Tag: Housing Costs in America

It’s Impossible To Buy A $200k Home Anymore

The Daily Escape:

Mt. Hood sunrise – February 2023 photo by Mitch Schreiber Photography

Happy Valentine’s Day for those who celebrate! If you don’t celebrate, find someone or something to give a little bit of love to.

In all of the hype about the Super Bowl and Rihanna’s halftime show, you may have missed that homes selling for less than $200k have basically disappeared in America.

John Burns, a real estate consultant, reports that they are now 0% of the new home market. They were 40% of the market 10 years ago. Burns also says that $500k+ new homes have grown from 17% of the market to 38% of the market during Covid. He provides this handy chart showing how average home prices have changed since 2010:

At the same time, sales of homes going for $500k or more (red line) have shot up from less than 10% to nearly 40% of the new homes market and represent the largest share of new home sales.

This isn’t great for Millennials looking to buy their first homes, or for retirees who have to downsize. It also explains why many first-time homebuyers are angry.

It’s not only the $200k and under segment that has fallen off a cliff. New homes going for between $200k – $300k now make up just 11% of the total, down from 80% of all new home sales in the year 2000.

Ben Carlson shows Federal Reserve new home price data going back to 2000 that breaks down new homes price points more clearly. He says that those being sold for $750k and up have gone from less than 1% to more than 10% of the market.

A few reasons for the shifts: First, we’re not building enough new houses anymore. Second, we’ve seen changing tastes drive demand toward larger homes, helping move the market to a new floor in home prices. Inflation didn’t help either.

We overbuilt in the 2000s housing bubble, and that led to more than a decade of underbuilding ever since. There was a brief spike during the pandemic housing craze but that has abated with mortgage rates rising so rapidly in the past year.

In 2002-2006, we were building around 120,000 new homes per year. In 2022, it was more like 65,000 units per year. Tastes have changed as well. Houses today are substantially larger than they were in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

In his book The Fifties, David Halberstam talks about how the housing market played a huge role in the rise of the suburbs following World War II. Then houses were about 1,300 square feet. In the 1970s, the median size of a new home in the US was 1,525 square feet. Today it’s around 2,500 square feet.

Tastes have changed. People want bigger houses. They want open floor plans for entertaining, bigger bedrooms with more bathrooms, and more storage space for all of their stuff.

It’s also true that homebuilders aren’t incentivized to build starter homes anymore. In the 1950s the government helped out the troops and their families. With the GI Bill, the federal government took some of the risk that homebuilders wouldn’t be able to find mortgages for all the new houses they were building.

Local zoning regulations have made it difficult to get approvals to build new homes. So builders have moved upmarket in home size to justify those upfront expenses. Starter homes aren’t as profitable as they once were.

There’s a big change in the buyer’s market as well. The WSJ quotes John Burns: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“You now have permanent capital competing with a young couple trying to buy a house.” Burns estimates that in many of the nation’s top markets, roughly one in every five houses sold is bought by someone who never moves in.”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution in an article last week entitled: “American Dream For Rent: Investors elbow out individual home buyers. Metro Atlanta is ground zero for corporate purchases, locking families into renting’. The Journal says a generational housing shortage, inflated construction costs and a surge in consumer demand all contributed to the historic rise in prices.

But there’s little doubt that a flood of cash from institutional investors has exacerbated it. They quote Maura Neill, a realtor in Alpharetta:

“They go after every listing under $500,000…it’s like clockwork…The property gets listed and, sight unseen, they make offers within an hour.”

This is late-stage capitalism at work. Young working couples are increasingly shut out of buying homes. America is failing them. It would be helpful for families to build equity by purchasing homes instead of renting.

Pricing families out of home ownership carries risks to a cohesive society.

We should have a federal tax policy that disincentivizes ownership of multiple single-family homes, by investment funds. The way to remedy this is to steer investors to other assets that don’t directly impact individual welfare to the same degree as single family housing.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Will New House Prices Go Down?

The Daily Escape:

Mt. Hood viewed from Timberline Lodge – December 2022 photo by Mitch Schreiber Photography

We have all watched house prices go through the roof since the start of the pandemic. Of Wrongo and Ms. Right’s six kids, two do not currently own a home, and despite having good jobs, and wanting to buy, they’re priced out of their local markets. Houses near Wrongo’s daughter on Cape Cod, MA have nearly doubled in price since the start of the pandemic. The same is true for Wrongo’s son in Bergen County, NJ.

But house sales in US have been slowing down in the past few months as interest rates climb. Wolf Richter at Wolf Street says there are now too many new houses for sale:

“Inventory of new houses for sale…has ballooned to 470,000 houses, up by 21% from the already high levels a year ago, and the highest since March 2008….Which destroys the theory that home prices are high because the industry isn’t building enough houses…”

Wow, nearly a half-million unsold new houses! Much of this inventory of unsold new houses were built in locations that are far from the big suburbs and the cities. After the pandemic started, US businesses redefined the office to include working from home. That further moved to “live anywhere” remote work for some firms.

Now, firms are bringing people back to their physical offices. That makes selling houses at great distances from the office a tough proposition for new home builders. It means buying a lower price rural home based on a big remote salary is no longer in the cards for many workers.

According to Bloomberg, Lennar a major home builder, has been approaching the big corporate rental landlords with an inventory listing about 5,000 houses that it wants to offload:

“Lennar is circulating lists of properties to potential acquirers, according to people familiar with the matter….Many of the properties are located in the Southwest and Southeast…with the builder giving landlords the chance to acquire entire subdivisions in some cases.”

It’s an industry-wide problem. Home builders have pitched at least 40,000 new houses to rental operators in recent months. Bloomberg says that many of these houses had originally been sold to individual buyers who later canceled their purchase contract.

According to a survey by John Burns Real Estate Consulting, the purchase contract cancellation rate spiked to 26% in October, up from a rate of 8% a year ago, and up from 11% in October 2019. The cancellation rates were highest in the Southwest at 45%, up from 9% a year ago. In Texas, the cancellation rate spiked to 39%, up from 12% a year ago. That’s understandable since mortgage rates have been rising so quickly.

This tells us that a part of the “housing shortage” is both local and price-driven. We know that house prices are driven by building costs, which have spiked in the past two years. Prices are also driven by the quality of the schools in the area, or whether the location is near a tourist destination. Retirees can move anywhere, but they generally want to be close to doctors and medical centers and will pay a premium for location rather than pay a lower price to live in the middle of nowhere.

Entire subdivisions sold as a rental community is better from the viewpoint of an individual home buyer instead of a percentage of that development’s homes being sold into a rental pool. No one should buy into a development that is partially sold and partially rented. The big landlords will rarely improve them beyond the least amount possible. So the overall value of all the homes in that community will be diminished by the presence of a rental pool.

We saw that in California in the 2007-2009 real estate bubble, where a few houses in otherwise nice neighborhoods would have overgrown lawns and trash lying in the yard, a clear sign of vacancy. That didn’t help the property values of the individual homeowner neighbors.

How far will housing prices fall? Nobody knows. Here is a chart showing average housing prices since 2019:

Comparing 2019 to 2022, average house prices have risen by 39%. Your area’s average may be even higher, particularly if you live in or near a large city.

It’s clear that the US housing market needs a price correction. Wrongo would like to say that people shouldn’t be offering anything higher on the house they want than it would have sold for in 2019. But, we may not get back to that price level anytime soon.

A price correction alone won’t solve America’s housing crisis, but a 20% correction sure would be a nice start.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Monday Wake Up Call – September 26, 2022

The Daily Escape:

Arches NP, UT – September 2022 photo by Nathan Smith

It can now take longer than 10 years for a typical first-time US home buyer to afford the down payment on a modest house, so says S&P Global in a July report (registration required). From the report:

“By fourth-quarter 2022, it will take 11.3 years for a first-time homebuyer with median income to save for a 10% down payment. It will take this homeowner 22.6 years to save for a 20% down payment. Both are over twice their pre-pandemic rates of five and 10.6 years, respectively.”

S&P estimates that with house prices rising so quickly, down payments are now twice the amount that they were before the pandemic. They also estimate that 60% of households could be priced out of the housing market by Q4 2025.

The NYT also is looking at the US housing market. They say that the US has a deepening housing crisis, including an acute shortage of:

“small, no-frills homes that would give a family new to the country or a young couple with student debt a foothold to build equity…”

Factors include land costs, costs of construction materials and government fees. The typical new home has grown in median size over the past 60 years, while the average number of people living in each home has declined:

These long-term trends were accelerated by the pandemic, which drove up demand for homes and house prices as people scattered, worked from home, and snapped up second residences.

Local policies are also driving this new reality. The Times reports that communities nationwide:

“…are far more prescriptive today than decades ago….Some ban vinyl siding. Others require two-car garages. Nearly all make it difficult to build the kind of home that could sell for $200,000 today,”

So, high prices due to high demand. High mortgage rates due to the FED clamping down on inflation. And cities and towns making it more difficult to build low-end homes. On top of that, investors bought about a quarter of all single family houses sold last year.

Wrongo grew up when homes were affordable for a one-salary family. His 1,400 sq.ft. “starter home” in a tidy NJ suburb (walk to take the NYC train to Wall Street) cost $28,000 in 1970. We sold it for $38,000 in 1976. Zillow estimates that it would sell today for $647,000, 23 times what it did in 1969! It’s unbelievable how high home values in that neighborhood have risen.

Also, home buyer expectations are higher today. If a home doesn’t have an open floor plan, three bathrooms and granite countertops, most young buyers think they are settling for much less than they want.

Owning a home has been a part of the American Dream, but it’s one of the three legs of that dream that are currently being killed: (1) High housing costs (2) Stagnant wages and (3) High health-care costs. When you add college debt to the mix, you have the makings of a revolution against the 21st century’s form of capitalism.

Part of the American dream is for your kids to succeed. That starts with a good education in a school district that aligns with that goal. That can rule out most public schools in our larger cities. If young families can afford the costs of private schools in cities, they must be very well off.

The only way that most people can choose that kind of school is to look in the suburbs. Suburban school districts pay for their good schools with taxes on expensive homes. That means parents, and the local government all have a stake in keeping local property values as high as possible, thus the difficult zoning regulations that make houses larger.

But smaller homes are also desired by many retirees. People who are living out their golden years often want to “downsize” into an affordable small home, condo, or townhouse. Many of these developments are being built throughout America. They can be beautiful inside, but they are often attached or semi-attached boxes crammed together on land that was never supposed to be developed.

Time to wake up America! Today in most parts of the country there is hardly anything on the market for under $300,000. Not much that resembles the tidy starter home Wrongo purchased 52 years ago.

Affordable housing prices aren’t coming back without government intervention. America needs to look carefully at its housing policies along with how we have let financialization take over the housing market.

Financialization of housing refers to the increasing presence of corporations and organizations that are creating or using real estate management, mortgage processes, and financial instruments to profit-seek against individual homeowners.

To help you wake up listen to Buddy Guy perform “Gunsmoke Blues” along with Jason Isbell. The tune is highly relevant, and very powerful. It’s from Guy’s album ,“The Blues Don’t Lie” due out on September 30th:

Lyrics:

Trouble down at the high school
Somebody got the gunsmoke blues
Trouble down at the high school
Somebody got the gunsmoke blues
Read it in the morning paper
Watch it on the evening news

…

Some folks blame the shooter
Other folks blame the gun
But that don’t stop the bullets
And more bloodshed to come
A million thoughts and prayers
Won’t bring back anyone

Facebooklinkedinrss

The New Housing Bubble

The Daily Escape:

Shakers Creek flowing into the Mohawk River, Colonie NY – April 2021 photo by M’ke Helbing.

We’re hearing about bidding wars for single family homes, often with winning bids that are substantially above already high asking prices. In fact, house prices have risen by 11.2% from a year ago, the largest increase since housing bubble #1 in 2006, according to the National Case-Shiller Home Price Index for January.

The Home Price Index measures “house-price inflation” by comparing the sales price of a house in the current month to the price of the same house when it sold previously. It’s tracking the dollars it takes to buy the same house over time.

But house price inflation isn’t part of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). While about one-third of CPI is based on housing costs, it only tracks rents, not home prices. So, you can see what’s going on: Everybody knows that the costs of home ownership are surging, but only a portion are included in our inflation measures, so inflation is being understated.

Let’s look at the NY metro area. It covers NYC and numerous counties in the states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Here’s the spike in prices over the past six months:

House prices rose 11.2% for the year. There were big differences between price tiers, with low-end house prices surging by 14.9%, while condo prices remained in a tight range for the past three years, and the NYT reports that Manhattan condo developers are selling units at big discounts.

There’s another factor driving prices. The WSJ reports that: (brackets by Wrongo)

“From…individuals [with]a few thousand dollars to pensions and private-equity firms with billions, yield-chasing investors are snapping up single-family houses to rent out or flip. They are competing for houses with ordinary Americans, who are armed with the cheapest mortgage financing ever, and driving up home prices.”

The WSJ quotes John Burns, a real estate consultant: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“You now have permanent capital competing with a young couple trying to buy a house.” Burns estimates that in many of the nation’s top markets, roughly one in every five houses sold is bought by someone who never moves in.”

Houston is a favorite location, with investors accounting for 24% of home purchases. More from Burns: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Limited housing supply, low rates, a global reach for yield, and what we’re calling the institutionalization of real-estate investors has set the stage for another speculative investor-driven home price bubble…”

This is the second try by institutional investors to play in the single-family home market. Starting in 2011, they bought foreclosed homes at steep discounts, accounting for about a third of sales in some markets and setting a floor for then-falling home prices.

It turned out that renting suburban homes proved very profitable. The pandemic has brought a new race for suburban housing. And the big new-home builders like DR Horton and Lennar Corp, are working directly with institutional investors. They’re building blocks of homes, and selling them to the investors, who rent them out.

Horton built 124 houses in Conroe, Texas, rented them out and then put the whole community up for sale. It was purchased by an online property-investing platform, Fundrise LLC, which manages more than $1 billion on behalf of about 150,000 individuals.

Lennar just announced a rental venture with investment firms including Allianz and Centerbridge Partners to which it will sell more than $4 billion of new houses.

This is late-stage capitalism at work. Young working couples are increasingly shut out of buying homes, and that’s both depressing and disturbing.  America has failed them. It would be helpful for families to buy homes instead of renting, and pricing families out of home ownership carries risks to a cohesive society.

And the Right wonders why young people are turning to socialism. Freezing young people out of the housing market could have disastrous social consequences.

We should have tax policies that disincentivize ownership of multiple single-family homes, especially by investment funds. The way to remedy this is to steer investors to other assets that don’t directly impact individual welfare to the same degree as housing.

Back in the 2006-2009 housing bubble, we had plenty of speculators and an excess of housing inventory. It was so bad that Wrongo’s barber owned nine rental houses in three states before the bust.

This time around, we have very low inventory, the lowest rates ever, and big money chasing yield. Once pension funds are investing in an appreciating asset class, you know the bubble is about to burst

Facebooklinkedinrss

Available Housing Drives Growth in Jobs

The Daily Escape:

Snow near Boulder, CO – November 2019 photo via

Last week, in our town’s Mayoral race, each side had a signature issue. For the Republicans, it was roads. For the Democrats, it was affordable housing. Wrongo has served on the town’s municipal roads committee for three years. He’s also attended a few town workshops on affordable housing. The incumbent Republican Mayor won in a landslide.

Did that mean that affordable housing was a non-issue? Not really. Like most of Connecticut, our town has a sharp income divide. And despite having among the most affordable housing in Litchfield County, we have elderly poor and younger middle-income people vying for limited multifamily housing stock.

The major problem is a concern that affordable housing equals more kids in our schools, and more infrastructure. The reality is that the incremental real estate taxes that landlords would pay the town will not offset the increased costs of schooling and infrastructure.

But, the town also desires greater economic development. New businesses and jobs are important to increasing our tax base. We’re not alone in this. Consider the city of San Jose, CA. The Silicon Valley region has added about 385,000 new jobs over the past five years, but only approved about 60,000 housing units. From Vox: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Communities sometimes mobilize in opposition to some kind of new project, but this…happened when someone proposed building some offices near a new football stadium in Santa Clara, California, is mind-boggling: San Jose has taken the rare step of publicly opposing the project, saying it would add far too many jobs, exacerbating the region’s housing shortage.”

It’s difficult to believe that we’ve reached a point in our economy where creating new jobs can be construed as bad for existing residents of an area.

The Bay area isn’t overbuilt with housing. San Francisco is less densely populated than Brooklyn, NY. Santa Clara County, where Silicon Valley is located, is significantly less populated than the Long Island suburbs. The fear is that meeting the need for housing will lead to many lower income residents living in high-rise buildings.

Or take New York City, where Amazon was shocked when the public said that Amazon could take their 25,000 new jobs and shove them. (brackets by Wrongo)

“It’s only natural that Amazon saw its promise to create 25,000 jobs as a blessing, for creating jobs is most [all] of what we have ever asked of American companies. But given the realities of our economy…. it’s also only natural that many New Yorkers wanted nothing to do with it.”

Promises of 25,000 new jobs in NYC sounded much different in 2019 than it would have sounded in 2009. If you’re among the sea of NYC hotel and restaurant workers, you know you’re never likely to be qualified for one of the jobs Amazon promised to create in your backyard. And since it would be built in an area where many hourly workers live, they naturally opposed what would have driven their costs of housing even higher.

Amazon already had 2,000 employees in NYC in November 2018, when the HQ search concluded. Despite not building a NY headquarters, that number has grown to 5,000 in the past year. Amazon’s continuing jobs expansion in NYC makes the case that those who fought against the state’s $3 billion dollar incentive package were correct.

No economic problem is simple, and neither are their solutions. Here is a good rule of thumb: When things are complicated, inputs are messy. Some factors may cancel out other factors.

And in the case of trying to increase economic growth in a given city or town, an available, skilled workforce in numbers sufficient to meet the new business needs is primary. Available housing is huge as well. These two inputs exist in a feedback loop. Our towns can’t grow if workers can’t find housing.

Freezing housing stock in a growing economy helps those who enjoy higher Socio-Economic Status (SES). Our cities are seeing an outflow of lower SES’s and an inflow of higher SES’s. This is making housing costs in our second-tier cities move closer to what they have become in NYC and LA.

Exurban ring towns like Wrongo’s are seeing inward migration, mostly of middle and lower SES’s who routinely commute long distances for work. That adds local spending on goods and services, but puts pressure on local housing stock and on schools.

The landslide results in our town’s election was a vote for better roads, and against changing zoning requirements to add affordable housing. Indirectly, it also was a vote in favor of lower economic growth, just like what happened in San Jose, CA.

But we shouldn’t be confused with Silicon Valley.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Where Can The Working Class Afford To Live

The Daily Escape:

Quilotoa Crater Lake, Ecuador. You get there by bus, and it takes six hours to walk around it. 

The Senate is trying to pass their worst possible health care idea. They have already passed a $700 billion military budget, more than even Trump wanted. And they are trying to pass a $1 trillion tax cut for their buddies. Will any of that help you? No.

They should be focused on improving the lives of working class people, but they can’t be bothered with that, because they have no desire to accomplish it. Things are just fine the way they are for Senators.

Wrongo has been remiss by not turning you on to howmuch, a site that creates visualizations about money, and in-depth tools about what things cost in the US. You should spend time checking them out. They created this very interesting chart about where working class people can afford to live in the US:

Source: howmuch

Each bubble represents a city. The color corresponds to the amount of money a typical working-class family would have left over at the end of the year after paying for their living costs, such as housing, food and transportation.

The darker the shade of red, the worse off you are. The darker the shade of green, the better off you are. The size of the bubble has meaning — large and dark red means the city is totally unaffordable. Bigger dark green bubbles indicate a city where the working class can get by. So, where are the best places from a financial perspective for a working-class family to live? These are the top five cities with the net surplus remaining after living expenses:

  1. Fort Worth, TX ($10,447)
  2. Newark, NJ (($10,154)
  3. Glendale, AZ ($10,120)
  4. Gilbert, AZ ($9,760)
  5. Mesa, AZ ($7,780)

The worst five cities are:

  1. New York, NY (-$91,184)
  2. San Francisco, CA (-$83,272)
  3. Boston, MA (-$61,900)
  4. Washington, DC (-$50,535)
  5. Philadelphia, PA (-$37,850)

Yes, a typical working-class family would need to make an additional $91K+ per year in NYC just to break even on a reasonable standard of living. And most job creation is taking place in cities, so the challenge for anyone, working class or higher, is how to afford living in one of them. There are exactly zero affordable cities on the West Coast. More from howmuch:

Of the ten most populous cities in the country, the only place where you can enjoy a decent standard of living without taking on debt is San Antonio. Out of the top 50 largest cities, only 12 are considered affordable. Low-wage workers are better off in smaller cities.

Kevin Erdmann, who blogs at Idiosyncratic Whisk, says the problem is that most coastal cities have closed access to housing, while inland cities have open access. Open access cities have relatively liberal housing and zoning codes that allow for new building, including relatively low-cost housing. Houston is the most prominent example. Closed access cities artificially reduce supply of housing, driving prices up. NYC is the most prominent example. From Erdmann:

You can tell what type of city it is just by looking through the newspaper. In open access cities, people complain that poor people are moving in and taking away jobs, pushing down wages. In closed access cities, people complain that rich people are moving in and bidding up rents.

People in red states have experienced high in-migration of low income people, both natives and immigrants. Poor people are leaving the closed access cities.  So, to someone living in a closed access city, it seems racist for people to focus their ire on Mexican immigrants.

And think about what happens if folks in a bad neighborhood manage to do the hard community work to make it somewhat livable. In New York or Los Angeles, the minute that a neighborhood becomes safe, the plots that hold those $100,000 duplexes will be worth $500,000, and the neighborhood will gentrify.

Rinse, lather and repeat, and the cycle starts again.

Can a working-class family live comfortably in your town? If so, can they find work?

Facebooklinkedinrss