Affordable Housing Crisis?

[SpyderEdgeForever]

How can the USA and world Affordable Housing Crisis be solved?
Too few housing being wanted by too many people?

A Technocrat said the answer is to convince people to make less new people and to build giant vertical City Buildings all over the Earth surface. Each building reaches several miles tall and is made of strong alloys and composites and has food and energy production built in, like huge vertical garden buildings.

He claims these can be maintained to comfortable Middle Class living conditions and can provide housing at low cost or even free to hundreds of millions to billions of people.

[Naperville]

Frank Loyd Wright planned for taller buildings but acres and acres of pastures and greenery around each building. Nobody listened to him. Planning commissions allow the development of tall buildings for miles in every direction.

As far as affordable housing goes, I head of Boxabl and looked them up. They have some neat ideas but the smallest order they accept is 10 to 20 units. So that is out. I'd be willing to buy and live in a Boxabl.

[Doc Dan]

When it comes to tall buildings, affordable is not the answer. There are lots of skyscraper condos here and fires happen, burst pipes, and more. In the low cost flats/apartments everything is cheaply done and they cannot be maintained, unless the government were to do it, and we all know how that would be.

America has enough land and energy. There are prefab homes that can be nailed together quickly and set on a quarter acre lot. Back in my home town there are low cost "projects" and no matter how nice they looked, soon there were bullet holes, crime, and all sorts of things. I think a culture of poverty and crime has taken over some of our citizens. Perhaps that needs to be worked on.

Now, in insane places like Boston or New York, there is no housing. People inherit them. If one were to buy a house, there, or in the surrounding areas, they would cost more than three families could afford. Part of that is the fault of laws that increase cost.Higher taxes increase cost. More taxes increase cost. Plus, if someone has a $2M house, are they going to cooperate to sell for $500K if the prices can be brought down? They can't endure that kind of loss. They will sell out and run and then everything will go down from there.

There are places still where a nice new, 1800+ sq.ft. home can be had for $125k to $140k on an acre of land. It depends on where people want to live.

[RustyIron]

Who is whining about expensive housing?
Lower income young people.

Who owns a disproportionate amount of housing?
Affluent old people.

Why don't affluent old people divest themselves of excess real estate?
Exorbitant capital gains taxes.

Who is in favor of exorbitant capital gains taxes?
Liberal lower income young people.

All of the above is readily verifiable. I can't make heads or tails of it. What do YOU think?

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Who is whining about expensive housing?
Lower income young people.

Who owns a disproportionate amount of housing?
Affluent old people.

Why don't affluent old people divest themselves of excess real estate?
Exorbitant capital gains taxes.

Who is in favor of exorbitant capital gains taxes?
Liberal lower income young people.

All of the above is readily verifiable. I can't make heads or tails of it. What do YOU think?

These are great points. To be clear, I do not know the exact answer. Some people I know look fondly backwards at the mountain man days and think society should have houses like them.

But they had their problems, too.

[DansGearAddiction]

Who is whining about expensive housing?
Lower income young people.

Who owns a disproportionate amount of housing?
Affluent old people.

Why don't affluent old people divest themselves of excess real estate?
Exorbitant capital gains taxes.

Who is in favor of exorbitant capital gains taxes?
Liberal lower income young people.

All of the above is readily verifiable. I can't make heads or tails of it. What do YOU think?

As someone who is "younger" (I'm in my mid-30's), I can tell you what my people my age are thinking:

Median home prices have risen far faster than median household income. Since 1980, home prices have increased about 400% while median household income has only risen by 250% -- it's 60% more expensive for a person in my generation to buy a home than it was just 45 years ago. If we go back to the 1960's, it's even bleaker. We're not whining -- it's literally a demonstrable fact that it's substantially harder, which is shown in the economic data, and capital gains isn't an explanation as to why.

Let's break it down.

In 1980, a married couple purchased a house for the average selling price of $80K, and in 2025, they'd like to sell their house for the average selling price of $400K. This is a gain of $320K, however, capital gains for home sales has an primary residence exception for long-term gains on houses of $500K for a married couple which means they paid no capital gains taxes.

Capital gains taxes largely apply to people who purchase housing well in excess of the average home owner, or people that own multiple homes. If you own multiple homes as an investment, you should have understood that capital gains is the "cost of doing business", not to mention, maximum capital gains tax has been relatively consistent at around 20% since 1980 (and it can be lower based on your annual income), where it was historically higher previously -- which is actually quite funny since the affordability problem has only been exacerbated since then.

Let's do another example with the same couple assuming they purchased a much more expensive house: let's assume they paid $200K in 1980, and that same house is now worth $1M. This is a gain of $800K, and excluding the $500K exception, that's a taxable gain of $300K. Let's assume the maximum tax at 20%, that's $60K capital gains tax.

The second house is not the one we're struggling to buy. It's the first house -- the one with no capital gains. The people who can afford to purchase the second house are not "struggling" and therefore aren't "whining". Even if that tax was $0, that'd mean the home owner would get an additional $60K; even if they decided to reduce the price of the house to $940K, I'd argue that difference doesn't realistically open up the home to a substantial number of additional buyers.

Using this math, there would need to be a gain of over $500K in order for even $1 of capital gains to be a factor. Given that the average price is $400K, which is what people are struggling to afford, the tax isn't relevant since it doesn't apply.

I already know what "gotcha" is going to come next, so I'll address it. Even in the case where an investor has a real-estate portfolio consisting of many "average" priced houses, it's still not a good argument. The mere fact that houses are being held as investments increases the value of those houses since it reduces overall supply. On top of that, even when large-scale investors sell, they typically sell the entire portfolio to another investor, REITs, property holding companies, etc. rather than sell the houses individually on the free market to first-time home buyers -- that isn't reality. I also don't buy that even if the tax was 0%, they would sell these houses for less than market value, which would be absurd, and potentially even a violation of the fiduciary responsibility that some investments have. And that's ignoring the fact that the "cost of doing business" factors into EVERY purchase we make. People already get insanely rich off short-term investments with substantial capital gains taxes already.

So, I think it's pretty clear by now that capital gains isn't really a valid thing to point to when people are struggling to purchase even the most accessible homes. This is just a cudgel used to try and lower the capital gains rate (I'm a staunch capitalist, and I actually do agree with lowering in certain instances). In fact, reducing the capital gains rate might make the problem even worse since investors would purchase even more of the supply.

So what is actually driving unaffordability?

The real problem at this point is supply and the inability to build new homes, development of which are often blocked by these same people who are trying to "protect their investment". I can tell you from personal experience how my own neighborhood rallied together to block the building of a small (<100 units) apartment complex on a large plot of land out of fear that it would affect property values. NIMBY-ism and other sociological factors can't be ignored from the discussion. The size of new houses is also a valid discussion point for another day, particularly arguments surrounding the fact that smaller, "starter" houses can't be built out of fear of disrupting the "character" of neighborhoods. The same applies with pre-fabs in many places.

People my age care about having a place to live, and a place where they can grow a family -- they do not care about it being an "investment"; but that's being impeded through a combination of factors, but most notably lack of supply of new "starter" houses, and the scooping up of houses for the purposes of investment reducing overall supply.

[Naperville]

Who is whining about expensive housing?
Lower income young people.

Who owns a disproportionate amount of housing?
Affluent old people.

Why don't affluent old people divest themselves of excess real estate?
Exorbitant capital gains taxes.

Who is in favor of exorbitant capital gains taxes?
Liberal lower income young people.

All of the above is readily verifiable. I can't make heads or tails of it. What do YOU think?

In just a few sentences, you summed it up.

[RustyIron]

So what is actually driving unaffordability?

What would be your advice to the young people
who have not yet figured out the solution to
this one of life's many challenges?

[DansGearAddiction]

So what is actually driving unaffordability?

What would be your advice to the young people
who have not yet figured out the solution to
this one of life's many challenges?

Get involved in government to eliminate the red-tape to build more houses.

[Naperville]

Who is whining about expensive housing?
Lower income young people.

Who owns a disproportionate amount of housing?
Affluent old people.

Why don't affluent old people divest themselves of excess real estate?
Exorbitant capital gains taxes.

Who is in favor of exorbitant capital gains taxes?
Liberal lower income young people.

All of the above is readily verifiable. I can't make heads or tails of it. What do YOU think?

As someone who is "younger" (I'm in my mid-30's), I can tell you what my people my age are thinking:

Median home prices have risen far faster than median household income. Since 1980, home prices have increased about 400% while median household income has only risen by 250% -- it's 60% more expensive for a person in my generation to buy a home than it was just 45 years ago. If we go back to the 1960's, it's even bleaker. We're not whining -- it's literally a demonstrable fact that it's substantially harder, which is shown in the economic data, and capital gains isn't an explanation as to why.

Let's break it down.

In 1980, a married couple purchased a house for the average selling price of $80K, and in 2025, they'd like to sell their house for the average selling price of $400K. This is a gain of $320K, however, capital gains for home sales has an primary residence exception for long-term gains on houses of $500K for a married couple which means they paid no capital gains taxes.

Capital gains taxes largely apply to people who purchase housing well in excess of the average home owner, or people that own multiple homes. If you own multiple homes as an investment, you should have understood that capital gains is the "cost of doing business", not to mention, maximum capital gains tax has been relatively consistent at around 20% since 1980 (and it can be lower based on your annual income), where it was historically higher previously -- which is actually quite funny since the affordability problem has only been exacerbated since then.

Let's do another example with the same couple assuming they purchased a much more expensive house: let's assume they paid $200K in 1980, and that same house is now worth $1M. This is a gain of $800K, and excluding the $500K exception, that's a taxable gain of $300K. Let's assume the maximum tax at 20%, that's $60K capital gains tax.

The second house is not the one we're struggling to buy. It's the first house -- the one with no capital gains. The people who can afford to purchase the second house are not "struggling" and therefore aren't "whining". Even if that tax was $0, that'd mean the home owner would get an additional $60K; even if they decided to reduce the price of the house to $940K, I'd argue that difference doesn't realistically open up the home to a substantial number of additional buyers.

Using this math, there would need to be a gain of over $500K in order for even $1 of capital gains to be a factor. Given that the average price is $400K, which is what people are struggling to afford, the tax isn't relevant since it doesn't apply.

I already know what "gotcha" is going to come next, so I'll address it. Even in the case where an investor has a real-estate portfolio consisting of many "average" priced houses, it's still not a good argument. The mere fact that houses are being held as investments increases the value of those houses since it reduces overall supply. On top of that, even when large-scale investors sell, they typically sell the entire portfolio to another investor, REITs, property holding companies, etc. rather than sell the houses individually on the free market to first-time home buyers -- that isn't reality. I also don't buy that even if the tax was 0%, they would sell these houses for less than market value, which would be absurd, and potentially even a violation of the fiduciary responsibility that some investments have. And that's ignoring the fact that the "cost of doing business" factors into EVERY purchase we make. People already get insanely rich off short-term investments with substantial capital gains taxes already.

So, I think it's pretty clear by now that capital gains isn't really a valid thing to point to when people are struggling to purchase even the most accessible homes. This is just a cudgel used to try and lower the capital gains rate (I'm a staunch capitalist, and I actually do agree with lowering in certain instances). In fact, reducing the capital gains rate might make the problem even worse since investors would purchase even more of the supply.

So what is actually driving unaffordability?

The real problem at this point is supply and the inability to build new homes, development of which are often blocked by these same people who are trying to "protect their investment". I can tell you from personal experience how my own neighborhood rallied together to block the building of a small (<100 units) apartment complex on a large plot of land out of fear that it would affect property values. NIMBY-ism and other sociological factors can't be ignored from the discussion. The size of new houses is also a valid discussion point for another day, particularly arguments surrounding the fact that smaller, "starter" houses can't be built out of fear of disrupting the "character" of neighborhoods. The same applies with pre-fabs in many places.

People my age care about having a place to live, and a place where they can grow a family -- they do not care about it being an "investment"; but that's being impeded through a combination of factors, but most notably lack of supply of new "starter" houses, and the scooping up of houses for the purposes of investment reducing overall supply.

In 1960 one person could be employed and in some cases support a family of 5.

Buuuuuuuuut The Fed likes to print American Dollars and right there is your problem. Now The Fed owes Americans and Foreigners $38 Trillion, and a strong dollar would mean they were actually paying back something of value. They keep printing dollars to lessen the crisis at The Fed, and in turn create another crisis, inflation.

Now, as we approach 2026, two people working does not cut it, and people are complaining about affordability. A strong dollar might make things more affordable.

I am not an economist. I do not see a way out of the hole that they have dug, and the interest on all of the federal loans continues to grow.

[Naperville]

So what is actually driving unaffordability?

What would be your advice to the young people
who have not yet figured out the solution to
this one of life's many challenges?

Get involved in government to eliminate the red-tape to build more houses.

DOGE failed. We have to cut spending.

If they cut social security older folks may starve, become homeless or die without food, housing and healthcare.

I'm 65 and can take a 100% cut, take it all, just give me a job making $50k per year for 20 years.

[Naperville]

I'd be willing to live in a Boxabl, but I'd have to buy 10 of them to get one for myself.

There are supply constraints, that is for sure.

[DansGearAddiction]

Who is whining about expensive housing?
Lower income young people.

Who owns a disproportionate amount of housing?
Affluent old people.

Why don't affluent old people divest themselves of excess real estate?
Exorbitant capital gains taxes.

Who is in favor of exorbitant capital gains taxes?
Liberal lower income young people.

All of the above is readily verifiable. I can't make heads or tails of it. What do YOU think?

As someone who is "younger" (I'm in my mid-30's), I can tell you what my people my age are thinking:

Median home prices have risen far faster than median household income. Since 1980, home prices have increased about 400% while median household income has only risen by 250% -- it's 60% more expensive for a person in my generation to buy a home than it was just 45 years ago. If we go back to the 1960's, it's even bleaker. We're not whining -- it's literally a demonstrable fact that it's substantially harder, which is shown in the economic data, and capital gains isn't an explanation as to why.

Let's break it down.

In 1980, a married couple purchased a house for the average selling price of $80K, and in 2025, they'd like to sell their house for the average selling price of $400K. This is a gain of $320K, however, capital gains for home sales has an primary residence exception for long-term gains on houses of $500K for a married couple which means they paid no capital gains taxes.

Capital gains taxes largely apply to people who purchase housing well in excess of the average home owner, or people that own multiple homes. If you own multiple homes as an investment, you should have understood that capital gains is the "cost of doing business", not to mention, maximum capital gains tax has been relatively consistent at around 20% since 1980 (and it can be lower based on your annual income), where it was historically higher previously -- which is actually quite funny since the affordability problem has only been exacerbated since then.

Let's do another example with the same couple assuming they purchased a much more expensive house: let's assume they paid $200K in 1980, and that same house is now worth $1M. This is a gain of $800K, and excluding the $500K exception, that's a taxable gain of $300K. Let's assume the maximum tax at 20%, that's $60K capital gains tax.

The second house is not the one we're struggling to buy. It's the first house -- the one with no capital gains. The people who can afford to purchase the second house are not "struggling" and therefore aren't "whining". Even if that tax was $0, that'd mean the home owner would get an additional $60K; even if they decided to reduce the price of the house to $940K, I'd argue that difference doesn't realistically open up the home to a substantial number of additional buyers.

Using this math, there would need to be a gain of over $500K in order for even $1 of capital gains to be a factor. Given that the average price is $400K, which is what people are struggling to afford, the tax isn't relevant since it doesn't apply.

I already know what "gotcha" is going to come next, so I'll address it. Even in the case where an investor has a real-estate portfolio consisting of many "average" priced houses, it's still not a good argument. The mere fact that houses are being held as investments increases the value of those houses since it reduces overall supply. On top of that, even when large-scale investors sell, they typically sell the entire portfolio to another investor, REITs, property holding companies, etc. rather than sell the houses individually on the free market to first-time home buyers -- that isn't reality. I also don't buy that even if the tax was 0%, they would sell these houses for less than market value, which would be absurd, and potentially even a violation of the fiduciary responsibility that some investments have. And that's ignoring the fact that the "cost of doing business" factors into EVERY purchase we make. People already get insanely rich off short-term investments with substantial capital gains taxes already.

So, I think it's pretty clear by now that capital gains isn't really a valid thing to point to when people are struggling to purchase even the most accessible homes. This is just a cudgel used to try and lower the capital gains rate (I'm a staunch capitalist, and I actually do agree with lowering in certain instances). In fact, reducing the capital gains rate might make the problem even worse since investors would purchase even more of the supply.

So what is actually driving unaffordability?

The real problem at this point is supply and the inability to build new homes, development of which are often blocked by these same people who are trying to "protect their investment". I can tell you from personal experience how my own neighborhood rallied together to block the building of a small (<100 units) apartment complex on a large plot of land out of fear that it would affect property values. NIMBY-ism and other sociological factors can't be ignored from the discussion. The size of new houses is also a valid discussion point for another day, particularly arguments surrounding the fact that smaller, "starter" houses can't be built out of fear of disrupting the "character" of neighborhoods. The same applies with pre-fabs in many places.

People my age care about having a place to live, and a place where they can grow a family -- they do not care about it being an "investment"; but that's being impeded through a combination of factors, but most notably lack of supply of new "starter" houses, and the scooping up of houses for the purposes of investment reducing overall supply.

In 1960 one person could be employed and in some cases support a family of 5.

Buuuuuuuuut The Fed likes to print American Dollars and right there is your problem. Now The Fed owes Americans and Foreigners $38 Trillion, and a strong dollar would mean they were actually paying back something of value. They keep printing dollars to lessen the crisis at The Fed, and in turn create another crisis, inflation.

Now, as we approach 2026, two people working does not cut it, and people are complaining about affordability. A strong dollar might make things more affordable.

I am not an economist. I do not see a way out of the hole that they have dug, and the interest on all of the federal loans continues to grow.

I agree that debt is a problem, but also wages not keeping up with housing costs are problem too -- I strongly suspect there is more that we agree on than you probably realize, but it doesn't still doesn't excuse the fact that affordability is still an issue.

As I pointed out in my original reply, things have only gotten worse since the 1960's ("If we go back to the 1960's, it's even bleaker"). For example, a house in 1960 cost around 2x the median household income, whereas in 2025, it's around 5x -- that's a problem, and monetary policy doesn't explain it all, because monetary policy doesn't affect just housing. If things had stayed level, that family of 5 would still be able to afford a house.

My generation is (rightfully) pointing to the decisions made by previous generations of leadership which includes the costs of wars, tax cuts (as well as the negative ramifications of tax increases), various forms of stimulus, offshoring, etc.

This is ignoring things like bailing out auto companies, the housing crisis, etc. which had affects on affordability, but also for someone like me who graduated college during this time, the availability of good paying jobs after completing school which set many people back by years.

I could go on, but I think you see the point.

[DansGearAddiction]

I'd be willing to live in a Boxabl, but I'd have to buy 10 of them to get one for myself.

There are supply constraints, that is for sure.

I've seen these before and they are a neat concept (Sears used to have modular kit homes back in the day, and this seems like a modernized version of that), but I have severe doubts as to whether or not they'll actually solve the production problems associated with it. Abundant smaller, affordable, and modular houses are one tool to get out of the mess, provided municipalities will let them be built. I'd also recommend checking out some of the things people are doing with shipping containers as well, as well as high-density loft housing. I suspect we'll see more in the coming years.

[Naperville]

Who is whining about expensive housing?
Lower income young people.

Who owns a disproportionate amount of housing?
Affluent old people.

Why don't affluent old people divest themselves of excess real estate?
Exorbitant capital gains taxes.

Who is in favor of exorbitant capital gains taxes?
Liberal lower income young people.

All of the above is readily verifiable. I can't make heads or tails of it. What do YOU think?

As someone who is "younger" (I'm in my mid-30's), I can tell you what my people my age are thinking:

Median home prices have risen far faster than median household income. Since 1980, home prices have increased about 400% while median household income has only risen by 250% -- it's 60% more expensive for a person in my generation to buy a home than it was just 45 years ago. If we go back to the 1960's, it's even bleaker. We're not whining -- it's literally a demonstrable fact that it's substantially harder, which is shown in the economic data, and capital gains isn't an explanation as to why.

Let's break it down.

In 1980, a married couple purchased a house for the average selling price of $80K, and in 2025, they'd like to sell their house for the average selling price of $400K. This is a gain of $320K, however, capital gains for home sales has an primary residence exception for long-term gains on houses of $500K for a married couple which means they paid no capital gains taxes.

Capital gains taxes largely apply to people who purchase housing well in excess of the average home owner, or people that own multiple homes. If you own multiple homes as an investment, you should have understood that capital gains is the "cost of doing business", not to mention, maximum capital gains tax has been relatively consistent at around 20% since 1980 (and it can be lower based on your annual income), where it was historically higher previously -- which is actually quite funny since the affordability problem has only been exacerbated since then.

Let's do another example with the same couple assuming they purchased a much more expensive house: let's assume they paid $200K in 1980, and that same house is now worth $1M. This is a gain of $800K, and excluding the $500K exception, that's a taxable gain of $300K. Let's assume the maximum tax at 20%, that's $60K capital gains tax.

The second house is not the one we're struggling to buy. It's the first house -- the one with no capital gains. The people who can afford to purchase the second house are not "struggling" and therefore aren't "whining". Even if that tax was $0, that'd mean the home owner would get an additional $60K; even if they decided to reduce the price of the house to $940K, I'd argue that difference doesn't realistically open up the home to a substantial number of additional buyers.

Using this math, there would need to be a gain of over $500K in order for even $1 of capital gains to be a factor. Given that the average price is $400K, which is what people are struggling to afford, the tax isn't relevant since it doesn't apply.

I already know what "gotcha" is going to come next, so I'll address it. Even in the case where an investor has a real-estate portfolio consisting of many "average" priced houses, it's still not a good argument. The mere fact that houses are being held as investments increases the value of those houses since it reduces overall supply. On top of that, even when large-scale investors sell, they typically sell the entire portfolio to another investor, REITs, property holding companies, etc. rather than sell the houses individually on the free market to first-time home buyers -- that isn't reality. I also don't buy that even if the tax was 0%, they would sell these houses for less than market value, which would be absurd, and potentially even a violation of the fiduciary responsibility that some investments have. And that's ignoring the fact that the "cost of doing business" factors into EVERY purchase we make. People already get insanely rich off short-term investments with substantial capital gains taxes already.

So, I think it's pretty clear by now that capital gains isn't really a valid thing to point to when people are struggling to purchase even the most accessible homes. This is just a cudgel used to try and lower the capital gains rate (I'm a staunch capitalist, and I actually do agree with lowering in certain instances). In fact, reducing the capital gains rate might make the problem even worse since investors would purchase even more of the supply.

So what is actually driving unaffordability?

The real problem at this point is supply and the inability to build new homes, development of which are often blocked by these same people who are trying to "protect their investment". I can tell you from personal experience how my own neighborhood rallied together to block the building of a small (<100 units) apartment complex on a large plot of land out of fear that it would affect property values. NIMBY-ism and other sociological factors can't be ignored from the discussion. The size of new houses is also a valid discussion point for another day, particularly arguments surrounding the fact that smaller, "starter" houses can't be built out of fear of disrupting the "character" of neighborhoods. The same applies with pre-fabs in many places.

People my age care about having a place to live, and a place where they can grow a family -- they do not care about it being an "investment"; but that's being impeded through a combination of factors, but most notably lack of supply of new "starter" houses, and the scooping up of houses for the purposes of investment reducing overall supply.

In 1960 one person could be employed and in some cases support a family of 5.

Buuuuuuuuut The Fed likes to print American Dollars and right there is your problem. Now The Fed owes Americans and Foreigners $38 Trillion, and a strong dollar would mean they were actually paying back something of value. They keep printing dollars to lessen the crisis at The Fed, and in turn create another crisis, inflation.

Now, as we approach 2026, two people working does not cut it, and people are complaining about affordability. A strong dollar might make things more affordable.

I am not an economist. I do not see a way out of the hole that they have dug, and the interest on all of the federal loans continues to grow.

I agree that debt is a problem, but also wages not keeping up with housing costs are problem too -- I strongly suspect there is more that we agree on than you probably realize, but it doesn't still doesn't excuse the fact that affordability is still an issue.

As I pointed out in my original reply, things have only gotten worse since the 1960's ("If we go back to the 1960's, it's even bleaker"). For example, a house in 1960 cost around 2x the median household income, whereas in 2025, it's around 5x -- that's a problem, and monetary policy doesn't explain it all, because monetary policy doesn't affect just housing. If things had stayed level, that family of 5 would still be able to afford a house.

My generation is (rightfully) pointing to the decisions made by previous generations of leadership which includes the costs of wars, tax cuts (as well as the negative ramifications of tax increases), various forms of stimulus, offshoring, etc.

This is ignoring things like bailing out auto companies, the housing crisis, etc. which had affects on affordability, but also for someone like me who graduated college during this time, the availability of good paying jobs after completing school which set many people back by years.

I could go on, but I think you see the point.

I agree with your last statement 100%. And I was not disagreeing with you that much. Text is a poor conveyor of thoughts and feelings.

I've always been poor. Even when you or I find employment, you have food, clothing, rent, utilities, insurance, auto / home loan ...we never seem to dig out of the hole due to affordability and printing money.

The US Govt shoots for 2% to 3% inflation yearly, and income does not keep up with that. Their logic is totally broken. They are not creating wealth, they are stealing wealth.

[Naperville]

I'd be willing to live in a Boxabl, but I'd have to buy 10 of them to get one for myself.

There are supply constraints, that is for sure.

I've seen these before and they are a neat concept (Sears used to have modular kit homes back in the day, and this seems like a modernized version of that), but I have severe doubts as to whether or not they'll actually solve the production problems associated with it. Abundant smaller, affordable, and modular houses are one tool to get out of the mess, provided municipalities will let them be built. I'd also recommend checking out some of the things people are doing with shipping containers as well, as well as high-density loft housing. I suspect we'll see more in the coming years.

New unused shipping containers are OK. I have many tiny home solutions bookmarked including shipping container homes.

The problem with shipping containers is that they are not permeable and humidity builds up and they sell used ones to people after they are often used to transport hazardous materials.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Important question that some of you can answer I hope?

How can an American at this time in history buy a low cost house in the USA? What advice do you offer?

There seems to be trade offs, ups and downs.

Can you get a rent to own?
Can you buy a cheap acre of land and live in a tiny house or a layered, beefed up tipi or do county and state governments have laws against that?

[Naperville]

Important question that some of you can answer I hope?

How can an American at this time in history buy a low cost house in the USA? What advice do you offer?

There seems to be trade offs, ups and downs.

Can you get a rent to own?
Can you buy a cheap acre of land and live in a tiny house or a layered, beefed up tipi or do county and state governments have laws against that?

I'm 65. I should be retired but I keep applying for jobs that I can handle in my degree field, and outside my degree field. I think a lot of the jobs are ghost job posts. The position does not exist and they are collecting resumes, email addresses, phone numbers and names in case the market opens up.

So the first problem is getting a J.O.B. doing whatever you can to maximize income and start saving money.

Recent graduates have the problem of paying off school loans, so they have to shop within their budget if they have a job.

Finding a low cost home is an issue. Like I said I looked at Boxabl's website and there are minimum orders of something like 10 units.

We chatted with a renter of ours that wanted to buy a home we were renting. They had stolen a beer can collection left in the attic. They also moved out a month early and the sump pump went down and the 1/2 basement flooded. The wall-to-wall carpeting, wall board, expensive murals and paneling were damaged.

We had terrible renters. I could write a book on renters. If you are serious about buying a home that you are renting then you have to be a good renter, otherwise you and up in court.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Important question that some of you can answer I hope?

How can an American at this time in history buy a low cost house in the USA? What advice do you offer?

There seems to be trade offs, ups and downs.

Can you get a rent to own?
Can you buy a cheap acre of land and live in a tiny house or a layered, beefed up tipi or do county and state governments have laws against that?

I'm 65. I should be retired but I keep applying for jobs that I can handle in my degree field, and outside my degree field. I think a lot of the jobs are ghost job posts. The position does not exist and they are collecting resumes, email addresses, phone numbers and names in case the market opens up.

So the first problem is getting a J.O.B. doing whatever you can to maximize income and start saving money.

Recent graduates have the problem of paying off school loans, so they have to shop within their budget if they have a job.

Finding a low cost home is an issue. Like I said I looked at Boxabl's website and there are minimum orders of something like 10 units.

We chatted with a renter of ours that wanted to buy a home we were renting. They had stolen a beer can collection left in the attic. They also moved out a month early and the sump pump went down and the 1/2 basement flooded. The wall-to-wall carpeting, wall board, expensive murals and paneling were damaged.

We had terrible renters. I could write a book on renters. If you are serious about buying a home that you are renting then you have to be a good renter, otherwise you and up in court.

Is there a decent job you can find that brings you a comfortable amount of income, that is not too physically demanding, and that can even bring you tips or bonuses? What about a restaurant or food setting where they can also feed you?

Regarding renting, I heard a horror story where a man rented his place to a group of college guys for a summer, an Air bnb type situation.
Supposedly he later went to see how things went, after they paid him and had left.
To his horror he found they had trashed the place out.
Vomit and stacks of puzza boxes, beer and even empty keg cans, soiled clothes, and damage to the toilet and refrigerator. He said he was considering contacting an attorney but they did pay him a large amount to rent his place. Still, that is terrible that they were so irresponsible.

[Naperville]

Important question that some of you can answer I hope?

How can an American at this time in history buy a low cost house in the USA? What advice do you offer?

There seems to be trade offs, ups and downs.

Can you get a rent to own?
Can you buy a cheap acre of land and live in a tiny house or a layered, beefed up tipi or do county and state governments have laws against that?

I'm 65. I should be retired but I keep applying for jobs that I can handle in my degree field, and outside my degree field. I think a lot of the jobs are ghost job posts. The position does not exist and they are collecting resumes, email addresses, phone numbers and names in case the market opens up.

So the first problem is getting a J.O.B. doing whatever you can to maximize income and start saving money.

Recent graduates have the problem of paying off school loans, so they have to shop within their budget if they have a job.

Finding a low cost home is an issue. Like I said I looked at Boxabl's website and there are minimum orders of something like 10 units.

We chatted with a renter of ours that wanted to buy a home we were renting. They had stolen a beer can collection left in the attic. They also moved out a month early and the sump pump went down and the 1/2 basement flooded. The wall-to-wall carpeting, wall board, expensive murals and paneling were damaged.

We had terrible renters. I could write a book on renters. If you are serious about buying a home that you are renting then you have to be a good renter, otherwise you and up in court.

Is there a decent job you can find that brings you a comfortable amount of income, that is not too physically demanding, and that can even bring you tips or bonuses? What about a restaurant or food setting where they can also feed you?

Regarding renting, I heard a horror story where a man rented his place to a group of college guys for a summer, an Air bnb type situation.
Supposedly he later went to see how things went, after they paid him and had left.
To his horror he found they had trashed the place out.
Vomit and stacks of puzza boxes, beer and even empty keg cans, soiled clothes, and damage to the toilet and refrigerator. He said he was considering contacting an attorney but they did pay him a large amount to rent his place. Still, that is terrible that they were so irresponsible.

"Is there a decent job you can find that brings you a comfortable amount of income, that is not too physically demanding, and that can even bring you tips ..." I could try Chippendale's Dancer?



I'll hopefully find employment wherever I land in tech support. I'll find something even if it is just $30k per year. I'd like to make $50k per year, but I'm open to full-time, part-time, remote, or on-site.

Between my grandmother and my parents we have rented to people for more than 60 years. I used to go collect the rent from late renters. I've had to deal with everyone. Gang members, con-men, you name it I have had to deal with them and some I had to evict. It is no fun, and I'd never rent a property to anyone, I am not into it.

As far as me renting from anyone, you will not hear a peep out of me and the property will be returned in better condition than when I received it.