considering the vast majority of people can't afford to buy a house, multifamily housing is certainly in demand and more of it is necessary. It's not particularly fun seeing apartments going up left and right but something's gotta give.

We also don't need to continue the sprawl and expanding with more and more suburbs. There's nothing wrong with suburbs per se but continuing to build rows and rows of spec houses isn't going to help the situation.

EclipseAg said:

---

titan said:

---

MiniShrike said:

---

The Baby Boomers are for the most part dead or retired.

It's such an ignorant and tired trope around here.

As an aside, does any of this sound familiar?

Quote:

---

"Throughout their lives," says Landon Y. Jones in Great Expectations: America And The Baby Boom Generation, "they will face the prospect of salaries that were not quite as large as they hoped, devalued education and difficult promotions."

As kids, their big brothers and sisters got the attention for doing all the wrong, rebellious things.

As teenagers, they missed the big Beatlemania and Woodstock-style love-ins, but boy did they hear about them.

And now, as young adults, they're banging their heads on a top-heavy job market crammed with thirtysomething career folk who don't plan to budge.

The boomers above them10 to 12 years' worthhave sucked up all the nice jobs and good apartments, then rammed the real estate market skyward.

These folks don't even have a moniker. Some call them afterboomers; others, like Decima pollster Allan Gregg, label them Generation X
.
Their very nonentity is their identity.

---

---

That is an old book. So in its reference quote there is what it is talking about the name of the generation just after the Boomers? Never did hear a clear term for what are part of. I kind of like the term afterboomer ---- it places chronologically and it is certainly true they don't seem to get a moniker that is agreed upon.

---

I saw a reference once to "Generation Jones" -- as in, keeping up with the Jones'. Don't think the name gathered a lot of traction but it made sense to me.

The last remaining years of the boomer cohort and the first few years afterward -- people born from 1958 to 1965 or so -- were kids who were too young to be impacted much by the hippy era.

Unlike their older brothers and sisters, they were preppies in college and yuppies afterward, more interested in making money and getting ahead than in protesting or tuning out.

A brief desciption:

Pontell suggests that Jonesers inherited an optimistic outlook as children in the 1960s, but were then confronted with a different reality as they entered the workforce during Reaganomics and the shift from a manufacturing to a service economy, which ushered in a long period of mass unemployment. Mortgage interest rates increased to above 12 percent in the mid-eighties, making it virtually impossible anymore for starters to buy a house from a single income. De-industrialization arrived full force in the mid-late 1970s and 1980s; wages would be stagnant for decades, and 401Ks replaced pensions, leaving them with a certain abiding "jonesing" quality for the more prosperous days of the past.

Generation Jones is noted for coming of age after a huge swath of their older brothers and sisters in the earlier portion of the Baby Boomer population had; thus, many note that there was a paucity of resources and privileges available to them that were seemingly abundant to older Boomers. Therefore, there is a certain level of bitterness and "jonesing" for the level of doting and affluence granted to older Boomers but denied to them.

Generation Jones

Huh. Sounds like everything wasn't all roses and lollipops in the '80 and '90s.

---

Huh. Never heard that term for the period, but that's kind of neat description. So much an exact match. Even the years seem to fit --- 1958 seems a little on the early side, I often see it pegged dead on 1960, but no matter. But so much matches in the sense of vs what saw growing up, vs what was going on when came of age. However, except for a short doldrum like period of Bush first term after Reagan and the first half of Clinton's first term (1994 fixed it), the optimism returned enough in the 90's. But its still correct to say that what seemed so possible before became more difficult with no clear cause. That 12 percent different rate may explain some of it retroactively.

Anyway, the term and description at least is pretty close. And this is dead-on:

Quote:

---

The last remaining years of the boomer cohort and the first few years afterward -- people born from 1958 to 1965 or so -- were kids who were too young to be impacted much by the hippy era.

Unlike their older brothers and sisters, they were preppies in college and yuppies afterward, more interested in making money and getting ahead than in protesting or tuning out.

---

larry culpepper said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Simple Jack said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Major boomer energy here, characterizing all young people as idiots who spend all day eating avocado toast and watching tik tok videos, which is why their lazy asses can't afford a house.

The fact of the matter is the housing market is nothing like it was in past generations. Our parents could easily graduate college, get a decent job, and afford a home in a good part of town. Those days are over.

The cost of living has rapidly inflated in the past few years alone. It's not just home buying, but renting too. People who have well paying jobs who saved up for years are still getting outbid by multiple other offers and cannot compete with these investors buying up all the properties. And renters getting forced out of their homes because the landlord jacks up rent by $500-$700. It's not about people thinking they are entitled to a nice home in a nice part of town. It's the fact that the housing market is absolutely ****ed at this point and people are worried because this is an unsustainable situation.

Clearly you don't understand what the landscape is actually like now and just want to use this as an opportunity to grandstand about how lazy/entitled the younger generations are.

---

Perhaps socialism is the answer.

---

or better city planning, more multifamily housing, rent control laws that limit the percentage rent can be increased term to term, lawmakers working to relieve property taxes. there are lots of possible solutions.

---

Lols. All your solutions are more government which is exactly the cause of the current issue. You guys are certainly persistent, I'll give you that.

---

No, it's more competent government. And building more multifamily housing isn't more government, it's increasing supply without building more suburbs. Plus, housing is a basic human need. It's not a crazy, far-fetched idea to say that the state and local government should focus on this issue and improve the situation for its citizens.

All of these are still better solutions than sitting around complaining or criticizing any possible solution as socialism, like you are doing.

---

I agree with a lot of this - although I don't think it's feasible with our current government. I would love to see large multifamily high-rises located in pedestrian friendly areas. I've seen them first hand in China and I have to admit it was really nice. E
The apartments were as big as a small home and everything you needed was within walking distance of your building. Of course it works in China because the culture is very conscientious and respectful. You would need very strict enforcement in the US. This would allow for much more green space and activities people could do rather than being stuck in a sterile subdivision dependent on a car.

larry culpepper said:

---

considering the vast majority of people can't afford to buy a house, multifamily housing is certainly in demand and more of it is necessary. It's not particularly fun seeing apartments going up left and right but something's gotta give.

We also don't need to continue the sprawl and expanding with more and more suburbs. There's nothing wrong with suburbs per se but continuing to build rows and rows of spec houses isn't going to help the situation.

---

How about you let the market dictate what we do and don't need? Builders will build whatever is in demand. Stop trying to act like you're smart enough to boil down every single housing market into a singular problem that can be solved with your preferred prescription.

Pigeon holing people into apartments and higher density living that they don't want because you have some bone to pick with urban sprawl is ridiculous. There's not an epidemic of homelessness because people can't afford housing. Prices are high at the moment because of very specific, unique market factors, and nothing you're suggesting does an ounce of good to improve the market. Over time, it will balance itself out if you just leave it alone.

Because no one wants to live in a truly free market. I hope I don't have to list examples to understand that.

There's nothing wrong with deciding as a society how we want to build housing and manage our landscapes and resources. If the only value you put on development is what makes the most money we're all going to end up in a miserable mess. Living in the US is an anomaly because there were so much free land. The days of exploiting land for profit just to move on to new unsettled territory is over. We have to manage the gift we were given wisely.

Zarathustra said:

---

Because no one wants to live in a truly free market. I hope I don't have to list examples to understand that.

There's nothing wrong with deciding as a society how we want to build housing and manage our landscapes and resources. If the only value you put on development is what makes the most money we're all going to end up in a miserable mess. Living in the US is an anomaly because there were so much free land. The days of exploiting land for profit just to move on to new unsettled territory is over. We have to manage the gift we were given wisely.

---

Yes. And we do that through zoning laws that are prescribed at the local level. But glad you want to just bulldoze the will of the people that actually live in these places for your Chinese utopian, central-planned urban developments. Hilariously, the Chinese real estate market is currently in a state of collapse, yet you cite them as the ideal.

Believe it or not, most people don't want to live in multi-family housing. They want to own their own land. And they should be able to pay to do that. Every city is different and requires different housing solutions. Stop acting like you can solve anything with your pie in the sky multi-family housing dreams.

Zarathustra said:

---

Because no one wants to live in a truly free market. I hope I don't have to list examples to understand that.

There's nothing wrong with deciding as a society how we want to build housing and manage our landscapes and resources. If the only value you put on development is what makes the most money we're all going to end up in a miserable mess. Living in the US is an anomaly because there were so much free land. The days of exploiting land for profit just to move on to new unsettled territory is over. We have to manage the gift we were given wisely.

---

At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Zarathustra said:

---

Because no one wants to live in a truly free market.

---

I want to live in a free market at the national level, but I also think states and municipalities should be able to determine their own regulations when it comes to running their cities or things like RE development and planning. If you don't like how one state run things, move to one of the many others who may do it differently.

Imagine if there were zero regulations. You would have a lot of the most pristine coastlines in the world absolutely ruined with high rise buildings and mega developments and maybe even factories. I get why people of Newport Beach or even some of the beautiful places around the world would want to keep that from happening. Oahu and Maui would be absolutely ruined if that type of stuff wasn't controlled/regulated at the local level to some degree.

Kvetch said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

considering the vast majority of people can't afford to buy a house, multifamily housing is certainly in demand and more of it is necessary. It's not particularly fun seeing apartments going up left and right but something's gotta give.

We also don't need to continue the sprawl and expanding with more and more suburbs. There's nothing wrong with suburbs per se but continuing to build rows and rows of spec houses isn't going to help the situation.

---

How about you let the market dictate what we do and don't need? Builders will build whatever is in demand. Stop trying to act like you're smart enough to boil down every single housing market into a singular problem that can be solved with your preferred prescription.

Pigeon holing people into apartments and higher density living that they don't want because you have some bone to pick with urban sprawl is ridiculous. There's not an epidemic of homelessness because people can't afford housing. Prices are high at the moment because of very specific, unique market factors, and nothing you're suggesting does an ounce of good to improve the market. Over time, it will balance itself out if you just leave it alone.

---

letting the free market dictate things has led to the situation we are in right now. especially with foreign investors coming in and buying properties by the dozens and inflating local markets. and it's the actual residents of cities (some of whom have lived there for generations) who fall victim to this.

I think too much sprawl is a bad thing, yes. It makes cities less accessible and isolates people. Suburbs are a natural result of growth, but it doesn't mean we should constantly be expanding outward.

Density is a good thing, It makes efficient use of space, creates a better sense of community, and encourages better city planning and public transportation. So yes, I think a short term, non-government solution is to build more multifamily housing. I've visited a number of cities, both in the USA and abroad, that consistently show this to be a good thing.

Owlagdad said:

---

Is buying really worth it anymore? After Trumps tax cuts, you need a boat load of deductions to write home interest and taxes off. Doubt if many youngsters are tithing, so hitting the threshold is tough. They are throwing up real nice patio homes around here all rentals. Makes no sense to me to pay $2500 in rent, but to others, makes perfect sense.

---

I want to have a home, but I don't want to own any of them. I used my primary residence equity to borrow for college at 3.25%. Unfortunately, the Trump tax increase won't let me deduct the interest, even though people with mortgages 3x as large get to do so. My 2nd home (rental) is at 2.75%. 3rd home (rental) is at 3.5%. RV (rental) is at 3.9% on a 12 year note. Guessing valuations will stabilize with rising interest rates, but who knows. In Europe they've had 100 years mortgages for a long time.

Quote:

---

I think too much sprawl is a bad thing, yes. It makes cities less accessible and isolates people. Suburbs are a natural result of growth, but it doesn't mean we should constantly be expanding outward.

Density is a good thing, It makes efficient use of space, creates a better sense of community, and encourages better city planning and public transportation. So yes, I think a short term, non-government solution is to build more multifamily housing. I've visited a number of cities, both in the USA and abroad, that consistently show this to be a good thing

---

You have a right to that opinion. I do not share it. Neither of us has a right to force our opinion on others, especially via the coercive power of government.

And in the vast majority of the cases where a free market "seems" to not be optimal, further investigation shows that well-meaning governmental interference is the true culprit.

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think too much sprawl is a bad thing, yes. It makes cities less accessible and isolates people. Suburbs are a natural result of growth, but it doesn't mean we should constantly be expanding outward.

Density is a good thing, It makes efficient use of space, creates a better sense of community, and encourages better city planning and public transportation. So yes, I think a short term, non-government solution is to build more multifamily housing. I've visited a number of cities, both in the USA and abroad, that consistently show this to be a good thing

---

You have a right to that opinion. I do not share it. Neither of us has a right to force our opinion on others, especially via the coercive power of government.

And in the vast majority of the cases where a free market "seems" to not be optimal, further investigation shows that well-meaning governmental interference is the true culprit.

---

I honestly think some of you have reading comprehension issues. Please reread everything I've said. I have never once advocated "forcing" anything. There's a night and day difference between encouraging more centralized growth and actually forcing it on people. Building more multifamily housing isn't "forcing" anything on anyone. It's just building more accessible housing. That's it.

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think too much sprawl is a bad thing, yes. It makes cities less accessible and isolates people. Suburbs are a natural result of growth, but it doesn't mean we should constantly be expanding outward.

Density is a good thing, It makes efficient use of space, creates a better sense of community, and encourages better city planning and public transportation. So yes, I think a short term, non-government solution is to build more multifamily housing. I've visited a number of cities, both in the USA and abroad, that consistently show this to be a good thing

---

You have a right to that opinion. I do not share it. Neither of us has a right to force our opinion on others, especially via the coercive power of government.

And in the vast majority of the cases where a free market "seems" to not be optimal, further investigation shows that well-meaning governmental interference is the true culprit.

---

Density is not good when you enable lawlessness and bad conditions and hygiene. This effectively cancels the advantages gained from things being close together or a short distance if making that walk is dicey. Same with close living. What is proposed would require about a decade of Roman discipline.

Fair enough. As long as it's the free market building them and no one gets tax abatements/incentives/etc.

Quote:

---

I honestly think some of you have reading comprehension issues. Please reread everything I've said. I have never once advocated "forcing" anything. There's a night and day difference between encouraging more centralized growth and actually forcing it on people. Building more multifamily housing isn't "forcing" anything on anyone. It's just building more accessible housing. That's it.

---

Fair point. Some are jumping at your suggestion probably because the OBidens and the Democratic Party definitely do want to force things.

But you are just saying, build more designs with that philosophy explored. Okay.

larry culpepper said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

considering the vast majority of people can't afford to buy a house, multifamily housing is certainly in demand and more of it is necessary. It's not particularly fun seeing apartments going up left and right but something's gotta give.

We also don't need to continue the sprawl and expanding with more and more suburbs. There's nothing wrong with suburbs per se but continuing to build rows and rows of spec houses isn't going to help the situation.

---

How about you let the market dictate what we do and don't need? Builders will build whatever is in demand. Stop trying to act like you're smart enough to boil down every single housing market into a singular problem that can be solved with your preferred prescription.

Pigeon holing people into apartments and higher density living that they don't want because you have some bone to pick with urban sprawl is ridiculous. There's not an epidemic of homelessness because people can't afford housing. Prices are high at the moment because of very specific, unique market factors, and nothing you're suggesting does an ounce of good to improve the market. Over time, it will balance itself out if you just leave it alone.

---

letting the free market dictate things has led to the situation we are in right now. especially with foreign investors coming in and buying properties by the dozens and inflating local markets. and it's the actual residents of cities (some of whom have lived there for generations) who fall victim to this.

I think too much sprawl is a bad thing, yes. It makes cities less accessible and isolates people. Suburbs are a natural result of growth, but it doesn't mean we should constantly be expanding outward.

Density is a good thing, It makes efficient use of space, creates a better sense of community, and encourages better city planning and public transportation. So yes, I think a short term, non-government solution is to build more multifamily housing. I've visited a number of cities, both in the USA and abroad, that consistently show this to be a good thing.

---

Density is a terrible thing. Stacking people on top of each other creates incompetent, incapable, needy people.

And according to Thomas Jefferson, "when we get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as the Europeans."

Medaggie said:

---

Previous generations. Car payment, utilities, house payment. 100K income = nice house

Current generations. Netflix/cable tv, High speed internet, Cell phone, eating out, traveling. 100K income = using CC to pay living expenses.

I have little sympathy for the new generations that have so many needless excess.

---

Are you going to drop your internet and cell phone? Bizarre not to just include that in utilities.

Kvetch said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

considering the vast majority of people can't afford to buy a house, multifamily housing is certainly in demand and more of it is necessary. It's not particularly fun seeing apartments going up left and right but something's gotta give.

We also don't need to continue the sprawl and expanding with more and more suburbs. There's nothing wrong with suburbs per se but continuing to build rows and rows of spec houses isn't going to help the situation.

---

How about you let the market dictate what we do and don't need? Builders will build whatever is in demand. Stop trying to act like you're smart enough to boil down every single housing market into a singular problem that can be solved with your preferred prescription.

Pigeon holing people into apartments and higher density living that they don't want because you have some bone to pick with urban sprawl is ridiculous. There's not an epidemic of homelessness because people can't afford housing. Prices are high at the moment because of very specific, unique market factors, and nothing you're suggesting does an ounce of good to improve the market. Over time, it will balance itself out if you just leave it alone.

---

Because the market is not always in the national interest. Most efficient=/= best in all cases.

Median home prices have increased at four times the rate of household incomes since 1960, leading to imbalanced price-to-income ratios in most major metropolitan areas.

Would this have been the case if the money printer had not gone brrrrr so much that houses have become a place to store wealth rather than just a place to live?

larry culpepper said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think too much sprawl is a bad thing, yes. It makes cities less accessible and isolates people. Suburbs are a natural result of growth, but it doesn't mean we should constantly be expanding outward.

Density is a good thing, It makes efficient use of space, creates a better sense of community, and encourages better city planning and public transportation. So yes, I think a short term, non-government solution is to build more multifamily housing. I've visited a number of cities, both in the USA and abroad, that consistently show this to be a good thing

---

You have a right to that opinion. I do not share it. Neither of us has a right to force our opinion on others, especially via the coercive power of government.

And in the vast majority of the cases where a free market "seems" to not be optimal, further investigation shows that well-meaning governmental interference is the true culprit.

---

I honestly think some of you have reading comprehension issues. Please reread everything I've said. I have never once advocated "forcing" anything. There's a night and day difference between encouraging more centralized growth and actually forcing it on people. Building more multifamily housing isn't "forcing" anything on anyone. It's just building more accessible housing. That's it.

---

Uh, in this thread you advocate for rent control laws. As in, using government force to control what landlords can charge to rent out their private property.

DubFalls said:

---

Medaggie said:

---

Previous generations. Car payment, utilities, house payment. 100K income = nice house

Current generations. Netflix/cable tv, High speed internet, Cell phone, eating out, traveling. 100K income = using CC to pay living expenses.

I have little sympathy for the new generations that have so many needless excess.

---

Are you going to drop your internet and cell phone? Bizarre not to just include that in utilities.

---

My point is the older generations before internet didn't have these expenses and internet/cell phone are much higher now with the increased data plan/smart phone plans.

This thread has predictably gone down the road of either suck it up and make more money/lower your expectations or Life sucks/unfair to the 20's generation.

Bottom line is that every generation has some headwinds. The 80's saw 16+% interest rate.

Just realize where you are in this world. There is no point of feeling bad for yourself or how unfair it is to afford a home. No one is discounting that the 20's generation has it bad with student loans, increasing interest rates, increasing home costs, increasing taxes. We all realize there are headwinds.

But just do something about it. You have no control over these generational head winds.

Yes, Austin Avg home prices is 600K and if you want to live in Austin, then either get a better job, take on 2 jobs, or cut down on expenses to buy the home. No amount of complaining how its unfair is going to change anything.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry over people seriously proposing the government building more housing projects.

The world needs ditch diggers too. And every generation has losers. This thread seems to be full of them whining.

If your dream is to live in a tiny concrete box in a downtown riot zone. Go for it.

But stop blaming other people or the government for your own worthlessness.

If you had actual skills or value, someone would pay you you for it. Clearly you do not. You "deserve" nothing. And housing is not a "human right." Absurd.

Mixing drinks and making coffee is not going to get you a house.

A gender studies degree or a degree in Russian literature ain't gonna get you sheeet.

Everyone in life has choices to make.

If your life sucks or you can't afford what you want, go sit in the corner and cry about it.

The people that are living in the houses you want and that have the good jobs you want are out there grinding and earning it.

13 pages of home owners explaining how they bought a house with intricate detail. Literally handing you the gameplan.

And yet, there are a mountain of losers on here still deflecting, blaming, making excuses and posting irrelevant data.

Pretty much sums up society today.

Lmao "irrelevant data"

"You kids need to stop worrying about the massive gap between average home price and average income! It's irrelevant! Just don't drink coffee hur dur!"

Remarkable

Medaggie said:

---

DubFalls said:

---

Medaggie said:

---

Previous generations. Car payment, utilities, house payment. 100K income = nice house

Current generations. Netflix/cable tv, High speed internet, Cell phone, eating out, traveling. 100K income = using CC to pay living expenses.

I have little sympathy for the new generations that have so many needless excess.

---

Are you going to drop your internet and cell phone? Bizarre not to just include that in utilities.

---

My point is the older generations before internet didn't have these expenses and internet/cell phone are much higher now with the increased data plan/smart phone plans.

This thread has predictably gone down the road of either suck it up and make more money/lower your expectations or Life sucks/unfair to the 20's generation.

Bottom line is that every generation has some headwinds. The 80's saw 16+% interest rate.

Just realize where you are in this world. There is no point of feeling bad for yourself or how unfair it is to afford a home. No one is discounting that the 20's generation has it bad with student loans, increasing interest rates, increasing home costs, increasing taxes. We all realize there are headwinds.

But just do something about it. You have no control over these generational head winds.

Yes, Austin Avg home prices is 600K and if you want to live in Austin, then either get a better job, take on 2 jobs, or cut down on expenses to buy the home. No amount of complaining how its unfair is going to change anything.

---

That's pretty much my point. The younger generations now are facing challenges that weren't faced by prior generations. That's not to say older generations didn't have unique challenges of their own. just saying it's really unfair to pile on the young adults for being lazy and worthless because they can't afford a house.

I dont know the numbers but a huge percentage of 20somethings live with their parents. Still employed, but either can't afford a home/rent or are doing it to save money. Can't say I blame them. The fact is, COL has become unreasonably high and even people are are well off are struggling.

All is cyclical. How'd you like to be a young couple with small kids in 1933? 1862? 1778?

mulch said:

---

13 pages of home owners explaining how they bought a house with intricate detail. Literally handing you the gameplan.

And yet, there are a mountain of losers on here still deflecting, blaming, making excuses and posting irrelevant data.

Pretty much sums up society today.

---

I'm a homeowner. In the city limits of a major city. I still acknowledge that there's a serious problem right now, and that hard-working, well-off people are still struggling to afford housing and it's not because they get a latte frappucino every morning.

Blaming people for getting a gender studies degree and wasting money on Starbucks misses the point entirely, and honestly just shows ignorance of the data.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Lmao "irrelevant data"

"You kids need to stop worrying about the massive gap between average home price and average income! It's irrelevant! Just don't drink coffee hur dur!"

Remarkable

---

All that data does is tell you that you need to get a better job. If you aren't making enough money then you aren't valuable. Go get some skills or shut your trap.

Housing is only going to get more expensive over time.

But by all means - go on yelling at clouds and posting data. That's definitely gonna get you a house.

What happens when child support doesn't keep up with inflation?

Some nice homes gonna be on the market soon.

Memaw saved from covid but she better not downsize just yet!

mulch said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Lmao "irrelevant data"

"You kids need to stop worrying about the massive gap between average home price and average income! It's irrelevant! Just don't drink coffee hur dur!"

Remarkable

---

All that data does is tell you that you need to get a better job. If you aren't making enough money then you aren't valuable. Go get some skills or shut your trap.

Housing is only going to get more expensive over time.

But by all means - go on yelling at clouds and posting data. That's definitely gonna get you a house.

---

I have a house and a good job. That doesn't mean I can't see that there are massive problems in the housing market that will lead to disastrous outcomes. It's not like massive wealth gaps and the destruction of the middle class could lead to widespread societal unrest or anything like that…

normal person: "If the housing market crashes, maybe we can finally find an affordable house."

lol no pic.twitter.com/VBLjyba9Sj

— Gritty is the Way (@Gritty20202) August 18, 2022

jUsT gEt a bEtTeR jOb!

RebelE Infantry said:

---

normal person: "If the housing market crashes, maybe we can finally find an affordable house."

lol no pic.twitter.com/VBLjyba9Sj

— Gritty is the Way (@Gritty20202) August 18, 2022

jUsT gEt a bEtTeR jOb!

---

It's good to be a Cantillionaire.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

normal person: "If the housing market crashes, maybe we can finally find an affordable house."

lol no pic.twitter.com/VBLjyba9Sj

— Gritty is the Way (@Gritty20202) August 18, 2022

jUsT gEt a bEtTeR jOb!

---

Why do you think this will effect the prices of single family homes in the US?
Half of the money is being spent on overseas investments? "Real estate" can men lots of thing so what indication do you or the author have that Blackstone will be allocating this capital into the SFH market? If they are picking up bargains, then why would they enter the SFH market now when prices are at all time highs?

tysker said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

normal person: "If the housing market crashes, maybe we can finally find an affordable house."

lol no pic.twitter.com/VBLjyba9Sj

— Gritty is the Way (@Gritty20202) August 18, 2022

jUsT gEt a bEtTeR jOb!

---

Why do you think this will effect the prices of single family homes in the US?
Half of the money is being spent on overseas investments? "Real estate" can men lots of thing so what indication do you or the author have that Blackstone will be allocating this capital into the SFH market? If they are picking up bargains, then why would they enter the SFH market now when prices are at all time highs?

---

I'm not sure, but could it be because they are so close to the money spigot and they know it will continue to spew money such that prices will continue to rise? I'm not being facetious. This is an hosest question.