Fightin_Aggie said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

What did we ever do back when the interest rates were near 18%?

Oh yeah, I remember. We saved up for 20% down, didn't buy more than we could afford, and refinanced when rates went down.

---

Houses were 80k

18% interest on a balance of $64k is can still be paid down in 3 years with discipline and the wage at the time,


18% or 8% on $640k is a big deal different

---

Then you cannot buy a $640k house. Plenty of $80k houses out there. Are you simply not interested in those?

fka ftc said:

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

What did we ever do back when the interest rates were near 18%?

Oh yeah, I remember. We saved up for 20% down, didn't buy more than we could afford, and refinanced when rates went down.

---

Houses were 80k

18% interest on a balance of $64k is can still be paid down in 3 years with discipline and the wage at the time,


18% or 8% on $640k is a big deal different

---

Then you cannot buy a $640k house. Plenty of $80k houses out there. Are you simply not interested in those?

---

So you agree that it's harder. Thanks. Only took 7 pages of you not reading what anyone said to get it.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

What did we ever do back when the interest rates were near 18%?

Oh yeah, I remember. We saved up for 20% down, didn't buy more than we could afford, and refinanced when rates went down.

---

Houses were 80k

18% interest on a balance of $64k is can still be paid down in 3 years with discipline and the wage at the time,


18% or 8% on $640k is a big deal different

---

Then you cannot buy a $640k house. Plenty of $80k houses out there. Are you simply not interested in those?

---

So you agree that it's harder. Thanks. Only took 7 pages of you not reading what anyone said to get it.

---

Nope. Still have it wrong. And supposedly I am the dense one. Just as easy to buy a house. Did they suddenly quit selling houses?

Its just you cannot afford what you want. You are not entitled to what you want, you are entitled to what you can afford.

Rates are still reasonably low compared to the last 40 or so years. Plenty of nhoods in Detroit are much more affordable than they were in the 1980s.

Quit whining about not being able to afford a nice house in a desirable suburb. Be a first mover and go regentrify some of those less desirable places. You will likely make a killing in a few years.

Yes, so it's harder. Nobody is whining. Saying 4 is greater than 3 is not whining that 4 is larger, it's just a fact. If you can't understand simple kindergarten level math, then this might be another thread where I am done discussing thing with you while you continue to make up arguments for me that I never made.

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

What did we ever do back when the interest rates were near 18%?

Oh yeah, I remember. We saved up for 20% down, didn't buy more than we could afford, and refinanced when rates went down.

---

Houses were 80k

18% interest on a balance of $64k is can still be paid down in 3 years with discipline and the wage at the time,


18% or 8% on $640k is a big deal different

---

Again, perspective. You have to remember the salaries were nowhere near what they are today. Minimum wage in 1980 for instance was $1.40. A typical salary was $1,000/mo before taxes.

This was addressed on the first page directly to you.

Quote:

---

You have to save 2.5x as long to purchase a home that costs 3x as much monthly. Interest rates are a portion of the equation, but they matter WAY less than price relative to income. Even at 0% interest rates it's more expensive/difficult to buy a home than it was in the early 80's.

1980
Median House Price: 47,200
Median Household Income: 21,000
20% Down: 9,440
Interest Rate: 17%
Tax: 864/yr (72.00/mo)
HOI: 250/yr (20.80/mo)
P&I: 539.00
Total Payment: 631.80
Down payment percent gross income: 45%
Total payment percent of gross income: 16%

2023
Median House Price: 416,000
Median Household Income: 81,500
20% Down: 83,200
Interest Rate: 7.5%
Tax: 7615 (634.59/mo)
Insurance: 2204 (183.67/mo)
P&I: 2327.00
Total Payment: 3145.26
Down payment percent gross income: 102%
Total payment percent of gross income: 46.3%

---

My $137K "starter" home in 2004, is now valued at $485K in 2023. Combine that with obsurd interest rates, and it pretty much makes more sense to rent a home for very young professionals than to own.

As well as it has been repeatedly pointed out that what you get in a house today is massively different than 40 years ago.

Same with cars. Todays cars have lane keep assist, automatic transmissions, computer screens, cruise control, air conditioning, air bags, collision detection, electronic stabilization.

So if you factor those things in, guess what... cars pound for pound cost more and that increase is higher than wages have increased I can assure you. So can we complain about cars too? Or are we just making observations and not whining?

To drive the point further, if you make the median salary, you will not qualify for a mortgage with 20% down to purchase the median valued home.

Flagged for continued trolling.

That current 80000 house is not equivalent to the houses available in the same relativd price range as prior decades.

It's not the same and it's not a very reasonable argument to suggest that people's expectations are out of whack when you're telling them that they can afford a house that's likely to have quite a few issues, be located in relatively unsafe neighborhoods, likely have very bad schools and still have a relatively hefty tax bill for what you get.

You understand that, right?

Another "I don't like their opinion cause its different than mine" trolling?

I'll complain about cars all day. Especially work trucks.

The "plain jane" work truck that best for my job is a ridiculous price, especially when compared to the same truck from 10 years ago. The options that you cannot opt out of are dumb, but there's no choice but to pay. I don't want any sort of fancy truck. I just need ac. That's it. But, the options are severely limited

Agthatbuilds said:

---

That current 80000 house is not equivalent to the houses available in the same relativd price range as prior decades.

It's not the same and it's not a very reasonable argument to suggest that people's expectations are out of whack when you're telling them that they can afford a house that's likely to have quite a few issues, be located in relatively unsafe neighborhoods, likely have very bad schools and still have a relatively hefty tax bill for what you get.

You understand that, right?

---

I understand what you are saying, I just simply disagree.

Also, why would one expect a hefty tax bill for a lower level, lower value home in an unsafe neighborhood with bad schools? That dog don't hunt.

Hell, there are tons of buyer assistance programs in those nhoods.

I do get the overall concept and issues, I just think there is a lot of whine and entitlement from many of the posters on this thread. But that's my opinion. Not demanding you or anyone else agree with it.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

I'll complain about cars all day. Especially work trucks.

The "plain jane" work truck that best for my job is a ridiculous price, especially when compared to the same truck from 10 years ago. The options that you cannot opt out of are dumb, but there's no choice but to pay. I don't want any sort of fancy truck. I just need ac. That's it. But, the options are severely limited

---

In the vein of learn to code, if you think there is a market for fleet trucks that are not being met, I encourage you to find a way to serve that market.

That's what happens in homebuilding is it not? If there is a market for starter homes with zero amenities in an okay area with okay schools then a builder / developer will meet it. LGi has done this to great success.

Here's a cheap house posted earlier in the thread and it's tax burden.

I think the issue people here are having is your arguing a strawman that you've presented.

The same house that was "affordable" in bygone days in not the same house that's "affordable" today and the sacrifices required to get a house are relatively larger than in the past.

One interesting thing is that long periods of low interest rates probably helped contribute to the inflation that now makes it hard for middle income people to afford a house

fka ftc said:

---

As well as it has been repeatedly pointed out that what you get in a house today is massively different than 40 years ago.

Same with cars. Todays cars have lane keep assist, automatic transmissions, computer screens, cruise control, air conditioning, air bags, collision detection, electronic stabilization.

So if you factor those things in, guess what... cars pound for pound cost more and that increase is higher than wages have increased I can assure you. So can we complain about cars too? Or are we just making observations and not whining?

---

People's cars don't get taxed on their ever increasing value annually ($6k worth of new rims and bull nuts hanging, or not), and the 2023 tax payments in the example were more than the entire mortgage payment in 1980. While that's the nature of math and percentages, it's still frightening.

Fun thing is some of those production builders are building entire neighborhoods of rentals because of people's inability to purchase new homes

The low mortgage rates and the overall lowering of mortgage qualifications are a contributor to the issue both in the absolutes of affordability but also led to the wild expectation creep of what a starter home is, which is a phenomenon that really got kicking in the 2000s.

And its not a strawman to broaden the issue raised in the OP. It keeps it from being an men at the breakfast counter *****ing about how expensive things are discussion.

Rates will chill demand for some markets but resetting expectations and the average consumer understanding they will have to either rent or purchase an older home in a less desirable neighborhood will help bring things down.

But I have not seen evidence of many indicating they are willing to do that.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Fun thing is some of those production builders are building entire neighborhoods of rentals because of people's inability to purchase new homes

---

Which in 10 years will make for great starter homes to be purchased by those complaining most on this thread.

fka ftc said:

---

Another "I don't like their opinion cause its different than mine" trolling?

---

You ever sit back and think "Maybe I'm old and out of touch with reality?"

My house is 1156 sq ft. It was built in 1950. It was $200,000 when I bought it 9 years ago. It was a $1330 mortgage. It's valued at $520,000 today. If I bought it today the mortgage would be $3900. That's an annualized increase in value of 10.7%, with an annualized increase in payments of 12.7%.

The house I grew up in just down the street from where I live now, my mom bought in 1978 before she met my dad for $38,000. It was built in 1940. 1386 sq ft. The mortgage was under $500. My brother owns it now. He purchased it for $300,000 in 2017. Mortgage was around $1800. It's valued at $520,000 now. If he purchased it now it would also carry a $3900 mortgage. That's 9.6% annual appreciation in value and a 13.7% increase in monthly costs.

The first house I put on an offer on in 2012 had my offer accepted that I backed out of at 108,000. It's valued at 327,000 today. That's 10.6% annualized appreciation in valued. The mortgage was going to be $780. It would be around $2500 today. It's 1379 sq ft and built in 1974 and not updated.


It is not just McMansions and granite countertops driving affordability issues.

JobSecurity said:

---

not really an "inflation" problem, it's a supply and demand problem. Unfortunately with no obvious solution.

If the fed wasn't focused on a soft landing there might be hope, but I don't see this dropping outside of a recession

---

Nah it's really not. In a few markets maybe, but it's not a supply issue at this point

fka ftc said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Fun thing is some of those production builders are building entire neighborhoods of rentals because of people's inability to purchase new homes

---

Which in 10 years will make for great starter homes to be purchased by those complaining most on this thread.

---

Of course, iirc, the intention is for these to always be rentals held by private equity, sold as income producing units, not individually, but as entire packages. It's basically an apartment complex.

Back to the argument at hand- the only real solution, in my opinion, is for massive wage increase across the board (which I know my company couldn't handle in this time of inflation), or a real bubble busting recession or depression that guts the housing market. Now, option two would probably just lead to more homes being bought up by private equity firms or real estate investors flush with cash, and not necessarily leading to more affordable homes for people, since most of them would probably not be in a position to finance a home.

You brought an alternate theory and are arguing about this alternate theory. That's a strawman.


Some of what you argue probably does indeed have something to do with the current situation. However, it's only a small piece of the puzzle. It's too simplistic to simply say back in my day we worked harder or buy a ****tier house in a ****ty neighborhood or you want too much when it's clear there's broader financial issues at play.

I'm sitting here looking at at 1950s, 1200 sqft house with asbestos siding, a crappy foundation, a crappy roof, terrible windows and doors, no insulation on a 1/4 acre lot but you probably needs to drop 600k -700k to get it. Thats a crazy number. This is a starter home in just about every way.

I could not buy a house for 80k in this town that would feed into an acceptable HS.

Period.

Cheapest house/mobile home in college station on homes.com

https://www.homes.com/property/111-pleasant-st-bryan-tx/cjy7zxpg03nwx/?l=wej9sm48yczh5

Where are all of these 80k homes y'all are referring to?

fka ftc said:

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

What did we ever do back when the interest rates were near 18%?

Oh yeah, I remember. We saved up for 20% down, didn't buy more than we could afford, and refinanced when rates went down.

---

Houses were 80k

18% interest on a balance of $64k is can still be paid down in 3 years with discipline and the wage at the time,


18% or 8% on $640k is a big deal different

---

Then you cannot buy a $640k house. Plenty of $80k houses out there. Are you simply not interested in those?

---

$80k houses? So a trailer park. In Normangee. The commuting costs to BCS are going to be a PITA

Pantera said:

---

Cheapest house/mobile home in college station on homes.com

https://www.homes.com/property/111-pleasant-st-bryan-tx/cjy7zxpg03nwx/?l=wej9sm48yczh5

Where are all of these 80k homes y'all are referring to?

---

Those dang kids don't work hard enough to buy a house

Pantera said:

---

Cheapest house/mobile home in college station on homes.com

https://www.homes.com/property/111-pleasant-st-bryan-tx/cjy7zxpg03nwx/?l=wej9sm48yczh5

Where are all of these 80k homes y'all are referring to?

---

In my LH neighborhood of Dallas that house would sell for $500k or more to a builder who tears it down to build a 3500-4k+ sqft home to sell for at least $950k

If I tore down my house, put a camping tent on the land and lived like a hobo I'd have a $400,000 house.

But as a millennial I'm expecting too much.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

You brought an alternate theory and are arguing about this alternate theory. That's a strawman.


Some of what you argue probably does indeed have something to do with the current situation. However, it's only a small piece of the puzzle. It's too simplistic to simply say back in my day we worked harder or buy a ****tier house in a ****ty neighborhood or you want too much when it's clear there's broader financial issues at play.

I'm sitting here looking at at 1950s, 1200 sqft house with asbestos siding, a crappy foundation, a crappy roof, terrible windows and doors, no insulation on a 1/4 acre lot but you probably needs to drop 600k -700k to get it. Thats a crazy number. This is a starter home in just about every way.

---

An alternate theory is NOT a strawman. A strawman is a FAKE alternate theory, which is why the term is so poorly misused.

Quote:

---

A strawman is a fallacious argument that distorts an opposing stance in order to make it easier to attack. Essentially, the person using the strawman pretends to attack their opponent's stance, while in reality they are actually attacking a distorted version of that stance, which their opponent doesn't necessarily support.

---

That's exactly what your doing

hph6203 said:

---

If I tore down my house, put a camping tent on the land and lived like a hobo I'd have a $400,000 house.

But as a millennial I'm expecting too much.

---

Then you are incredibly dumb for not doing so. This is a strawman. You are not going to tear down your home and live like a hobo. If you did, your lot is not worth $400,000. If your lot is worth $400,000 and with a house on it it is worth less, then something is wrong.

So... for class tonight... fake argument = strawman.

Alternate argument = actual discussion on the issue.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Quote:

---

A strawman is a fallacious argument that distorts an opposing stance in order to make it easier to attack. Essentially, the person using the strawman pretends to attack their opponent's stance, while in reality they are actually attacking a distorted version of that stance, which their opponent doesn't necessarily support.

---

That's exactly what your doing

---

Dude, just stop.

If you want to go down that path, dissect your definition and quote how I did what you are saying.

When you do, you will realize how wrong you are.

What I am doing is simply taking the opposing stance.