The Number Of Americans That Can’t Afford Their Own Homes Has More Than Doubled

[DamianTV]

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...e-than-doubled

Have you lost your spot in the middle class yet? For years I have been documenting all of the numbers that show that the middle class in America has been steadily shrinking, and we just got another one. According to a report that was produced by researchers at Harvard University, the number of Americans that spend more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing has more than doubled. In 2001, nearly 16 million Americans couldn’t afford the homes that they were currently living in, but by 2015 that figure had jumped to 38 million.

When I write about “economic collapse”, I am writing about a process that has been unfolding for decades in this country. Back in the early 1970s, well over 60 percent of all Americans were considered to be “middle class”, but now that number has fallen below 50 percent. Never before in our history has the middle class been a minority of the population, but that is where we are at now, and the middle class continues to get even smaller with each passing day.

So these new numbers saddened me, but they didn’t exactly surprise me. The following comes from NBC News…

Over 38 million American households can’t afford their housing, an increase of 146 percent in the past 16 years, according to a recent Harvard housing report.

Under federal guidelines, households that spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “cost burdened” and will have difficulty affording basic necessities like food, clothing, transportation and medical care.

But the number of Americans struggling with their housing costs has risen from almost 16 million in 2001 to 38 million in 2015, according to the Census data crunched in the report. That’s more than double.

...

Full article and reference links on top link.

[timosman]

Life is brutal.

[tod evans]

Combine this data with the number of folks whose housing is paid for out of public coffers for a more realistic picture of the economy...

Then....................Discount all property owned by government employees......

That should paint a fairly realistic picture.

[timosman]

Combine this data with the number of folks whose housing is paid for out of public coffers for a more realistic picture of the economy...

Then....................Discount all property owned by government employees......

That should paint a fairly realistic picture.

No wonder this place is a $#@!hole.

[tod evans]

No wonder this place is a $#@!hole.

Which place is that?

[Zippyjuan]

What is the solution? Let supply (not rising) and demand (which is rising) determine prices? But that would lead to higher prices (which it has).

Should the government try to influence housing supplies? Restrict B&Bs or short term rentals to increase supplies available for rent or purchase? Mandate higher wages or lower housing prices to raise incomes and make them more affordable but raise prices of everything else? Or just wait for the baby boomers to die off and the demand will fall and more houses become available? Offer incentives to builiders to add more homes? Mandate "low income housing"? (cities have a limited supply of land available to commit to housing as their populations grow- unless they build higher).



https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrenc.../#2aa611269f66

Housing Demand over the Next Decade

Housing data in January gave mixed signals on the direction for the year. Closing activity for existing home sales shot up to a decade-high of 5.69 million units at an annualized pace, but pending contracts fell to their lowest level in 12 months. For the whole of 2017, I expect existing home sales to reach 5.6 million, which would be a gain of 2.2% from the prior year, but below the annualized pace set in January. In short, expect sideway movements for the rest of the year.

Even though home sales will not make much gains, home prices will. With inventories still at grossly inadequate levels, there is only one direction to go for home prices. The national median price will likely rise by 4% to 5%. Do not be surprised if it goes up even higher. While the country needs around 1.6 million new housing starts, only around 1.3 million units will be constructed, based on permit information and from labor and lot shortages facing the industry.

For local markets, check how new home construction is coming online in relation to local job growth to gauge if home prices will outpace the national average growth rate. For example, in Savannah, Georgia, there have been only 6,000 new units built cumulatively over the past three years while 18,000 net new jobs have been added. Historically, one new housing unit is required for every two new jobs. Therefore, demand is outpacing supply there and home price outlook is solid in Savannah.

Though there are many short-term factors and dynamics at play, it is also worthwhile to gauge what is likely to happen over the long-term. Specifically, housing demand over the next decade will be notably higher than it is now. The combined factors of a rising population and jobs with the release of the pent-up demand will be the principal drivers.

There are 325 million people living in the U.S. today, and one new birth occurs every 8 seconds (and death every 11 seconds). At that rate, the population will rise to 352 million in ten years. That is a gain of 27 million additional people, but not all age groups will see an increase. The number of young adults in their 20s will actually fall. This demographic are mostly renters, and hence, rental demand will flatline. Real estate investors should be mindful that even though there is good rent growth today, that certainly will not be the case in a few years, especially given the ramp-up in apartment construction over the past few years.

The number of people in their 30s will grow by five million in 10 years (from 43 million to 48 million). This 12% growth means that first-time homebuyers will become more numerous.

The number of people in their 40s will be grow by three million or 7%. They are the ones that will be trading-up to a better home as their finances improve with years.

The number of people in the 50s will fall by nearly 4 million. They are the few and the proud of the baby-bust generation. The proud is less important than the few as regards to demand for second homes. Be careful in resort markets that cater principally to these groups.

[tod evans]

What is the solution?

Get government out of the housing business of course.

Shut down HUD, shut down Fanny-n-Freddy and shut down all forms of subsidized loans and rents.

See the 'solution' isn't to provide housing for those who can't afford it.........You're not entitled to a roof, or food or a doctor....

[Zippyjuan]

Get government out of the housing business of course.

Shut down HUD, shut down Fanny-n-Freddy and shut down all forms of subsidized loans and rents.

See the 'solution' isn't to provide housing for those who can't afford it.........You're not entitled to a roof, or food or a doctor....

So then there really isn't an affordable housing problem.

[angelatc]

Life is brutal.

Take California out of the stats and let's see what's left.

[angelatc]

So then there really isn't an affordable housing problem.

This is why you get negged.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So then there really isn't an affordable housing problem.

Tod Evans just outlined it. If I have a sore foot, then I am not going to demand you pay for it through government action.

This is why you get negged.

Again.

[juleswin]

Weird, my question is this. Why is paying more than 30% of your income on housing an indication that one cannot afford their house? Maybe their house also doubles as their retirement investment? These people are not defaulting on their payment and yet the author assumes they cannot afford their house.

I cannot go along with the premise of this article.

[phill4paul]

So then there really isn't an affordable housing problem.

There is now. Not with the government out of it. Without government you could build your own home. Without government you could live three families in a two bedroom home. Without government, builders could build more of what people can pay for. Without government zoning, people could build the type of home they want, not what the zoning board wants, on their property. Without government their wouldn't be a requirement to hook to city water, sewer and electricity.
If by "problem" you mean that someone on minimum wage cannot afford a first home, well, it's never been that way. Could never be that way. In my early years I would go in with 2-3 pals to be able to afford a decent rental. Nobody gets a two bedroom, two bath all to their own unless, wait for it, they can "afford" it. Which means working your ass of to get it.

[Zippyjuan]

This is why you get negged.

What would you suggest to solve it? (I didn't offer one solution- only suggested some possible ones- some with, some without out government intervention)? What determines if housing is "affordable" or not? Is it an arbitrary percent of income? Is it what people are willing and able to pay for it? (some may be willing and able to pay a higher percent of their income than others- for example spending more to get into what they consider a better location/ neighborhood)?

[timosman]

What would you suggest to solve it?

Facebook style: you send a copy of a notary certified driver license to the site and disclose the name of your employer.

[Zippyjuan]

How has "affordability" changed over time?



https://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-affordability

[timosman]

Mortgage affordability does not include taxes or so it seems.

[phill4paul]

What would you suggest to solve it? (I didn't offer one solution- only suggested some possible ones- some with, some without out government intervention)? What determines if housing is "affordable" or not? Is it an arbitrary percent of income? Is it what people are willing and able to pay for it? (some may be willing and able to pay a higher percent of their income than others- for example spending more to get into what they consider a better location/ neighborhood)?

I suppose when considering whether it is affordable one would also have to include their definition of "housing." There is a wide spectrum between a trailer and a McMansion.

[euphemia]

So then there really isn't an affordable housing problem.

It depends on where you live. At the moment, Nashville is a super hot market. There are very few homes available, and the new homes are in the high end market. Furthermore, downtown development is displacing the poor, some of whom lived in the homes in which their parents grew up. Upwardly mobile people can find a home if they can get their financing together in a hurry, but the poor, not so much.

[Zippyjuan]

It depends on where you live. At the moment, Nashville is a super hot market. There are very few homes available, and the new homes are in the high end market. Furthermore, downtown development is displacing the poor, some of whom lived in the homes in which their parents grew up. Upwardly mobile people can find a home if they can get their financing together in a hurry, but the poor, not so much.

You are right- it is worse in larger cities. They face much more supply/ demand issues and tend to have housing prices rise much more- soaring in New York and LA while falling in places like Detroit.

[timosman]

You are right- it is worse in larger cities. They face much more supply/ demand issues and tend to have housing prices rise much more- soaring in New York and LA while falling in places like Detroit.

Oh, the supply/demand issues. Nothing to do with printing money like crazy by the Federal Reserve.

[euphemia]

You are right- it is worse in larger cities. They face much more supply/ demand issues and tend to have housing prices rise much more- soaring in New York and LA while falling in places like Detroit.

It is not necessarily big cities, it is the trendy cities. Nashville has more to offer than entertainment, but I'm afraid the entertainment is displacing the poor. The Titans took a piece of property for their practice field that took out a lot of residential property. Granted, the homes were small and run down, but they belonged to the people who owned them. They did not get reasonable market value for those homes, either.

Our neighborhood has not increased in value as much as some, but our most recent tax appraisal was almost double what we paid for it, and our home is 960 square feet. Our little neighborhood has seen a lot of turnover, and some homes remained vacant for a couple of years. Now they are snapped up as soon as they hit the market because the need is so great. Most of the new housing, as I mentioned, is high end, including the lines of condos going in downtown. Government intervention killed downtown, so there is nothing of real substance there. No grocery stores or department stores. Just entertainment. People have to go a long way just to buy a pair of work shoes or a set of sheets.

Our daughter's family recently decided to leave New York, and they couldn't afford a home here. They are now in the outskirts of St Louis, which is still relatively affordable. They were able to get a lot of house for their money, but that is not the case here.

[Zippyjuan]

It is not necessarily big cities, it is the trendy cities. Nashville has more to offer than entertainment, but I'm afraid the entertainment is displacing the poor. The Titans took a piece of property for their practice field that took out a lot of residential property. Granted, the homes were small and run down, but they belonged to the people who owned them. They did not get reasonable market value for those homes, either.

Our neighborhood has not increased in value as much as some, but our most recent tax appraisal was almost double what we paid for it, and our home is 960 square feet. Our little neighborhood has seen a lot of turnover, and some homes remained vacant for a couple of years. Now they are snapped up as soon as they hit the market because the need is so great. Most of the new housing, as I mentioned, is high end, including the lines of condos going in downtown. Government intervention killed downtown, so there is nothing of real substance there. No grocery stores or department stores. Just entertainment. People have to go a long way just to buy a pair of work shoes or a set of sheets.

Our daughter's family recently decided to leave New York, and they couldn't afford a home here. They are now in the outskirts of St Louis, which is still relatively affordable. They were able to get a lot of house for their money, but that is not the case here.

One good thing California has- a cap on property taxes based on what you bought it for- not what your neighbor bought his for (voter approved initiative). Place right next to mine and identical size/ layout just sold for three times what I got mine for (about 15 years ago). Thankfully, my property tax has not tripled. My sister moved to Texas because she thought a home may be more affordable there- it was, but she spends the difference in higher cooling costs.

[oyarde]

What am I missing ? If you are paying 25 - 33
percent say , of median income type ..... you should have money for the other basic expenses . Utilities , gas , auto ins , repairs , life ins , property tax , food etc

[devil21]

Mortgages themselves are an absurdity.

The bank creates the mortgage "money" out of thin air the moment one signs the promissory note. Then the borrower (who just essentially borrowed THEIR OWN MONEY/CREDIT) signs a 'Deed of Trust' that turns the ownership of the property over to the government, acting as trustee of the property and agent of the bankers, without even taking a moment to understand what they're signing. They do it because some attorney in a wood paneled room stuck a stack of papers in their face and said "sign here". The borrower, in effect, ignorantly but voluntarily becomes a renter living in a property that they owned for only the length of time between signing the Note and Deed of Trust (30 seconds max) and will then, through their own labor, pay the bank many times the amount the bank created out of nothing, which was the borrower's credit in the first place, and never actually own the property even after the mortgage is paid off. Property taxes are merely a rental payment to the landlord. Next time anyone decides to engage in the absurdity of a mortgage, sign the promissory note but then refuse to sign the Deed of Trust. Watch the attorney $#@! himself and throw a fit trying trying to get you to sign the Deed of Trust.

(same generally applies to car loans, also, with the added wrinkle of "registering" the vehicle so that the trustee knows where to find its property in case the trustee decides to take it back.)

[tod evans]

What am I missing ? If you are paying 25 - 33
percent say , of median income type ..... you should have money for the other basic expenses . Utilities , gas , auto ins , repairs , life ins , property tax , food etc

25-30% toward a mortgage, 25-30% toward taxes, 10-15% toward mandated insurance....

By the time you pay utilities and eat, a mule looks better than a car.....

[Zippyjuan]

Mortgages themselves are an absurdity.

The bank creates the mortgage "money" out of thin air the moment one signs the promissory note. Then the borrower (who just essentially borrowed THEIR OWN MONEY/CREDIT) signs a 'Deed of Trust' that turns the ownership of the property over to the government, acting as trustee of the property and agent of the bankers, without even taking a moment to understand what they're signing. They do it because some attorney in a wood paneled room stuck a stack of papers in their face and said "sign here". The borrower, in effect, ignorantly but voluntarily becomes a renter living in a property that they owned for only the length of time between signing the Note and Deed of Trust (30 seconds max) and will then, through their own labor, pay the bank many times the amount the bank created out of nothing, which was the borrower's credit in the first place, and never actually own the property even after the mortgage is paid off. Property taxes are merely a rental payment to the landlord. Next time anyone decides to engage in the absurdity of a mortgage, sign the promissory note but then refuse to sign the Deed of Trust. Watch the attorney $#@! himself and throw a fit trying trying to get you to sign the Deed of Trust.

(same generally applies to car loans, also, with the added wrinkle of "registering" the vehicle so that the trustee knows where to find its property in case the trustee decides to take it back.)

Still a better deal than renting. At least as an owner you get something for your money. As a renter, you get nothing and pay the owner's taxes for him. The rest is profits for him- if you are the owner, you get to keep that portion yourself. Then you end up with an asset you can sell. Me- I am glad I bought and paid mine off. If I rented, I would be paying at least three times as much for a similar place to live- that leaves a lot more money every year I can save or spend on other things. And its current worth is far more than the money I spent paying for it.

[VIDEODROME]

I'm working as a Truck Driver.

I have some stuff stored at my parents' place, but I basically live free from Rent or a House payment. I get my mail from a rented Private Mailbox.

I guess this is one option for people who can't afford a home and are fed up. Hop into transportation. Go Maritime and live on a ship or hit the highway like me and live in a truck. I really don't like living this way, but it's what I came up with for a job.

[gaazn]

More concerning is that over half of school children are eligible for free or reduced lunch.

[tod evans]

More concerning is that over half of school children are eligible for free or reduced lunch.

Remember that over half the adult population receives "a check" from government, so this should be no surprise.

What irks me is the growing number of people who claim 'employment' with various factions of government.........Their part of the dole grants them the ability to purchase homes and cars just like a working man...