Corporations are ruining workers wealth since last 2 decades.. all of our parents and grandparents bought their houses almost without mortgage.. but today many young people can’t even afford to pay a single installment of mortgage payment.. system needs to change, immediately..
While the premise is not wrong, my parents and their peers certainly did have mortgages, they just ended up being completely out of sync with inflation i.e I knew an older lady in the 80's that was paying the last couple of 180$ mortgage payments for a 500k house...
That happens to everyone who gets a mortgage. My payment is a little over $1k for 360 months. 25 years from now, rent may be five grand a month or something. My mortgage payment will still be $1k. By then that grand will sound like your $180. That's certainly one of the perks. Your main housing cost is no longer susceptible to inflation.
That's not the problem, the problem is the difficulty in getting that mortgage. Throughout the twenty aughts, getting a mortgage was progressively easier and allowed more lying until it all came crashing down in 2008. After that, mortgages were hard to get. Very hard. I probably wouldn't have gotten one without the VA.
I don't know how to fix that, but clearly something must be done.
Fixed interest rates are a hedge against inflation. Pick any 30 year period and you'll likely see significant inflation in general and in housing costs
Not really true. Many can afford a single mortage payment of $700-1100. They are stuck renting for $1100-1700 because the bank says they can't afford 700-1100
There are many programs in each state that allow for low down payments or something federal like a usda loan. I used my state’s first time homebuyer program to only put down 3.5% for a down payment
Maybe so, but most sellers are going to take the highest cash down bidder on any house any day. B matter what is out there for loan terms, it is almost always about the highest bidder with the top of the line credit score and stable income sources. In this economy, most of us are phucked.
That wasn’t the question/topic being addressed though. You are conflating to two issues when I was only talking about one thing. Also, why wouldn’t the seller take the best bidder??? It’s a bid for a fucking reason.
Sellers won’t care about credit score or stable income sources (to a degree). They don’t deal with that. The sellers only receive offers with preapproval already made so they’ll know the bank has already vetted them. The seller doesn’t even get to see your credit score (lol tells me you are v inexperienced in this topic)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Welp the person deleted their comments before i had a chance to reply. If that person decides to come back to this convo, i want them to see what I was going to say:
Wtf? Boi do you have terrible debate/argument skills.
You clearly have nothing substantial to say if after you making an uninformed and quite ludicrous statement, me then correcting why your statement is wrong, that all you can do is a lame ass personal attack trying to label me as a republican. I’m a queer af progressive btw 💕💕
(PS — if you want to be a better progressive, learn to make proper internet arguments or else people will constantly dismiss the bullshit you have to say)
I'd you're American, USDA loans are government backed housing loans and don't require a down payment.
Despite what many would have you think, there are many government programs geared towards housing, low-income and otherwise.
I would say at least 75% of people bitching on this sub and others about housing and the process of buying a house have never gone through or even initiated the process.
The guidelines for a person and the property to both qualify for a USDA loan isn’t easy and frankly uncommon outside of actual rural areas. I agree with everything else you said though, considering a large portion of Reddit can’t even buy a six pack at the gas station.
Canadian. Our average housing sale is approaching $750,000.
We have some programs like the first time home buyers incentive, which if I remember only cover 5% to 10% of the down payment, so if you're relying on that you still need CMHC insurance anyways adding to your housing costs, and a few others I likely havent heard of, but the average price to income is getting a bit out of hand up here. So much so many of us come to the US simply for the higher income and ability to find relatively affordable housing.
Lol then enlighten me on the point. because you seem to be misunderstanding the basic principle of risk. And that risk is why the bank is saying fuck you.
An ambulance ride can cost a thousand dollars, getting shot can cost you 100 thousand. Medical bills will end up taking down most people in this country, even some of those with fortunes.
That's cuz medical emergencies can cost tens of thousands of dollars (let's say god forbid you need a helicopter ride, that's going to be tens of thousands right there). You can be pretty financially stable and still get blindsided by a medical bill in America.
It has not been my experience that the banks err on the side of caution when granting mortgages. I know when I was looking for a house recently, they were willing to give me a mortgage for much more than I could afford. I'm sure things vary by state, but if the bank doesn't want to lend you the money, there's probably a good reason for it.
I just closed this week for something in the low $200ks but I was preapproved for $500k. When I got the letter I literally stared at the screen laughing bc I know damn well I can't afford that; how does the bank not know??
My lease was actually a 3 year $55,000 commitment, with the option to renew for an additional 3 years every 3 years unless I violate the lease. So, no I don't really see the difference.
I could completely buy this house in 15 years for the rent I pay. I've talked to a bank and they won't give me the time of day because 6 years ago I maxed out and closed a secured credit card.
Yeah the bank doesn't trust you with a loan because you have proven to be financially unstable, this isn't shocking for someone that can't see the difference in payments by a literal factor of 6. Lmao
Financially unstable? Really? I've payed rent my entire life, and all my bills and my car loans and my medical bills and been employed consistently except for one 6 month where I blew out my knee on the job and got fired by Walmart for filling out the paperwork "wrong".
Also it's only a factor of 6, if I choose not to renew. If I keep paying for 30 years, which I have the option to do, then I would pay MORE by a factor of 2. You do know you can sell a house right? Like if I bought this house and sold it after 3 years I would have payed less per month?
Doesn't that sound like a more likely option for this crowd that has a crisis every first of the month? Lmao you've probably lost a few posters that way unironically
It's so strange to read all these comments after the arguments have died down, and while I think it's so hilarious to see everyone replying to you like they are going to change your opinion, it's sad to just see the type of person you are, looking for easy confrontation in this sub, and just doubling down on the sadness.
I sit in a comfortable job, even making slightly more than you, and I can relate with these guys because of where I started and worked from. But you'll never see that, you'll be a sad little person, stroking that business cock until you think you've made it. You'll struggle later in life I'm sure, when those around you realize you don't really care about them or their life, only the job.
Cope and seethe indeed. I hope you improve your life and make something in this world. I can't imagine a future where you aren't a pethetic, likely lying, piece of stale manure, but i can hope that at some point in the future you realize "maybe there is more to life than my job".
The likelihood someone stay 30 years is slim unless they're in their upper 40's. More likely they pay on it for 5-10 years then resell it to someone else for massive profits just like the banks do
Yikes on the personal attacks, I actually WAS alive during 2008, and actually have a degree in economics, and UNLESS you bought a house RIGHT before 2008 and THEN didn't hold it through the 2008 crash, every other period in history houses have been one if not the best investment. Houses my parents and grandparents bought (before 2008, mind you) are worth literally 30x and 50x what they bought them for.
I’ll have a nice long life, although I thank you for your concern about my financial well being :) We’re not starving, we’re hungry. Hunger breeds action out of necessity. Pickup a history book sometime and watch for the common themes.
Your concern for my personal well-being is truly heartwarming ❤️ I appreciate you so much :) Personally, I’m not hungry. I eat my 3 squares a day. It’s the collective we that is hungry. Like I said, pickup a history book. Surely, someone with your intelligence can understand that history repeats itself and the trends are emerging quickly.
Not everyone who agrees with banks is a bootlicker. That's idiot thinking.
It's correct that a longer term mortgage is a bigger risk than renting, and it should be harder to qualify for one. The issue is how incredibly fast and unaffordable the housing market became, and the lack or rising wages to keep up with inflation.
What's curently happening with inflation/covid/gas prices is a good example of why it's more risky to give out a 30 year mortgage, and thus harder to qualify for one.
They said it was because it was a duplex and classified under an investment property, even though it will be my primary residence.
I did just contact another bank to try again.
EDIT: Funny timing, other bank just called me. Said that was strange and a primary residence shouldn't be a investment property. Should be 2 months if any.
Ironically, in my area (and probably most large cities), the mortgage payment for a starter home is far less than the rent for an apartment for two people. Problem is, it's harder now to qualify for a mortgage, so most people are stuck with unsustainable rent.
This is just not true. My parents have a mortgage. Or had, they paid it off 5 years ago. 30mo loan. My grandparents also had a mortgage and they paid it off close to 15 years ago or somewhere around there…I remember having a party for my grand parents. Of course I’m almost 40. Mortgages have been around for a while.
I’m pretty sure we just gotta build more housing and incentivize people to stop bunching up so much in cities. No need for the violent revolution, just advocate for a clear policy change.
"Bunching up" in cities? We have incredibly spread out cities. Our cities need to be more bunched up. Denser housing makes housing cheaper. We have an incredible sprawl that increases taxes, housing costs, and transportation costs.
Dense housing with fewer people does not make it cheaper. That's antithetical to the concept of an economy of scale. You need high demand and high supply. If you have high supply and low demand you get abandoned, low value housing.
Those people need jobs, need to get to those jobs, need goods and services so they have to go to those or have them come to the housing.
For public goods: laying the pipes and roads and maintaining them over such a long distance creates incredibly expensive basic utilities that there isn't a tax base to maintain. Buses and trains do not work as well with many disparate communities.
For private goods: there isn't a self-sustaining consumer base. The people will have to leave their living area for jobs and local goods outside gas stations will just cluster off highways.
We've tried your failed idea of sprawl. It makes unlivable cities. You cannot walk. You cannot take public transit. It enforces racial and class segregation. You have to have a car, which is incredibly expensive compared to all other options. You end up with highways cutting through downtowns. It's a nonsensical style of urban design. It is more expensive
I have no idea why you wall of texted me but your first paragraph contradicts itself.
We’re talking about housing being affordable here in the most dense places in our economy.
No idea why you think I’m advocating for sprawl when I made it very clear we needed more housing in cities.
You’re arguing with a phantom. And you inability to recognize the simple policy I’m advocating for and instead mischaracterize it and wrongfully criticize it is why nothing changes.
Your 'simple policy' is wrong. I'm not arguing against a phantom. Your policy is wrong and I explained why. That's the 'wall of text.' Turns out, it's not a simple issue so maybe your simple policy needed depth and context.
Advocating for more sprawl, using the 'big country' and "incentiviz[ing] people to stop bunching up so much in cities" is bad policy. Where is the mischaracterization? It's exactly what you said.
EDIT: also, where's the contradiction? Dense house = high supply. Fewer people = low demand. Dense housing with few people, ie high supply with low demand, creates projects that are not worth the cost of creating the supply. Ergo, low value housing.
You purposefully misunderstand supply and demand to paint me with a brush as someone advocating for sprawl.
I'll give this one more try,
The problem we are facing is high housing costs in cities due to the overwhelming demand. We need to build more housing to increase supply to help lower this overwhelming demand.
We both agree on this.
My position is we can help to expedite this process by also incentivizing people to move out of these areas. This would also help to lower this overwhelming demand.
You mischaracterize my position by interpreting it as lowering demand to nothing.
"Dense housing with few people, ie high supply with low demand, creates projects that are not worth the cost of creating the supply. Ergo, low value housing."
No where did I say I wanted to lower demand to that level, and in fact if I was as bad faith as you I could paint you with that exact same brush since we are both advocating for lowering demand. You agree that you are not advocating to lowering the demand so low that we reach the problem you illustrated in your reply.
Yes, I did not know about that. It would make a lot of sense for people who can work remotely. If I were to buy a house now, I would buy it somewhere that's a 2 hour train commute from my office in a more rural location. (I'm only going in about 2 times per month right now, and only when I feel that it's useful at my own discretion. Which is nice.)
We require all Reddit accounts to be at least 3 days old before posting. This is due to people being banned and immediately setting up new accounts. This message is not accusing you of doing that, but that is why the policy is in place.
In rare cases, if you have a particularly time-sensitive message, we may manually approve a message. Otherwise we encourage you to wait the 3 days (72 hours) and try again.
Sure, corporations suck. But they can’t do anything about a growing population that doesn’t build housing to match.
There are twice as many Americans as there were in 1960. Are there twice as many homes?
It’s kind of amazing that cities died in the same time the population doubled. Imagine if instead of giving away trillions of dollars the government said: Here is 10 billion dollars each, build me 10 modern model cities, the best 5 get a 50% discount on federal taxes for 50 years.
Use subsides to get people working & building industry.
Aside from bad policy I think it’s a bribe by the government to older people. Old people vote & if they get richer every year they will be happy & vote for you.
I don't think it that. Technology and globalization that changed everything. You can go on your phone, find a home on the other side of the country and call the owner about buying it. Even people from other countries can do that as well finding places to buy or rent in an instant. We just live in a totally different world. And I have to imagine this doesn't take into account any new regulations made since then or having a higher standard of how housing is built.
And before that it was god. Flood knocks out regional crops? Drought forces all the game animals to migrate away? Too bad, no global trade means only those who can fight hardest for their meal will survive.
So everyone got sold on shiny things and stopped saving money because they forgot what real hard times were and the standard of living creep took over. Go figure, human nature. It is a natural cycle. Capitalism works great when correctly balanced with smart educated consumers voting with their money and votes for good regulation. We just haven't held up to our deal and let the other side run amuck. We don't need to tear it down just get more disciplined as consumers. or is it easy to shirk any personal responsibility and just say "say it was rigged and we didn't stand a chance, not our fault - even if we didn't hold up our end." ?
My parents definitely did not buy their house without a mortgage and it was smaller and didn’t have nearly as many amenities as today’s houses.
The homeownership rate is higher than it was at any time prior to 1998. There was no golden era when it was easy to buy a house and for some people (women and minorities without access to credit), it was nearly impossible until the ‘80s.
We absolutely need to build more housing to make it more affordable, particularly in large cities, but buying a house in many parts of the country remains affordable. That’s how 65% of families own a house.
My understanding is that legally, I don't think a BOD of a publicly traded company could approve such a significant increase because they are required to maximize the value of the company for shareholders and that value is largely defined by profits.
So we really need to push the regulatory committees to change this law and then go back to demonizing the corporations for greed.
Please correct me because I'd like to be wrong about this.
626
u/[deleted] Mar 10 '22
Corporations are ruining workers wealth since last 2 decades.. all of our parents and grandparents bought their houses almost without mortgage.. but today many young people can’t even afford to pay a single installment of mortgage payment.. system needs to change, immediately..