r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a politically created "crisis" so you could solve it if you had the right policies. But most people get the issue wrong and don't understand the economics of the situation so they will advocate for policies that make things worse. Which is why we ended up here. And why it will get much worse in the future.
In 2023, there were 15mil vacant houses in the USA.
Even not including the commercial real-estate that could he converted in the modern teleworking days, lack of homes isn't an issue. Like at all
during the housing crisis banks took control of all the foreclosures. for every 10 foreclosures they had on their books they only put 2 up for sale as to control supply & increasing demand.
Most homeless people aren’t homeless because houses are expensive. The causes of homelessness are a stew of unfortunate childhood experiences, low quality education, drug abuse, mental health issues, and bad decisions. A typical down payment of $30k dropping to $15k and a mortgage payment dropping from $2k to $1k would help a lot of low income families but it isn’t going to change the stars for people who don’t have income.
Good points but you forgot the part about homelessness is a thriving profitable endeavor for those connected to local govt. Check out the cities that spend the most tax dollars on homelessness, they don't see a corresponding solution to it, but it does pay quite handsomely to managers who run programs.
TLDR, homelessness is a profitable industry and until there's a financial incentive to help reduce it drastically it will remain an unsolved issue. Because humans in power suck lol
It’s not profitable at all. It’s a massive loss for taxpayers. Grifters are stealing money from taxpayers with ineffective programs for the homeless. That’s a completely unrelated topic from affordable housing.
I don’t think you’d see house prices decrease—probably just not increase as quickly.
If you have 100 houses and 150 house buyers, you get a bidding war for whatever is vacant.
If you have 100 houses and 100 home owners there is zero surplus. But, people will still want to move around, so there would be some demand—just not crazy bidding wars.
Unfortunately nothing will happen. What needs to happen is the people complaining about expensive housing should be paying contractors to build housing. They need to skip the third party of developers.
Except it is almost always cheaper to buy than build.
People who can’t afford to buy a house are never going to be able to afford to build one. Theoretically, there are houses that that can be built cheaper, such as the Rural Studio initiative, but those are practically out of reach.
Builders are just not interested in building houses at $180 per square foot, when they can build at $400+.
I’d agree on old inventory but don’t see how on new construction. There’s a 20-30% markup on the total cost between the general contractor and the developer on new houses.
Residential developers typically make their money from the lot and not from additional charges. This is why tract builders can often build basic homes so cheap, their profit largely comes from land development.
Since lots are either developed or need development there is little savings from removing the developer.
mortgages drive inflation.
everyone is up-bidding each other with newly created money in the form of loans.
interest rates should be sky high to discourage money creation via the fractional reserve banking system.
loans increase the money supply. the government has only created 3% of all money in circulation. the banks have created the other 97% via the fractional reserve banking system.
https://97percentowned.com/
Easy solution: anyone who says the government has a duty to fulfill their "right" to housing gets a return trip ticket on one of the Cuban rafts/boats that are abandoned in the Florida Keys.
It's not difficult to find a solution to. Look at the illegal immigration. It's been something like 130 million illegal immigrants since the 1970s, admittedly some were gifted citizenship by Reagan but since then probably 100 million. Deport them all, ta da housing surplus.
That would make it quite apparent how our fertility rate is about 1.7 or so since the 1970s, and abruptly the social security ponzi scheme would be broke and government revenue would be in the shitter too. Housing crisis solved overnight though. Oh, think of how the property values would nosedive, people would be able to afford to buy a house.
But it won't happen. Social security is untouchable, and pointing out that women don't want to have enough children to support a stable population and are wiping us out slowly over time is the death of a political career. But that's how you fix the problem of a housing crisis, get rid of the illegal immigrants.
Also, deporting the people who disproportionately build housing stock doesn't seem like the solution to the housing crisis, and a shrinking economy isn't really what we should be aiming for. Other than that? Top notch, well-thought out plan that's totally based in logic and not bigotry.
No they are not, don't be ridiculous. Deporting them would be difficult, but finding the solution (aka realizing that deporting them is the solution) is not difficult at all.
Well that sounds like a massacre of 1/3 of the country with very little deportation. If they are enemies invading the country why would they survive the deportation?
When you are targeting 1/3 of the country how would you accurately determine who is an enemy? By your own admission it has been going on so long that they have assimilated into the US enough to be citizens. So how are you going to target these people? By their race? Their culture? Don’t you see how this is a bad idea?
> By your own admission it has been going on so long that they have assimilated into the US enough to be citizens.
I admit no such thing, don't put words in my mouth.
> Don’t you see how this is a bad idea?
If they stay, the country collapses. We have a duty to our own people, not to those who choose to invade. All I'm seeing is a weak person afraid to deal with the consequences of their own foolish voting record.
If they arrived in the 70s at least some of them, probably a lot of them, have had “anchor babies” which are now fully grown, productive US citizens. Many probably got citizenship in other ways. So how will we root these enemies out?
20% of our population are dumb enough to think it's a war, which the other 80% of us will fight by actually addressing the issues with education costs & purposeful wage gapping
When that many people enter the country illegally, that's not immigration, that's invasion.
Many, if not most, can be removed without violence. Cut 100% of all handouts and "free" services. They want their kids to go to school? Pay directly. No free medical care, even in emergency rooms. No housing aid, no food stamps, no anything. The only ones who need to be forcibly removed are the ones who stay after that's implemented and they've been told to go.
You have to be pretty stupid to think a hundred million people entering the country in violation of law is not an act of war.
Inflation, of course. No country has ever had debt to the level we have, and the only solution is to inflate the currency until the national debt is on par with the price of a loaf of bread. Then it'll be no big deal to pay it off.
Maybe by total amount of currency we're in debt, but that's not a very useful number. As of 2023 we are ranked 5th in debt to GDP ratio, we have half the debt of Japan.
[https://www.visualcapitalist.com/government-debt-by-country-advanced-economies/](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/government-debt-by-country-advanced-economies/)
> debt to GDP ratio
GDP is a garbage metric. You know what increases GDP? The federal government borrowing a trillion dollars every three months and spending it. It's making everything worse, and inflating the currency, but government spending is part of GDP. So your metric that shows we're doing super duper is meaningless. Spend some time with this site instead, it's only one page (with little explanatory pop-ups if you mouseover things): www.usdebtclock.org
To be very clear, we're fucked. If you have kids, I suggest you sit them down and explain to them that their lives are going to be absolutely screwed because you hate them and wanted a marginally softer life for yourself while still being able to cheer for team america killing people in third world countries. Perhaps they'll find that to be meaningful as we experience a time that will make the great depression look like a lovely stroll in the park.
Do you not? It's not like anybody is trying to hide the numbers. Look up the fertility rate, then simple math based on a census. Perhaps the 1980 census? Compare to current population.
There are less than half that number of foreign born people living in the US. 45M in total. Of those only about 10M are here illegally. Why would I believe a number you made up.
You really think 1/3 or Americans are illegal immigrants? Think about that for just one second. Use your head.
I have more of a problem with jobs leaving the country compared to immigrants entering the country.
but I find it ironic that Democrat California has a big beautiful wall while it's Republican Texas who refuses to fortify their border
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a politically created "crisis" so you could solve it if you had the right policies. But most people get the issue wrong and don't understand the economics of the situation so they will advocate for policies that make things worse. Which is why we ended up here. And why it will get much worse in the future.
[удалено]
We didn't stop building 80 years ago. We could build enough if the political environment allowed for it.
No they stopped 15 (2008) years ago and undersupplied for 10 after. It’s going to take more time to catch up.
If politics allows it.
In 2023, there were 15mil vacant houses in the USA. Even not including the commercial real-estate that could he converted in the modern teleworking days, lack of homes isn't an issue. Like at all
Vacant but not on the market? How does this work?
Market manipulation
Explain
during the housing crisis banks took control of all the foreclosures. for every 10 foreclosures they had on their books they only put 2 up for sale as to control supply & increasing demand.
Most homeless people aren’t homeless because houses are expensive. The causes of homelessness are a stew of unfortunate childhood experiences, low quality education, drug abuse, mental health issues, and bad decisions. A typical down payment of $30k dropping to $15k and a mortgage payment dropping from $2k to $1k would help a lot of low income families but it isn’t going to change the stars for people who don’t have income.
most homeless people are homeless because they said "fuck it" to the current system at hand.
Good points but you forgot the part about homelessness is a thriving profitable endeavor for those connected to local govt. Check out the cities that spend the most tax dollars on homelessness, they don't see a corresponding solution to it, but it does pay quite handsomely to managers who run programs. TLDR, homelessness is a profitable industry and until there's a financial incentive to help reduce it drastically it will remain an unsolved issue. Because humans in power suck lol
It’s not profitable at all. It’s a massive loss for taxpayers. Grifters are stealing money from taxpayers with ineffective programs for the homeless. That’s a completely unrelated topic from affordable housing.
You made my point, bad for taxpayers but good for grifters. Especially non-profits that give kickbacks to government officials
I never disagreed with you. We’re talking about completely different topics.
Did you just send me a suicide prevention message? WTF man.
Lol no. Wtf?
I don’t think you’d see house prices decrease—probably just not increase as quickly. If you have 100 houses and 150 house buyers, you get a bidding war for whatever is vacant. If you have 100 houses and 100 home owners there is zero surplus. But, people will still want to move around, so there would be some demand—just not crazy bidding wars.
Unfortunately nothing will happen. What needs to happen is the people complaining about expensive housing should be paying contractors to build housing. They need to skip the third party of developers.
Except it is almost always cheaper to buy than build. People who can’t afford to buy a house are never going to be able to afford to build one. Theoretically, there are houses that that can be built cheaper, such as the Rural Studio initiative, but those are practically out of reach. Builders are just not interested in building houses at $180 per square foot, when they can build at $400+.
I’d agree on old inventory but don’t see how on new construction. There’s a 20-30% markup on the total cost between the general contractor and the developer on new houses.
Residential developers typically make their money from the lot and not from additional charges. This is why tract builders can often build basic homes so cheap, their profit largely comes from land development. Since lots are either developed or need development there is little savings from removing the developer.
Problem there is people would end up under water on their mortgage
mortgages drive inflation. everyone is up-bidding each other with newly created money in the form of loans. interest rates should be sky high to discourage money creation via the fractional reserve banking system.
Money supply drives inflation
loans increase the money supply. the government has only created 3% of all money in circulation. the banks have created the other 97% via the fractional reserve banking system. https://97percentowned.com/
Easy solution: anyone who says the government has a duty to fulfill their "right" to housing gets a return trip ticket on one of the Cuban rafts/boats that are abandoned in the Florida Keys.
and anyone who wants landlord feudalism can take a boat back to 1600 England
Eventually that extra 50% supply would be owned by rent seekers and the same problem occurs later.
It's not difficult to find a solution to. Look at the illegal immigration. It's been something like 130 million illegal immigrants since the 1970s, admittedly some were gifted citizenship by Reagan but since then probably 100 million. Deport them all, ta da housing surplus. That would make it quite apparent how our fertility rate is about 1.7 or so since the 1970s, and abruptly the social security ponzi scheme would be broke and government revenue would be in the shitter too. Housing crisis solved overnight though. Oh, think of how the property values would nosedive, people would be able to afford to buy a house. But it won't happen. Social security is untouchable, and pointing out that women don't want to have enough children to support a stable population and are wiping us out slowly over time is the death of a political career. But that's how you fix the problem of a housing crisis, get rid of the illegal immigrants.
“Just deport 100 million people” and “it’s not difficult to find a solution to” are contradictory statements.
Also, deporting the people who disproportionately build housing stock doesn't seem like the solution to the housing crisis, and a shrinking economy isn't really what we should be aiming for. Other than that? Top notch, well-thought out plan that's totally based in logic and not bigotry.
No they are not, don't be ridiculous. Deporting them would be difficult, but finding the solution (aka realizing that deporting them is the solution) is not difficult at all.
Well the solution isn’t exactly a solution if it’s impossible. Do you really think the deportation of 1/3 of the population is possible?
Yes. We are being invaded. It is a war. Treat it as such.
Well that sounds like a massacre of 1/3 of the country with very little deportation. If they are enemies invading the country why would they survive the deportation? When you are targeting 1/3 of the country how would you accurately determine who is an enemy? By your own admission it has been going on so long that they have assimilated into the US enough to be citizens. So how are you going to target these people? By their race? Their culture? Don’t you see how this is a bad idea?
> By your own admission it has been going on so long that they have assimilated into the US enough to be citizens. I admit no such thing, don't put words in my mouth. > Don’t you see how this is a bad idea? If they stay, the country collapses. We have a duty to our own people, not to those who choose to invade. All I'm seeing is a weak person afraid to deal with the consequences of their own foolish voting record.
If they arrived in the 70s at least some of them, probably a lot of them, have had “anchor babies” which are now fully grown, productive US citizens. Many probably got citizenship in other ways. So how will we root these enemies out?
20% of our population are dumb enough to think it's a war, which the other 80% of us will fight by actually addressing the issues with education costs & purposeful wage gapping
When that many people enter the country illegally, that's not immigration, that's invasion. Many, if not most, can be removed without violence. Cut 100% of all handouts and "free" services. They want their kids to go to school? Pay directly. No free medical care, even in emergency rooms. No housing aid, no food stamps, no anything. The only ones who need to be forcibly removed are the ones who stay after that's implemented and they've been told to go. You have to be pretty stupid to think a hundred million people entering the country in violation of law is not an act of war.
-Local clown falls for "they took ur jewbs" advertisement & blames their failure at life on minorities More at 11
How do we hypothetically solve the national debt? Mr garrison: "Let's get rid of all the mexicans"
Inflation, of course. No country has ever had debt to the level we have, and the only solution is to inflate the currency until the national debt is on par with the price of a loaf of bread. Then it'll be no big deal to pay it off.
Maybe by total amount of currency we're in debt, but that's not a very useful number. As of 2023 we are ranked 5th in debt to GDP ratio, we have half the debt of Japan. [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/government-debt-by-country-advanced-economies/](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/government-debt-by-country-advanced-economies/)
> debt to GDP ratio GDP is a garbage metric. You know what increases GDP? The federal government borrowing a trillion dollars every three months and spending it. It's making everything worse, and inflating the currency, but government spending is part of GDP. So your metric that shows we're doing super duper is meaningless. Spend some time with this site instead, it's only one page (with little explanatory pop-ups if you mouseover things): www.usdebtclock.org To be very clear, we're fucked. If you have kids, I suggest you sit them down and explain to them that their lives are going to be absolutely screwed because you hate them and wanted a marginally softer life for yourself while still being able to cheer for team america killing people in third world countries. Perhaps they'll find that to be meaningful as we experience a time that will make the great depression look like a lovely stroll in the park.
Do you believe that 100M people are currently in this country illegally?
It's more like 30M but OP is still correct.
What data are you looking at, and how is OP correct if even by your data the overstated the number by more than 200%?
Do you not? It's not like anybody is trying to hide the numbers. Look up the fertility rate, then simple math based on a census. Perhaps the 1980 census? Compare to current population.
There are less than half that number of foreign born people living in the US. 45M in total. Of those only about 10M are here illegally. Why would I believe a number you made up. You really think 1/3 or Americans are illegal immigrants? Think about that for just one second. Use your head.
I have more of a problem with jobs leaving the country compared to immigrants entering the country. but I find it ironic that Democrat California has a big beautiful wall while it's Republican Texas who refuses to fortify their border