Both are commodities. You could argue that housing is a necessity, but housing in a certain area does not fall in the same category. I could relocate 100km away from my current place and my RE costs would fall by about 60-90%. Will I do it? No.
@@z3rz112 with what job just about anywhere that has affordable housing has crappy job prospects
Yes, we actually want affordable homes.
I thought I was as capitalist as they come, but it really ticks me off how how easy it is to get a loan on an investment property. 3 different people seems to own half of our town and rent is ridiculous for the location and average income. And a portion of those houses are Airbnb or VRBO which also causes practical scarcity
In reality, hardly anyone is actually a supporter of capitalism anymore, people just don't know it. We practically live in socialism already, it's just socialism for the rich, and dog eat dog capitalism for everyone else.
corrupt politicians not putting any limits on private companies monopolizing housing, screwing regular people who have no power to hold said politicians accountable
All I know is that the price of living has risen while wages have stagnated. Meaning most young people can just about afford to get through the month whilst renting. and owning a home seems like a distant dream.
But inflation is low because they don’t count housing and transportation
Maybe encourage greater development of high-density housing? Contribute to a measure that would dramatically reduce our carbon footprint and increase housing supply in one fell swoop? Just a thought.
@@gingerlicious3500 ah yes because because we can just do that right
Gimme a second I just need to wave my wand a little and bam problem solved
Gee im so glad you told all us young people to "just fix it" wonder what we would've done if you had never told us what to do
@@mmaranta785 yes they do? Like housing makes up about a third of the CPI.
Not really. Cost of living is measured by inflation and income has significantly increased adjusted for inflation. Personal income by ~15% since 1980 and household by ~30%
“Is this a problem?” What kind of question is that? How is most of the next generations ending up homeless not a problem?
@@matthewmcdonald1301 what?.... no way.... its maybe 20% cheaper but you are still paying off mortgage to somebody else not to yourself making yourself poorer every day
@@matthewmcdonald1301 paying of your own mortgage is investing 100%... and you have place to live
@@matthewmcdonald1301 Rent is not cheap. Paying off a mortgage is basically putting money into a savings account. Rent is nothing like that. When you pay your rent you're putting money into someone else's savings account
Instead of getting an entry lvl job somewhere straight out of school, kids today are spending 4-5-6 years at university getting degrees for jobs that have zero vacancies.
@@matthewmcdonald1301 Rent is often more expensive than mortgage payments. People just can't afford the down payment because every cent they have is going into their rent
I got the next title for you. "Should lifesaving surgery stay unnafordable?" I am sure some investors would agree. And to end the trilogy "should price per gallon of water increase even more?" And the answer is yet again yes. I might work for Nestle or not, but I feel like I should be able to charge something like 10-15 dollars per gallon of water.
if they want more water just take a third job
Honestly this is a concern, I live in a third-world city with homes priced at $200K to $400k USD, while minimum wage is ~350 USD a month.
It’s unfortunate you don’t talk about 1) financialization of housing (big funds grabbing homes) and 2) how do we actually stabilise housing prices?
For number two, reversing the half century of mass immigration seems like a good start to get a handle on that supply and demand thing. As to number one, I don't know. My best guess for that is that maybe lowering the cost of homes by re-balancing the supply and demand would make it seem like a less valuable thing for funds to buy a ton of.
He also fails to talk about the deregulation of the banking sector in the 80s which enabled banks to speculate wildly, lend more than they had in deposits etc etc etc.
@@Thalanox how do you reverse a century of immigration? just deport literally everyone who has had immigrant ancestry? why?
@@Thalanox Sounds kinda Hitler-ish
We could just force them to lower their prices by having the price be directly tied with the manufacturing cost
Wages have stagnated and rent is going up
But no one is asking: "is this a good thing?"
Yeah, lets find the silver lining here; rich people can use this to get richer!
people want unlimited immigration because it makes them feel good, while this not only creates much bigger demand for housing , but causes wages in blue collar areas to be inundated with applicants while we are becoming more and more automated. Cant have it both ways.
This deserves more likes
@@Tony-hx2fj that has nothing to do with wages stagnating... But please be keep blaming our problems on the others.
@SharkTH more congestion
Imagine holding on to a home until it is worth millions and expecting an average person to actually spend that much
The older generation is stifling the younger generation. The homeowners are holding back those who don't own homes. Sucks for many, particularly if you don't have family who can give you the down payment.
Another reason why all jobs need to provide their workers a living wage
I mean the older generation is set to hand down their wealth to their grandchildren and I imagine that a lot of them have been motivated for awhile to leave behind a notable inheritance to their posterity
If i saved 100% of my income i could afford a house in about 20 to 25 years.
There's your solution- require no food, clothing and shelter, and don't age for 20 to 25 years
@Victor Oprea at current rates an average income is just over 40k, if we pretend its 48k to make math easy and be stupidly generous then thats 4k pre taxes, average rent in the US is 1,400, already over the 25% most loans will legally allow you to pay to get a house loan, most rent is far worse than this close to 2-2.5k in areas with any income above the us average, so spending around 50% of your income pre tax on rent, before paying for anything else, so if you have the average 30% taxes most americans pay in that bracket, means you only have around 3100 a month, minus 1400 for rent, leaves 1700 for ALL other expenses, and we havent covered the car, the food, the power and gas, internet, phone bils, and thats only the required things to have a job and live, and this is ignoring healthcare which costs most Americans HUNDREDS a month, and ignores the fact most jobs paying over 25k a year required a school loan debt
I'd need 35-40. I work as a Paramedic.
Minus interest
Or... you could buy a place that doesn't have solid gold toilets... priorities.
I got the most repulsive real estate guru ad before watching this it was unbelievable.
I keep getting those whenever I watch any videos related to finance or cryptocurrency
Same 😂
I got hedges direct XD
@@alistairakaaligotbeats8841 It's always some variation of "give me your money and I'll teach you how to make money off housing with ethically wrong and legally ambiguous methods that are incredibly risky"
I got it too on mid roll 🤔
I would be 100% okay with my home DEPRECIATING every year for no reason if it meant I could actually have a realistic chance at paying it off some day and owning it.
Your principal value and loan amount doesn't depreciate. You still owe your original loan, even if your house goes down in value. It is your resale value that depreciates.
"Is there a market outcome that benefits everybody?"
Why should I care if it benefits everybody? I.e. the landlords as well?
It is not just the price to own a house that has skyrocketed, it is also the cost to rent a place. So this means no viable option for people to have a shelter. The priority is people having affordable shelter. That is all there is to it. If making a basic need a priority sounds very "communist" to some people, the onus is on them to prove it is not a basic need in the first place.
At least in Greece the reality of not being able to find an affordable (not cheap) house to buy or rent, has been going on for at least a decade. This shows a trend that would escalate with or without the pandemic. Attributing part of the rise of prices to people wanting "better houses" because of the pandemic makes it seem as if it is a quest to some sort of luxury for psychological reasons alone. People have been struggling to find houses (even with flatmates) for a long time.
So yeah considering it is a basic need we DO want to solve this crisis. Unless the shtick of the channel is controversial click-bait video titles...
"Destroying the hopes and dreams of a large section of the population, and damning them to a lifetime of paying unaffordable rent until they can no longer work and inevitably become homeless is fine, as long as they are a minority while the majority benefit from the situation and are doing just fine." - A depressingly large number of people.
I've sometimes wondered whether the Chinese government thinks this way.
Don't worry mate, pretty soon all the boomers will die and their millennial kids will sell the spare properties off to buy Tesla's, hookers and blow, and it will all balance out :)
@@Rollin8.0 some of the older boomers are already reaching the nursing home stage, meaning their homes are coming to the market.
Because you live on the net or in your head. Any talk has to be followed by a plan. Then act on it. Then results will come. Just talking yourself into paralysis/fear doesn't work.
@@Rollin8.0 Pretty soon all the boomers will die and their millennial kids will rent out the spare properties in our stupidly broken rental market to buy the same Teslas, hookers and blow. Nothing will balance out.
As a 22 year old approaching the end of university, this video terrifies me 😰
Your first mistake was going to college.
You'll rent for a few years, maybe up to 10, then probably be able to afford a down payment on a home. College isn't a mistake unless you can't use your degree, ignore that other guy.
Don't let it terrify you. Come up with a plan. It doesn't have to be perfect, but you've got to have some kind of a plan. If you buy a modest house by the time you're 30, you'll have it paid off by the time you're 60. The earlier you can do it, the better. That's less rent you pay towards someone else's equity. If you move to a new house, just follow the same timeline. If you do this, you'll be able to retire comfortably someday with no rent and no mortgage. Just run the numbers in an online calculator or talk to a mortgage lender. In all likelihood, a mortgage is cheaper than rent (for comparable properties).
Also, don't get tricked by low interest rates. It doesn't matter how much house the bank says you can afford. Buy a house that you KNOW you can afford. For example, your current rent +/- 10%. I'd rather buy when prices are low and interest rates are high than vice versa. You can always refinance if interest rates go down. You can't renegotiate the sale price when average home prices drop.
Life is one goal at a time, you can have a fine house, exciting travel, build a business, etc. You just cannot have it all at once. Not understanding that is why so many people get frustrated. The first 10 years of home ownership I had a rusty old car in the garage, and didn't travel or dine out much. Eventually nice cars, nice vacations, and all the other extras were added to the mortgage free real estate. Don't be terrified, be smart and patient. You will outperform the boomers if you keep your wits.
It's not just a matter of deposit, it's also a matter of what the banks will lend you. They usually only lend five times your annual income, so if you earn 20k, for example, the best property you can afford is about 110k. If the cheapest apartments available are 140k, you're screwed.
I suggest that there should be Universal Basic Housing as in Universal Basic Income.
It's not only a young person problem. I'm 33, a lorry driver in the UK. Feel like I'm chasing my tail getting a large enough deposit together.
If you're under 45, you're "young"
You're young if you're under 70, This isn't the cretatious period.
What is a lorry?
@@milkncookie a large vehicle used for hauling goods with a gross weight over 7.5 tonnes
@@PiOfficial like a mini semi-truck. Got it! Thanks.
When a house builder can not afford a house to live in, we have problems.
Yeah, like if a farmer goes hungry, then something is seriously wrong.
Yeah, I am a construction worker. My wife makes the same money as I do. We save every penny we can. We cannot afford a home in this market, and if we look far enough away from where our jobs are (2hr+ commute range) then we can find some homes that we could afford, if we didn't have to pay the extra fuel and maintainance costs for that type of commute (as well as being away from home 16 hours a day instead of just 12hrs a day for work, not counting all the events for our kids)
Oh, and in order to keep the kids in a school district that's worth getting a diploma from, we just can't move to those cheaper areas anyways.
@@daviddunsmore103 You have no idea how often that has been the norm through human history.
@@ddandymann I mean...yea? It was extremely common under Authoritarian and Monarch regimes.
As a homeowner, I still have the capacity to think it's crazy and probably not good overall for prices to go up as fast as they have.
Should they go up at all, like at a rate similar to inflation or maybe even a tad bit ahead of it?
"Is this a bad thing?"
As a renter in Seattle who's constantly at fear of being priced out do to skyrocketing rent AND housing costs, I'd say it's a bad thing. In the video itself, they said housing was a necessity.... In what functional world should a necessity be an investment that can appreciate in value Past what the average citizen can afford? How could that system not cause untold suffering to those that fall behind?
The reality here is that land-owners benefit when land is scarce... and scarce land in this scenario means more homeless or desperate people.... and if more upper-class people are buying property to rent and fewer affordable first-time homes are available on the market, it means more people are pushed into the rental market. This is only an investment the rich can make at this point unless you live in the middle of nowhere. If your job forces you to work near city centers like mine does, you're fucked
Edit: also, as housing prices go up, the cost to rent will also go up as investors aim for a return on investment... plus they aim for growth year after year, so it's another incentive to either cut costs or raise rent
Not only that most of the monthly wage goes into rent which forces public to become more frugal and not spend on things other than necessity which in turn slows the economy.
It’s bizarre someone who can’t afford to live in Seattle - is complaining about living in Seattle. You are not entitled to live anywhere you want. There are plenty of low priced places to live in this world.
Tbf some price appreciation is to be expected as population increases though. Also many people just commute from suburbs to city centers though. The prices shouldn’t sky rocket, but it’s also unrealistic to expect a home to keep exact same price without any growth at all from one decade to the next
EE: We don't want house prices to crash and put borrowers underwater
Me: That is a sacrifice I am willing to make
This.
The majority shouldn't suffer so the rich can get richer.
@@rod4309 Why would the rich take out mortgages?
The problem with that is that a very large proportion of the population is doing just that. If they suffer economically, that's inevitability going to have an impact on the whole economy and possibly cause another recession/depression.
@@rod4309 borrowers = anyone who can't afford to buy a house all at once, sooooo
@@Natasha-tu5qs In terms of houses, every dollar lost by home-sellers is gained by house-buyers. So no, falling housing prices by itself will not cause a recession. There is a correlation between falling house prices and recessions, but the recession always started before the house prices fell.
The downside to this for young generations is psychological. So many people in my generation have switched off, they don't care about their future any more because they know that no matter how hard they work they can't have a home to raise a family in.
Underrated comment. Throw in people who have basically given up to live off welfare and maybe chose to be homeless n BOOM. You have a generation/large group of people who got screwed by the previous gen
I have a few younger friends from work who have had to move back in with parents multiple times, that would have really screwed with my head as a youngster especially considering they work 50 hrs a week with a significant other also working and can barely afford an apartment together. I paid 545$ a month for my first place in a shady neighborhood but it was mine, the RENT just for an apartment is now 1800$ for a 1 bedroom, how the F are these kids supposed to afford that.
@@Justathought81 The issue is ALL the people want to live in a few places. It create a demand who translate into sky high prices. It's not their fault either, all the businesses are in those places too. The govt should tax businesses (who are healthy) who operate in such areas and create lower tax brackets for low population areas to force businesses to go there. Thanks to new tech and the economy of services, we can offload big cities. Massively increasing standards of living for millions of people.
Yes let it crash.
@@redcardagain7 Yep. I'm no longer spending anything, going out, etc..
I'll do my part to dismantle the economy one day at a time by simply working, buying just enough to cook food, and that's it (although I'm soon ready to quit that even and not even contribute to that)... I believe the Millennials in China call it "lying flat".
“The idea of investing in real estate wasn’t exactly mainstream”
Sometimes foreshadowing is relatively obvious
It doesn't take into account that any economy that starts to massively rely on real estate value to drive it's economy is doomed to failure. Prime example is Japan in the 80s and subsequent fall in the 90s
I'm so glad that not being able to get out of my parent's house is ok and that nothing should be done about it.
have you considered getting a better job? in a 2 year period where they are paying even super underqualified people? no? oh right, so back to the basement you go, its where you belong
@@johnsmith-fk7fw are you sugesting that there are jobs which payment shouldnt be enough for people to be indepent? Interesting.
@@Yo64130 are you suggesting every job should pay enough for a person to support a family on? answer seriously, if you can
@@johnsmith-fk7fw no, I am saying that every job must at least be enough for one person to be independent (afford food, housing, transportation, recreation and healthcare). That answering 'get a better job' is another 'learn coding' argument. Now you answer my last question please.
@@Yo64130 think, i am answering your question by asking the opposite. its unrealistic in a market economy for someone who basically does what a $40 raspberrypi and touchscreen can do to make a wage thats enough for all those things you listed. the problem is, even before technology increases, those were jobs for kids. they were never meant to be a sole source of income for an adult. so im curious, where do you think the money should come from if a cashier makes like... idk what should we call it, 70k a year?
Many federal politicians in Australia don't want the real estate market to crash because they own too many investment properties.
A vested interest, and it's not just the Feds, unfortunately. Also, all too many politicians think there are votes in keeping house prices high . The RBA is another story. The RBA is more worried about bank exposures, so they keep interest rates low, a policy which they know drives up asset prices.
@Ben Passlow Agreed, but even more insidious is their massive profiteering from, and reliance on, artificially high land prices.
There you go.
The biggest catalyst wasn't really covered; the change to FIAT currency in the 70's. There is a direct correlation between that and pricing/inflation/markets etc. Some say it was the biggest mistake that damaged the economy forever.
Yes, yes we do. I know there are complicated socioeconomic factors that may effect choices like this. However, I would like to not have to live in a tent because some investing firm like black rock would like to make a few extra bucks by making houses more expensive.
Not solving this crisis would lead to the economy collapsing as more than one generation is denied the right of shelter.
right of shelter? where is it assumed to be a right?
@@bradhaines3142 UN Fact Sheet No.21, The Human Right to Adequate Housing
www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/FactSheet21en.pdf
@@bradhaines3142 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Ya know, two international documents the United States has signed.
@@bradhaines3142 hey let's discuss this really divisive topic called ''right to water'' next
Absolutely, people are just not bothering to work or have families now because there is no hope at all, especially for the young.
middle class house in the suburbs with a lawn, backyard, 2 car garage and a white picket fence is my biggest unachievable dream
House anywhere is my biggest unachievable dream.
How is this unachievable?
Same here man
It’s called move to Detroit and buy a bullet proof vest. You well live the dream with a vest on.
bruh at this point ill settle for a 500sqft 1 bed but even thats expensive unless you plan on building it yourself
Factor #7 contributing to skyrocketing house prices: Many areas (at least here in the US) are zoned for single family homes. And many homeowners, who currently have the majority vote, don't want their areas to be rezone for multiple family homes. This exacerbates the lack of supply issue.
Between this and the channel Not Just Bike I have never felt more depressed about the world I am leaving behind for my kids. Signed an Elder Millennial
In my area, there's a perception that large corporations are buying up houses to rent, effectively turning entire neighborhoods into rental hubs. By doing this, they remove property supply from the market, causing market inflation, as well as have a majority hold on the rental market.
I actually live in a house that was converted into a 8 bedroom rental.
don't know where you are living but i see similar things in hamburg germany. i rented a row home here. half of the others are for rent too - all by the same company. the other half is still owned by old people and from what i hear from them all of these were private houses 10 years ago and they already got offers for their houses from the company.
Definitely happening in Ireland right now, so very much could be where you are.
That's why there should be a progressive property tax. Except for the house/apartment you actually live in.
@@MrLowbob I own my modest home free and clear. Since the Plague hit, I have received, on average, one cold call each week from realtors wanting to buy my house. Interestingly, the cold caller is always a foreigner. Usually Mexican or Oriental.
Is it a problem that a certain group of people (home owners) have become a lot wealthier without actually producing any added value?
Only people from that group could be wondering about the answer.
The current housing policy is just welfare for rich people
Yes and that's wrong. It's time to change the system. We need a "Government of ACTION" to fight for working families.
@@kinky_Z not when there are more voters profiting off this middle class welfare scam than there are aspirant homeowners and renters who have to suffer the consequences.
Non productive assets appreciating in value is a general economic problem because it ties up investments in doing nothing instead of being productive
In countries like Japan, young people have given up on having families because life there is too unaffordable. As such, they are currently in a population crisis that threatens their economy like nothing else.
This is the future of Western countries that don't address the housing crisis
Western countries won't have this problem because unlike Japan, Western countries would rather import labor (immigrants) than make life better for the people already here.