It’s getting prohibitively expensive. Before brokers fees were banned in Boston, a $2,000/mo apartment could have cost you $8000 just to move in. That’s for first, last, security and brokers fee. That’s a worst case scenario but even just first and last months rent is $4000. It’s getting outrageous.

30 year mortgage is founded partly on the idea that your house will be worth more in the future when you sell it. That you can lock in a lower price now.

Number cannot always go up. We are at the top of the carbon pulse. Financialization has taken us far from the material baseline of the rock we are flying through space on. Debt will only get us so far.

For this and many other reasons, why would you believe a house "as an investment" is a reasonable thing to keep hoping for, especially 30 years from now? If you have even a reasonably stable rental, it's less risk exposure if you can save some money that isn't tied up in a down payment.

Where I live, there's just a growing sense that rent and homeownership are wildly more expensive compared to what you get. Lack of development in the urban core has made moving anywhere else (cheaper) entail buying a car, dealing with commutes, etc. It has also made moving within the urban core significantly more expensive, especially with rent control pricing limiting availability. Basically, from a purely financial perspective, the juice (moving) is not really worth the squeeze.

The promises of WFH have also not come to fruition. The dream of moving anywhere and retaining your email job are not the reality in 2026. Employers seem actively hostile to that idea or are reneging on promises or claims that that "is the future".

Because you cannot pay market prices if you leave your rent controlled apartment. Once you are out, you never get one again.

Apparently that is beyond the high and mighty Federal Reserve employees who wrote this speculation.

The housing market needs to be socialized.

Moving is a pain in the ass, especially in today's world where we just have a lot of stuff.

I moved a lot in my 20s, and really grew to hate moving. One year I moved into a place that I hated (because I could just move again) and when I moved out of that place into a place that I loved, I really grew to hate moving.

Housing values skyrocketed due to low interest rates. The prices are sticky and won't correct just because mortgage rates have gone up. That means no one can move. What we need is a large number of small houses (or owner owned multitenants) and a population willing to move into them.

Comparing to the 1980s maybe misses that the population was much younger then, and there’s still a general trend of people moving more when they’re younger and settling down when they’re older. I would have liked to see the data broken down by age cohorts.

Maybe my feed is biased. But, I’ve been seeing good arguments lately that “The rent is too damned high!” is largely a problem created by voters. And, I don’t know how we’re going to fix that.

Ex: https://youtu.be/yoT76zITRx8 TLDR: 60% of both left and right wing voters like rent control. 98% of economists oppose it. Even liberal lefty economists. Even though they support price controls elsewhere like utility monopolies. Rent control feels good in the short term, but is detrimental to the vast majority in the long term in a large variety of ways.

The actual solution, to the surprise of no one, is to increase supply.

Unfortunately, there was a paper I don’t have a link to showing that not just old NIMBY homeowners, but largely everyone consistently vote against measures that increase supply. It’s part of a larger effect where people measurably bias their voting against policies that sound like they will benefit rich people. Very similar policies in similar areas will get different votes depending on how the wording makes it clear the rich will benefit.

Well guess who almost always benefits immediately from real estate construction? So… we keep voting to prevent construction and then complaining that the rent keeps going up.

I feel like US is too heavily weighted on incumbant "rent seeking" through law and policy. We were just in Tokyo and Seoul, the average costs of rents in New York City: ~$3,900 – $4,200 vs Tokyo: ~$1,200 – $1,350 and vs Seoul: ~$950 – $1,100. Renters will move if there are affordable newer options in cities instead of treating boomer asset holding rent seekers as a privileged class.

If the Canadians finally leave and go back home the prices would drop.

They all get TN visas then only hire other Canadians (just like Indians, Canadians do the exact same thing).

They are 1000% responsible for driving the costs up in San Francisco.

It's bizarre to me that this is all couched in "expect". This is a financial problem - they have the actual numbers to know whether the responses are rational.

Sounds about right

This is just the surface of the issue, housing market problem is far deeper, and even home “owners” aren’t actually owning with their perpetual property taxes, which is unlike rent, uncontrolled. To solve housing for everyone, the solution is simple, it’s not building new units, that’s temporary, it’s not more regulations on whatever, that doesn’t solve the root cause, you need to solve that root cause and that is houses are considered an investment, not a shelter, and investments are always expected to go up, obviously it will reach a point that having a few walls of plywood is like owning a merchandise, it doesn’t take a genius to find this. So the steps to solve the toot cause as follows:

- making housing as a depreciated asset, like a car, TV, whatever, it’s NOT an investment. Go invest and start a business that actually contributes to the economy instead of leeching on other’s wealth.

- ban interest rates on mortgages, so banks aren’t incentivized to pour fake numbers into accounts and deducting fake numbers from other accounts as debt all while enjoying the sweet real money from interest. Once that is ban, they won’t give loans based on speculated prices, ending the daisy chain of using another house to get a bigger loan to buy a bigger house based on fake speculated market value.

- relax the permits and regulations on owning and building houses, which is a big topic on its own.

Among many other points that goes after the root cause, not some duct tape solution, housing is a shelter not an investment, look up any human needs diagram and you will find shelter is at the bottom of it, you can’t be creative or do great things when you are not settling in a house, you can’t think about making a business and contribute to economy if you are paying most of your income to landlord who take that to pay a mortgage so the bank can take the interest. Things now seem calm but most the new generation don’t own a house or ever thinking of owning a one, these soon will be the majority of voting and decision making, and it will be a brutal reaction on boomers and the overall selfish system that do anything to make their lives more miserable.

So I'm Gen-X. Statistically speaking, I have more yesterdays than tomorrows. I can't even begin to describe how much of a dystopian hellscape the world has become and is becoming. Many my age describe the 1990s as the last good decade.

I lived in a 2 bedroom apartment in the 1990s for $200/month 3 miles from the city center. All my other expenses were less than another $200/month. The median house price was less than $80k. College graduate positions typically paid ~$30k but that was OK. This was pre-9/11 so all those old TV shows and movies you saw of people meeting people at the airport gate were very real. I've seen younger people think this was just a trope, like the 30 seconds the trace a call bit. No, that was real. Friends of a friend lived in Iowa and split a 4 bedroom house for $180/month. Not each, total.

For younger millenials and Gen-Z, I honestly wish you could've experienced this world, for no other reason than to see that things weren't always this way and don't have to be this way.

There's an old episode of the Cosby Show that had the father (Bill Cosby) teaching his son, Theo, about finances. It's funny watching it back now because it has the line "an apartment in Manhattan is going to cost you $400" and I remember thinking how expensive that sounded at the time.

The absolute worst thing that has happened is how hoarding housing has become a retirement plan. It's simply stealing from the next generation and it's absolutely strangling the economy. Society is fraying at the edges. For anyone interested, there's been academic work on this that falls under the label of "the housing theory of everything" eg [1].

But what I hate most is how cruel, selfish and stupid everybody seems to be getting, in part fuelled by increasing desperation to stay above the rising tide just a little bit longer. And the ultra-wealthy constantly throw gas on this fire and torch the planet for what? So they can have $200 billion instead of $100 billion? What good does that do you if there's nothing left? But what's crazy is that a third of the population will defend Jeff Bezos in this equation.

What you see in a lot of economic indicators (such as those posted here) can be read as people incradsingly see themselves as having no future. Continued consumer spending is not a sign of a healthy economy or optimism anymore. It's a sign of fatalism.

The entire thing is honestly deeply depressing.

[1]: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...

>Even though they support price controls elsewhere like utility monopolies. Rent control feels good in the short term, but is detrimental to the vast majority in the long term in a large variety of ways.

This is a bit of a myth / this argument is typically made in a very weaselly way. A strict nominal price control will indeed make investment in apartments a money loser; but a price control that adjusts with inflation and allows landlords to recoup investments does not create these disincentives (in NY this is called "rent stabilization").

I actually spent months thinking about this question, studying the evidence, and writing it up, the tldr being: "returns on residential investment are affected by a complex web of taxes, subsidies and ownership structures so the evidence against rent stabilization is rather weak; rent stabilization is not that different from a 30 year mortgage; furthermore, without rent stabilization, landlords have too much power over tenants and we are all worse off because of it"

https://okayfail.com/2018/rent-control-great-security-of-ten...

> It’s part of a larger effect where people measurably bias their voting against policies that sound like they will benefit rich people.

Blaming this on voters gives up the propagandists' game. A statement like "we'll make sure more houses are built to lower housing costs" does not sound like "we'll let business owners do business they otherwise wouldn't be allowed to do", even if they happen to describe the same policy.

While I'm not glossing over real problems we have today (I'm also Gen-X), the 90s were not that great, you were just young and unencumbered. Healthcare was cheaper and more friendly, but not better for serious issues. There was such little information available about... everything? TV, Newspapers, and word of mouth, were about it. I'm surprised I made it where I am today with the random walk most of us took in life back then.