Living paycheck to paycheck (article)

[KSera]

27 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

That's a lovely sentiment, but what about when there is no available land for this wonderful new affordable housing of which you speak?

I'm not sure how it's a lovely sentiment 🤔. I think you are extrapolating your own personal housing situation to anything else people are saying. I'm not telling you you need to feel guilty about your financial situation and all your houses. I think you are caught up in defensiveness  about that. I'm simply saying your statement about a "equal lack of compassion for both sides" doesn't land well to me when the two sides are people struggling to be housed and the people who are well housed. I don't know why compassion would be equal for both situations.

In MY area (and I'm sure there are many others), there IS land for affordable housing. These developments get fought. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not saying anything about tearing down your house or anyone else's to build affordable housing.

[Brittany1116]

49 minutes ago, goldberry said:

  It's starting to change now, we have some new build communities with townhomes and smaller (1500sf-ish) houses... but THOSE are still priced at over $350,000.  So not sure they qualify as affordable.

New build in my neighborhood went for that little over a year ago. 1400sf 3/2 on under 1/2 acre. Couple drives almost 30 min to work. 

[Catwoman]

3 hours ago, frogger said:

It is highly unlikely that an entire city or area will have nothing to work with.  There is always turnover in various location at any one time. 

Housing will only become affordable when it becomes plentiful. If you build 10 units in a housing shortage and that is it then no, those units won't be cheap. If you flood the city with housing then all levels of housing will become cheaper. 

I'm sorry, but you are completely mistaken about the "turnover" where I live. When I say there is no available land, I'm not kidding, and even if any were to become available (which is highly unlikely,) the price would be so high that it wouldn't be profitable for a builder to build low income housing. 

You can't "flood" a place with housing if there is no place to build it.

Also, even in places where there is cheap land available, if you "flood" those places with affordable housing, who is paying for all of the necessary infrastructure that will be needed to support all of that massively increased population?

This is not as simple as many people try to make it out to be. 

[Catwoman]

3 hours ago, KSera said:

I'm not sure how it's a lovely sentiment 🤔. I think you are extrapolating your own personal housing situation to anything else people are saying. I'm not telling you you need to feel guilty about your financial situation and all your houses. I think you are caught up in defensiveness  about that. I'm simply saying your statement about a "equal lack of compassion for both sides" doesn't land well to me when the two sides are people struggling to be housed and the people who are well housed. I don't know why compassion would be equal for both situations.

In MY area (and I'm sure there are many others), there IS land for affordable housing. These developments get fought. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not saying anything about tearing down your house or anyone else's to build affordable housing.

This isn't about defensiveness.

You are concerned about people fighting new development in your area, and maybe you're assuming that it's because people object to the idea of affordable housing, but are you sure that's what it is? Does your area have the existing infrastructure to support a lot of affordable housing?

Could it be that people are objecting to the affordable housing developments because they are concerned about a sudden large influx of population into your area for other reasons? Could they be worried about things like needing to widen and extend existing roads, add new roads and bridges and sidewalks, extend a possibly already aging sewer system, and also be concerned about the availability and accessibility of enough city water for everyone, as well as considering the number of schools that may need to be added, figuring out what to do with all of the extra trash and recycling that will require disposal, and any number of other very important considerations? 

Maybe your area is already all set for new development, but many places are not, and I can understand the existing residents having some serious reservations about who will be paying for all of the new infrastructure, as well as not wanting to deal with things like potentially years of road construction, inconvenient detours, added traffic, construction noise, etc., as well as the concern about their property and school taxes (and possibly other expenses, too,) increasing dramatically.

 

[frogger]

45 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I'm sorry, but you are completely mistaken about the "turnover" where I live. When I say there is no available land, I'm not kidding, and even if any were to become available (which is highly unlikely,) the price would be so high that it wouldn't be profitable for a builder to build low income housing. 

You can't "flood" a place with housing if there is no place to build it.

Also, even in places where there is cheap land available, if you "flood" those places with affordable housing, who is paying for all of the necessary infrastructure that will be needed to support all of that massively increased population?

This is not as simple as many people try to make it out to be. 

Well, yes, you could be living in Singapore or some place like that. You did not state where you live. And if you don't like paying for infastructure perhaps you shouldn't use the infastructure. 

Meanwhile taxes must pay for shelters, public toilets, clean up and enviromental restoration of homeless camps. I would rather my home taxes pay for appropriate infastructure and absolutely not plow outs for rich neighborhoods. They should contract and pay for it themselves. Same with sewer and electric. Everyone knows that distance increases price and therefore Single Family zoning should pay a much higher tax rate than Multi Family areas because it is way more expensive. In other words a million dollar condo in downtown should pay less taxes than a 400k home in the burbs because they use more infastructure. 

Edited January 19 by frogger

[Heartstrings]

26 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I'm sorry, but you are completely mistaken about the "turnover" where I live. When I say there is no available land, I'm not kidding, and even if any were to become available (which is highly unlikely,) the price would be so high that it wouldn't be profitable for a builder to build low income housing. 

You can't "flood" a place with housing if there is no place to build it.

Also, even in places where there is cheap land available, if you "flood" those places with affordable housing, who is paying for all of the necessary infrastructure that will be needed to support all of that massively increased population?

This is not as simple as many people try to make it out to be. 

There will always be places that are pretty much full and just aren’t ever going to be “affordable”, like Manhattan, San Francisco, Salt Lake City etc.  In a country as big as ours is though, even if 3 or 4 cities in each state where as full and expensive as San Francisco, that’s still a LOT of other cities and suburbs that *can* still be made *more* affordable by building more housing. Arguing that housing can never be affordable because a few places are just impossibly full is kind of missing the forest for a few very special trees.  

Honestly I don’t see what the alternative is, we figure out to house people or we accept mass homelessness.  Either that or hope Thanos poofs half the population.  

[Catwoman]

2 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

There will always be places that are pretty much full and just aren’t ever going to be “affordable”, like Manhattan, San Francisco, Salt Lake City etc.  In a country as big as ours is though, even if 3 or 4 cities in each state where as full and expensive as San Francisco, that’s still a LOT of other cities and suburbs that *can* still be made *more* affordable by building more housing. Arguing that housing can never be affordable because a few places are just impossibly full is kind of missing the forest for a few very special trees.  

Honestly I don’t see what the alternative is, we figure out to house people or we accept mass homelessness.  Either that or hope Thanos poofs half the population.  

I agree with you that many places have room for more housing -- and many places are already far more affordable that others --  but I was responding to frogger, who posted that it is "highly unlikely that an entire city or area will have nothing to work with.  There is always turnover in various location at any one time."

As you have also pointed out, that is simply not the case. It is not the case where I live, but she didn't seem to want to acknowledge that because it doesn't suit her narrative.

 

 

 

[thatfirstsip]

Yeah the NIMBYism here is impressive.

 

[Catwoman]

31 minutes ago, frogger said:

Well, yes, you could be living in Singapore or some place like that. You did not state where you live. And if you don't like paying for infastructure perhaps you shouldn't use the infastructure. 

Meanwhile taxes must pay for shelters, public toilets, clean up and enviromental restoration of homeless camps. I would rather my home taxes pay for appropriate infastructure and absolutely not plow outs for rich neighborhoods. They should contract and pay for it themselves. Same with sewer and electric. Everyone knows that distance increases price and therefore Single Family zoning should pay a much higher tax rate than Multi Family areas because it is way more expensive. 

Ummm... Singapore??? What???

NO.

No, I do not live in Singapore. I don't post my exact locations but I primarily live in the NYC area and also in a midwestern city. 

You seem to have some serious resentment toward the people in those "rich neighborhoods." You also don't seem to understand how infrastructure actually works, and I'm not going to waste a lot of time explaining to you how completely impractical your suggestions are about rich neighborhoods having to contract and pay for their own sewer, electric, and road maintenance, while apparently the low-priced areas would all be handled differently.

Oh, and those single family home owners should be paying a much higher tax rate? What about those smaller single family homes that are owned by people on fixed incomes? Will you be discriminating against them, as well, or just the people you decide are "rich?" 

The problem is, that it's not just the people in those "rich neighborhoods" who will object to your suggestions like this one that you posted earlier: 

4 hours ago, frogger said:

Housing will only become affordable when it becomes plentiful. If you build 10 units in a housing shortage and that is it then no, those units won't be cheap. If you flood the city with housing then all levels of housing will become cheaper. 

 Homeowners are going to object to their property values decreasing -- and why shouldn't they? Their homes are their major investment, and they want them to grow in value, not lose value because the area is suddenly "flooded" with cheaper housing. No one is going to support that idea and you are delusional if you think they will. 

You have a lot of ideas and it all sounds very noble, but the reality is that you're never going to get existing homeowners to support that level of discrimination against them -- and without community support, you're not going to get the housing you so desperately want.

You need to be a lot more realistic. It sounds like you mostly want to dictate to people who have lived in a community for decades that they have to make sweeping changes in the way their communities are run, and people just won't go for that, especially when it's going to cost them a lot of money in the long run if you tell them that you are intentionally trying to drag down their property values.

[KSera]

45 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

This isn't about defensiveness.

You are concerned about people fighting new development in your area, and maybe you're assuming that it's because people object to the idea of affordable housing, but are you sure that's what it is? Does your area have the existing infrastructure to support a lot of affordable housing?

Could it be that people are objecting to the affordable housing developments because they are concerned about a sudden large influx of population into your area for other reasons? Could they be worried about things like needing to widen and extend existing roads, add new roads and bridges and sidewalks, extend a possibly already aging sewer system, and also be concerned about the availability and accessibility of enough city water for everyone, as well as considering the number of schools that may need to be added, figuring out what to do with all of the extra trash and recycling that will require disposal, and any number of other very important considerations? 

Maybe your area is already all set for new development, but many places are not, and I can understand the existing residents having some serious reservations about who will be paying for all of the new infrastructure, as well as not wanting to deal with things like potentially years of road construction, inconvenient detours, added traffic, construction noise, etc., as well as the concern about their property and school taxes (and possibly other expenses, too,) increasing dramatically.

 

I think you're vastly underestimating my knowledge of what the objections are in different areas. We have areas where lots of large developments of big, expensive houses are happening where they really shouldn't be for exactly the kinds of reasons you are saying--there's not sufficient infrastructure for the required roads, schools, waste management, all the things you say. This is actually an issue I follow closely because it's relevant in some areas very close to me. There truly are areas that need to slow down the buildlng, and those areas can't handle multi unit housing either. There are OTHER areas that are building lots of large, expensive homes, and when multi unit housing is proposed (or actually being built), people complain quite freely about not wanting "those" people to live nearby and drive up crime and bring down their property tax rates. I have literally read people talk about not wanting "apartment kids" in their schools.

[Catwoman]

12 minutes ago, thatfirstsip said:

Yeah the NIMBYism here is impressive.

 

Perhaps, but my main takeaway is that the lack of common sense is astounding.

The NIMBYism is only going to get a lot worse if people insist that it's a great idea for people's home values to decrease. And the people who will be hurt the most by a plan like that, will be the newer, younger home buyers, who paid a lot more for their homes than the people who bought their homes 50 years ago. They are not going to agree to a plan that would intentionally lower their own home values.

[KSera]

6 hours ago, Catwoman said:

Also, a lot of new development adds a tremendous tax burden which may strongly affect the current residents of an area, and it's hard to blame longtime residents of a community for being upset when their property taxes double within not very many years. Sure, their home values may have increased as well, but that's not an immediate benefit to someone who plans to age in place, so it's understandable that they may not be in favor of dramatic growth.

 

4 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

You need to be a lot more realistic. It sounds like you mostly want to dictate to people who have lived in a community for decades that they have to make sweeping changes in the way their communities are run, and people just won't go for that, especially when it's going to cost them a lot of money in the long run if you tell them that you are intentionally trying to drag down their property values.

Which one is it? It's bad to add development that increases property values because it increases property taxes or its bad to add housing that decreases property values (which decreases taxes)?

[Catwoman]

3 minutes ago, KSera said:

I think you're vastly underestimating my knowledge of what the objections are in different areas. We have areas where lots of large developments of big, expensive houses are happening where they really shouldn't be for exactly the kinds of reasons you are saying--there's not sufficient infrastructure for the required roads, schools, waste management, all the things you say. This is actually an issue I follow closely because it's relevant in some areas very close to me. There truly are areas that need to slow down the buildlng, and those areas can't handle multi unit housing either. There are OTHER areas that are building lots of large, expensive homes, and when multi unit housing is proposed (or actually being built), people complain quite freely about not wanting "those" people to live nearby and drive up crime and bring down their property tax rates. I have literally read people talk about not wanting "apartment kids" in their schools.

If your area has enough available land to build neighborhoods filled with large, expensive homes, I absolutely agree with you that your city should be requiring those developers to include a certain number of affordable units (townhouses, apartments, whatever) in their development plans, and that the developers should also have to contribute to things like widening roads, etc. 

It's one of the best ways to get affordable housing built into an area before the land has been used up for other things.

[Catwoman]

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

 

Which one is it? It's bad to add development that increases property values because it increases property taxes or its bad to add housing that decreases property values (which decreases taxes)?

Many homeowners don't want either one. They are against massive growth, because they don't want to deal with all of the issues surrounding it. 

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

my main takeaway is that the lack of common sense is astounding.

What is your common sense idea for providing enough affordable housing that people can afford to have an indoor roof over their head rather than live in tents on the street? I mean that quite literally and seriously, because those are the choices people are facing many places. This is a problem we somehow have to have a solution for or we will continue to having growing populations of people living outdoors on public property. And it's going to mean compromises in various ways for various people and some of us are probably going to need to pay more taxes in order to accomplish this goal.

[frogger]

4 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Perhaps, but my main takeaway is that the lack of common sense is astounding.

The NIMBYism is only going to get a lot worse if people insist that it's a great idea for people's home values to decrease. And the people who will be hurt the most by a plan like that, will be the newer, younger home buyers, who paid a lot more for their homes than the people who bought their homes 50 years ago. They are not going to agree to a plan that would intentionally lower their own home values.

So now you are against affordable homes because you won't make big bucks from just holding them. I see. The truth comes out. 

 

Home values are only good if you sell and even then you have to live somewhere. If I have to turn around and buy another expensive place to live, how am I richer? 

The idea that we should keep homes scarce and prices up is quite simply vile. It is vile. 

The value of my home to me is how I can enjoy my life in it without selling it. That is greatly depreciated when the homeless fill our streets, lose hope, start drugs. When my neighbor is better off I am better off. When my neighbors children are educated well, I am better off for the educated workforce that will provide me goods and services. This makes for a safe lovely town to live in. 

 

[Heartstrings]

10 minutes ago, KSera said:

What is your common sense idea for providing enough affordable housing that people can afford to have an indoor roof over their head rather than live in tents on the street? I mean that quite literally and seriously, because those are the choices people are facing many places. This is a problem we somehow have to have a solution for or we will continue to having growing populations of people living outdoors on public property. And it's going to mean compromises in various ways for various people and some of us are probably going to need to pay more taxes in order to accomplish this goal.

I watched a video from a guy showing how he lives in his climate controlled storage unit, complete with a row of boxes in the front as camouflage.   His goal is yo save up for an RV to live in.  There were a ton of comments from people saying they had done the same things, and some from managers saying they knew and looked the other way as long as there were no issues.  I guess that’s one way we’re housing people so as to not inconvenience anyone with the existence of other humans.  

Edited January 19 by Heartstrings

[Catwoman]

Just now, KSera said:

What is your common sense idea for providing enough affordable housing that people can afford to have an indoor roof over their head rather than live in tents on the street? I mean that quite literally and seriously, because those are the choices people are facing many places. This is a problem we somehow have to have a solution for or we will continue to having growing populations of people living outdoors on public property. And it's going to mean compromises in various ways for various people and some of us are probably going to need to pay more taxes in order to accomplish this goal.

I have never claimed to have the solution. I'm just saying that most of the solutions being proposed here are going to meet with tremendous opposition. You need to find a way to get community buy-in for these projects to succeed.

[KSera]

Just now, Heartstrings said:

I watched a video from a guy showing how he lives in his climate controlled storage unit, complete with a row of boxes in the front as camouflage.   His goal is yo save up for an RV to live in.  There were a ton of comments from people saying they had the same things, and some from managers saying they knew and looked the other way as long as there were no issues.  I guess that’s one way we’re housing people so as to not inconvenience anyone with the existence of other humans.  

Yep. One of my kids has "neighbors" who live in a van that moves around the neighborhood. This isn't uncommon here. A lot of people hate that people do this, in some cases for the valid reason that there are some very dangerous drug issues in a significant portion of this population, and that brings a lot of unpleasant and dangerous things to the neighborhood, such as crime, drug paraphernalia, human waste. Totally understandable to not want any of those things in the neighborhood.  A lot of people just want these people to magically stop existing so they don't have to see them though, rather than realizing that this is an indication of a very difficult problem in need of a solution.

[frogger]

18 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Ummm... Singapore??? What???

NO.

No, I do not live in Singapore. I don't post my exact locations but I primarily live in the NYC area and also in a midwestern city. 

You seem to have some serious resentment toward the people in those "rich neighborhoods." You also don't seem to understand how infrastructure actually works, and I'm not going to waste a lot of time explaining to you how completely impractical your suggestions are about rich neighborhoods having to contract and pay for their own sewer, electric, and road maintenance, while apparently the low-priced areas would all be handled differently.

Oh, and those single family home owners should be paying a much higher tax rate? What about those smaller single family homes that are owned by people on fixed incomes? Will you be discriminating against them, as well, or just the people you decide are "rich?" 

The problem is, that it's not just the people in those "rich neighborhoods" who will object to your suggestions like this one that you posted earlier: 

 Homeowners are going to object to their property values decreasing -- and why shouldn't they? Their homes are their major investment, and they want them to grow in value, not lose value because the area is suddenly "flooded" with cheaper housing. No one is going to support that idea and you are delusional if you think they will. 

You have a lot of ideas and it all sounds very noble, but the reality is that you're never going to get existing homeowners to support that level of discrimination against them -- and without community support, you're not going to get the housing you so desperately want.

You need to be a lot more realistic. It sounds like you mostly want to dictate to people who have lived in a community for decades that they have to make sweeping

Actually, I just want them to pay for the services they demand. That isn't any more discrimanatory than having someone pay an electric bill or a plane ticket. I do resent that they demand services and want others to pay for special services just for them and complain when others ask for a less costly service. 

I am a homeowner and know many homeowners who actually want to make their community nicer. They actually care about their home not just that they can turn a profit while living in a dumpster fire. 

[Bootsie]

6 hours ago, frogger said:

I kind of want to ask where you live but I don't want you to have to say.

Was it like a tourist town that is dying or something? Especially with the air b&b craze it seems strange that resell on a condo would be that hard unless the money were mismanaged or there was maintenance backlog. 

It does seem odd to me that they wouldn't just lower the price. If it is more expensive to buy and own a condo like you stated earlier and they aren't selling why aren't they lowering the price? I mean maybe they are clueless about supply and demand but still everyone knows a deal. 

I am in Texas.  Previously I lived in the San Antonio area; although it is a major toursit destination, I am unaware of people buying condos to rent as VRBO in numbers large enough to impact the real estate market (unless perhaps condos right in the center of downtown, which isn't where families usually want to live).  Anyone I have known there who has owned a condo has had difficulty selling; I agree that if they lowered the price they would sell more quickly.  

I am now in north Texas.  I live in an area directly impacted by university student housing, which brings its own issues.  But, in the broader area, I find the same issues with the condo/townhome properties.

When DH and I looked, one of the things we found that many of these properties were multi-level or did not have easy access from parking into the unit, often making them impractical for older buyers to consider,  Another thing that impacts the pricing of property here is that we have relatively high property taxes, especially if the property is not owner-occupied with a homestead exemption.  When I first moved to this area, I rented and could see that about 2/3 of the rent I paid went to covering the owner's property tax bill.  

[Catwoman]

13 minutes ago, frogger said:

So now you are against affordable homes because you won't make big bucks from just holding them. I see. The truth comes out. 

 

Home values are only good if you sell and even then you have to live somewhere. If I have to turn around and buy another expensive place to live, how am I richer? 

The idea that we should keep homes scarce and prices up is quite simply vile. It is vile. 

The value of my home to me is how I can enjoy my life in it without selling it. That is greatly depreciated when the homeless fill our streets, lose hope, start drugs. When my neighbor is better off I am better off. When my neighbors children are educated well, I am better off for the educated workforce that will provide me goods and services. This makes for a safe lovely town to live in. 

 

Wow, you are really making me laugh. 🤣

You are being ridiculous and insulting. No one has said that we should "keep homes scarce." But you can't just start "flooding" places with new, affordable homes. Your so-called plan is preposterous and it would never work.

The value of your home is not just what it's worth to you now. It's also what it's worth when you need to sell it and move elsewhere. And yes, eventually you will need to sell it, or your heirs will sell it after you die. 

I guess you would consider most homeowners to be "vile," because nobody wants to have to sell their house for considerably less than they paid for it. And no matter what you may claim and how morally superior you want to appear, I don't believe you want to have to lose money on the sale of your home, either. 

But hey, you do you. 

I'm done discussing this with you. 

Have a nice night.

[frogger]

20 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

.

I guess you would consider most homeowners to be "vile," because nobody wants to have to sell their house for considerably less than they paid for it.

Nope, just the NIMBY's. And a lot of homeowners don't want to be lumped in with them thank you very much. 

[frogger]

28 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I am in Texas.  Previously I lived in the San Antonio area; although it is a major toursit destination, I am unaware of people buying condos to rent as VRBO in numbers large enough to impact the real estate market (unless perhaps condos right in the center of downtown, which isn't where families usually want to live).  Anyone I have known there who has owned a condo has had difficulty selling; I agree that if they lowered the price 

I am now in north Texas.  I live in an area directly impacted by university student housing, which brings its own issues.  But, in the broader area, I find the same issues with the condo/townhome properties.

When DH and I looked, one of the things we found that many of these properties were multi-level or did not have easy access from parking into the unit, often making them impractical for older buyers to consider,  Another thing that impacts the pricing of property here is that we have relatively high property taxes, especially if the property is not owner-occupied with a homestead exemption.  When I first moved to this area, I rented and could see that about 2/3 of the rent I paid went to covering the owner's property tax bill.  

Ahhh, that makes sense. I would think there is a lot more land available there so it is not as valuable and there is less need to squeeze as much value as possible out of every acre. 

I do think what Francis mentioned above about having good designs for aging in place is important too if there was going to be incentive to move that route. 

[SKL]

Obviously there is no one set of solutions that will work everywhere in the USA.  Some of the ideas that sound "ridiculous" for one location do make sense in another location.

I don't think I can ever relate to the NYC / DC / LA level property value situation.  I just would not live in places like that.  If I lived there, I'd sell and move rural and retire on the cash from the home sale.  😛 But those types of locations are not what the majority of the US middle and working classes are dealing with.

A problem that goes back long before our births is that the job market moves, and people move to follow the jobs, and houses don't generally move.  (Hedging here because someone will say "some houses do move!")  So then you have the problem of housing shortages in one place and too many vacancies in another place.  (And vacancies ARE a problem.  They lower property values, attract crime, create health and safety risks, cost maintenance, and make the neighborhood less pleasant for those who remain.)

Infrastructure such as excellent public transportation helps folks who can't afford to live next to their jobs, but it also encourages more urban sprawl, which has its own problems.

Policies for low-income people are tricky.  Surely the intention isn't to keep people poor (?), and yet you have to remain poor in order to qualify.  Our policy-makers have some work to do here.

I do like the logic of having developers include affordable housing in their housing development plans.  This would also require the local governments to allow multi-family housing.  And yes, this may put pressure on the schools etc., but it would usually be incremental.  The trend toward having fewer kids may help balance that out.

One hopes that modern technology could be leveraged to improve flexibility in housing, schooling, infrastructure, etc.  It also hopefully reduces the need for people to move in the first place.

As for homelessness ... depending on how you define that ... if we're talking about people sleeping on the sidewalk in last year's clothes, that's not going to be solved by any nice logical housing development plan.  Even in areas where there are tons of vacant and affordable houses, even in times of great prosperity, there have been homeless people.  Even when you put a chronically homeless person in a nice, paid-for, fully furnished apartment, they usually end up back on the streets.  That issue needs a whole other category of solution.  And if we're talking about the influx of migrants, I don't see that building a bunch of houses meant to last 100+ years is the way to address a hopefully temporary problem.  I think the priority should be getting legal status for those who qualify, getting them access to jobs, and then figuring out their mid-term housing situation.

[scholastica]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

Obviously there is no one set of solutions that will work everywhere in the USA.  Some of the ideas that sound "ridiculous" for one location do make sense in another location.

I don't think I can ever relate to the NYC / DC / LA level property value situation.  I just would not live in places like that.  If I lived there, I'd sell and move rural and retire on the cash from the home sale.  😛 But those types of locations are not what the majority of the US middle and working classes are dealing with.

A problem that goes back long before our births is that the job market moves, and people move to follow the jobs, and houses don't generally move.  (Hedging here because someone will say "some houses do move!")  So then you have the problem of housing shortages in one place and too many vacancies in another place.  (And vacancies ARE a problem.  They lower property values, attract crime, create health and safety risks, cost maintenance, and make the neighborhood less pleasant for those who remain.)

Infrastructure such as excellent public transportation helps folks who can't afford to live next to their jobs, but it also encourages more urban sprawl, which has its own problems.

Policies for low-income people are tricky.  Surely the intention isn't to keep people poor (?), and yet you have to remain poor in order to qualify.  Our policy-makers have some work to do here.

I do like the logic of having developers include affordable housing in their housing development plans.  This would also require the local governments to allow multi-family housing.  And yes, this may put pressure on the schools etc., but it would usually be incremental.  The trend toward having fewer kids may help balance that out.

One hopes that modern technology could be leveraged to improve flexibility in housing, schooling, infrastructure, etc.  It also hopefully reduces the need for people to move in the first place.

As for homelessness ... depending on how you define that ... if we're talking about people sleeping on the sidewalk in last year's clothes, that's not going to be solved by any nice logical housing development plan.  Even in areas where there are tons of vacant and affordable houses, even in times of great prosperity, there have been homeless people.  Even when you put a chronically homeless person in a nice, paid-for, fully furnished apartment, they usually end up back on the streets.  That issue needs a whole other category of solution.  And if we're talking about the influx of migrants, I don't see that building a bunch of houses meant to last 100+ years is the way to address a hopefully temporary problem.  I think the priority should be getting legal status for those who qualify, getting them access to jobs, and then figuring out their mid-term housing situation.

There’s a third group of homeless missing from your list. People who are able to find shelter with family and friends but who do not have an actual home of their own. They are usually working, but for a variety of reasons, have been unable to or lost housing of their own. Many people in this country are extremely close to that edge at any given time. There are also lots of colllege educated young people working full time jobs who are unable to afford living on their own at entry level salaries. They live with parents or other relatives or they would be homeless. Apartments just went in in my suburban community that are priced starting at $1500+/mo. for a one bedroom 750 sq ft. apartment. My college educated nieces and nephews who are working their first jobs out of school (career oriented positions) cannot afford to live on their own. Without relatives they would be in a precarious position.

[SKL]

14 minutes ago, scholastica said:

There’s a third group of homeless missing from your list. People who are able to find shelter with family and friends but who do not have an actual home of their own. They are usually working, but for a variety of reasons, have been unable to or lost housing of their own.

Yes, I didn't include these individuals because I don't consider living with family/friends to mean "homeless."  It is wholly unnecessary for a young adult to have his/her own separate house / apartment.  Don't get me wrong, it's nice and all, I have nothing against it, but it's not a need.

I think it's best for young adults to wait until they find the right home, in terms of price, size, location, etc.  If that happens at age 18, great!  Otherwise, live with someone, get educated, build relationships, work, save, and keep on the lookout until you're ready to make that leap.

I'm sure there are other categories of homeless people too.  I wasn't trying to include every category.  I was just pointing out that "homeless" isn't necessarily a result of bad urban planning, nor is it fixed by new building policies.

[scholastica]

18 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yes, I didn't include these individuals because I don't consider living with family/friends to mean "homeless."  It is wholly unnecessary for a young adult to have his/her own separate house / apartment.  Don't get me wrong, it's nice and all, I have nothing against it, but it's not a need.

I think it's best for young adults to wait until they find the right home, in terms of price, size, location, etc.  If that happens at age 18, great!  Otherwise, live with someone, get educated, build relationships, work, save, and keep on the lookout until you're ready to make that leap.

I'm sure there are other categories of homeless people too.  I wasn't trying to include every category.  I was just pointing out that "homeless" isn't necessarily a result of bad urban planning, nor is it fixed by new building policies.

What about those young people who don’t have family that can put that roof over their head? Whose families can’t or don’t want to provide that? There are whole swaths of people for whom this is true. Not everyone has that cushion. Without affordable housing, these people are homeless or back to the original post in this thread, living paycheck to paycheck unable to get ahead. 

[Heartstrings]

26 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yes, I didn't include these individuals because I don't consider living with family/friends to mean "homeless."  It is wholly unnecessary for a young adult to have his/her own separate house / apartment.  Don't get me wrong, it's nice and all, I have nothing against it, but it's not a need.

Shouldn’t college educated adults with full time jobs in their field be able to afford to rent a tiny apartment on their own.   Scholastica didn’t say buy a house at 18, she said get their own place, like renting an apartment, after college.   This is the crux of the issue, that even educated adults with real jobs can’t afford to live on their own.  When a starter apartment is out of reach of those starting out that’s an indication of a problem. 

Edited January 19 by Heartstrings

[SKL]

Just now, scholastica said:

What about those young people who don’t have family that can put that roof over their head? Whose families can’t or don’t want to provide that? There are whole swaths of people for whom this is true. Not everyone has that cushion. Without affordable housing, these people are homeless or back to the original post in this thread, living paycheck to paycheck unable to get ahead. 

These people need to find some other people to live with for the present.

Life isn't easy.  Sometimes we have to make big adjustments in order to get by.

Honestly, living paycheck to paycheck is pretty normal and always has been.  Most of us got ahead by being awesome at our jobs and earning raises, promotions, or other career moves.

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Shouldn’t college educated adults with full time jobs in their field be able to afford to rent a tiny apartment on their own.   Scholastica didn’t say buy a house at 18, she said get their own place, like renting a home.   This is the crux of the issue, that even educated adults with real jobs can’t afford to live on their own.  When a starter apartment is out of reach of those starting out that’s an indication of a problem. 

Yeah I don't know, I think that globally, this is a luxury, not an expectation.

Many people (myself included) never live alone.  It's OK.

I mean, what's so great about spending one's hard-earned money on rent?  If you have to, that's one thing, but I'd rather not.

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

34 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yeah I don't know, I think that globally, this is a luxury, not an expectation.

Many people (myself included) never live alone.  It's OK.

I mean, what's so great about spending one's hard-earned money on rent?  If you have to, that's one thing, but I'd rather not.

I lived at home except for one year(and college during the school year for two years) until I married at 27.  DH never moved out of his parents home until our marriage; he was 25 and had been working full time for 9 years. Neither of our parents charged us much rent, and we both came into marriage with significant savings that allowed us to put a nice down payment on a cheap fixer upper. We then (mostly) fixed up that house which, if Zillow is anywhere near accurate, is now worth almost three times what we paid for it(I think it’s probably a little less). 

I hated living at home, but it wasn’t unsafe, and I am in a much better financial situation than my sibling that married at 19 and moved out just to marry and move out.   And it’s because I was able to save up tens of thousands of dollars and together put down 50% of a house loan. 
It isn’t for every circumstance because some people don’t have safe or willing families, but living at home for years after college can reap a lot of rewards.

On the flip side, if I had moved away directly after college to someplace where there were better jobs, maybe it also would have been financially beneficial.  I worked low paying human services jobs during the day and the evening shift making sandwiches at Subway for five years after college.

Edited January 19 by Mrs Tiggywinkle Again

[scholastica]

52 minutes ago, SKL said:

These people need to find some other people to live with for the present.

Life isn't easy.  Sometimes we have to make big adjustments in order to get by.

Honestly, living paycheck to paycheck is pretty normal and always has been.  Most of us got ahead by being awesome at our jobs and earning raises, promotions, or other career moves.

Plenty of people are awesome at their jobs and work really hard and still can’t get ahead. This is why people feel like the American Dream is slipping away from them. The economy has changed significantly in the 30 years since you graduated college. 

[Heartstrings]

30 minutes ago, scholastica said:

Plenty of people are awesome at their jobs and work really hard and still can’t get ahead. This is why people feel like the American Dream is slipping away from them. The economy has changed significantly in the 30 years since you graduated college. 

They can feel the American Dream slipping away while being told they are lazy slackers for not achieving it by those older than them.  They are either lazy and mooching off parents or spoiled and not willing to struggle and sacrifice and only accepting the high life.  It’s a strange time.  

[SKL]

17 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

They can feel the American Dream slipping away while being told they are lazy slackers for not achieving it by those older than them.  They are either lazy and mooching off parents or spoiled and not willing to struggle and sacrifice and only accepting the high life.  It’s a strange time.  

There's no need for name calling.

I've always seen it as understanding delayed gratification.

It worked for me.  I recommend it.

[SKL]

52 minutes ago, scholastica said:

Plenty of people are awesome at their jobs and work really hard and still can’t get ahead. This is why people feel like the American Dream is slipping away from them. The economy has changed significantly in the 30 years since you graduated college. 

Life was not easy when I graduated college.  It wasn't easy when I finished grad school.  It wasn't easy for the years I was paying over $1,000/month on my student loans, which was the majority of my paycheck, while working long hours, studying for the CPA exam, and then experiencing a very tough learning curve in a male-dominated profession.  It wasn't easy when I became a single working mom.

I wasn't expecting life to be easy.  I don't want my kids to expect life to be easy.

Life isn't easy.

[scholastica]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

Life was not easy when I graduated college.  It wasn't easy when I finished grad school.  It wasn't easy for the years I was paying over $1,000/month on my student loans, which was the majority of my paycheck, while working long hours, studying for the CPA exam, and then experiencing a very tough learning curve in a male-dominated profession.  It wasn't easy when I became a single working mom.

I wasn't expecting life to be easy.  I don't want my kids to expect life to be easy.

Life isn't easy.

Nobody said life should be easy. It just shouldn’t be impossible. There are places in this country where it is virtually impossible mostly due to the cost of housing.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

On the flip side, if I had moved away directly after college to someplace where there were better jobs, maybe it also would have been financially beneficial.  I worked low paying human services jobs during the day and the evening shift making sandwiches at Subway for five years after college.

One of my daughters aspires to be a social worker.  I know what that means economically.  I'm blessed to have saved enough money to pay for her education, so she at least won't have student loans.  But, will she ever be able to afford her own place?  Right now, I really don't see it.  Maybe she'll get married and the couple will be able to manage a small place to raise their kids.  Or maybe life will surprise us.

[Heartstrings]

13 minutes ago, SKL said:

One of my daughters aspires to be a social worker.  I know what that means economically.  I'm blessed to have saved enough money to pay for her education, so she at least won't have student loans.  But, will she ever be able to afford her own place?  Right now, I really don't see it.  Maybe she'll get married and the couple will be able to manage a small place to raise their kids.  Or maybe life will surprise us.

I think it’s a sign of things not working well when a social worker will need to live at home with her parents.  I don’t expect a social worker to be able to afford a 3000 sq ft house, but at least renting an apartment.   
Im glad you and your daughter are happy with it, but it’s necessity is like a huge warning light to me.  

[SKL]

6 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I think it’s a sign of things not working well when a social worker will need to live at home with her parents.  I don’t expect a social worker to be able to afford a 3000 sq ft house, but at least renting an apartment.   
Im glad you and your daughter are happy with it, but it’s necessity is like a huge warning light to me.  

Yeah I think the problem is that social workers are paid horribly, considering you need a master's degree to do the job.

But still, there are people like my daughter who want to do this work.  And I'm very glad for that.  Because we really need such people.  I am willing to subsidize it in my way.

Edited January 19 by SKL

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yeah I think the problem is that social workers are paid horribly, considering you need a master's degree to do the job.

But still, there are people like my daughter who want to do this work.  And I'm very glad for that.  Because we really need such people.  I am willing to subsidize it in my way.

It's great that you are both able and willing to subsidize her so she can be a social worker, but it really is a sign of a problem that we have very important jobs like this that require a lot of education, yet people still don't earn a wage to be financially independent. That shouldn't be.

[SKL]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

It's great that you are both able and willing to subsidize her so she can be a social worker, but it really is a sign of a problem that we have very important jobs like this that require a lot of education, yet people still don't earn a wage to be financially independent. That shouldn't be.

Yes, it's a problem.  I don't think there's a will to fix it though.

[Pawz4me]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

They can feel the American Dream slipping away while being told they are lazy slackers for not achieving it by those older than them.  They are either lazy and mooching off parents or spoiled and not willing to struggle and sacrifice and only accepting the high life.  It’s a strange time.  

FWIW, and because we touched on generalizations earlier in this thread -- I have two 20 somethings and neither of them feel or think anything remotely like this, nor do I hear it from any of their friends.

[KSera]

6 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

FWIW, and because we touched on generalizations earlier in this thread -- I have two 20 somethings and neither of them feel or think anything remotely like this, nor do I hear it from any of their friends.

My 20-somethings and their friends are largely struggling financially. I’m sure there’s a range, but reports do seem to indicate that the proportion struggling has been steadily increasing, and the age at which young people are able to leave home and support themselves keeps getting older and older. I think I recall your adult kids are pretty successful with good jobs? Certainly I know some kids like that as well, but the proportion seems to be steadily decreasing.

[Pawz4me]

3 minutes ago, KSera said:

I think I recall your adult kids are pretty successful with good jobs?

Oldest is a high earner. Youngest is 2E (on the spectrum), works full time in a decent but not high paying job and still lives at home. So widely varying circumstances, but still . . neither has a pessimistic attitude about the current state of things in this country.

[Heartstrings]

13 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

FWIW, and because we touched on generalizations earlier in this thread -- I have two 20 somethings and neither of them feel or think anything remotely like this, nor do I hear it from any of their friends.

True.  I know some that do though, have resigned themselves to never being comfortable in life, never having a moment of financial peace, and they do get crud about it from their direct elders because some people just get cruddy families.  And some that are just frustrated at the current situation but haven't given up hope yet. It's really hard to make what seems like decent money and not be able to really get started in life yet.  Looking at the numbers and figuring out they'll have to grind for years before they are even able to really "start" their lives.  

[Heartstrings]

30 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

FWIW, and because we touched on generalizations earlier in this thread -- I have two 20 somethings and neither of them feel or think anything remotely like this, nor do I hear it from any of their friends.

I have also seen some who are making the best of it by remaking the “Dream”.   Those are the homesteading, sour dough making, living in a shed without running water type.   These aren’t ones I know in real life, these are the tik tokers, you tubers, etc.  I’m not sure I think kids should need to give up running water to make it in this country but at least they have positive attitudes.  

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

I wonder if this is largely regional? I am teaching two classes this year that are largely made up of the 22-30 age group demographic. Now to be fair, these are classes where the graduates in my LCOL area are guaranteed jobs starting at high five figures and at a few places six figures.    But overall they are wildly optimistic about the future, several already own houses and have started families or are getting engaged(i have two pregnant students and three that got engaged over Christmas break). Based on the number of cruises and Florida beach vacations they keep trying to take off class for, they’re not really struggling much financially.  My youngest sibling is 23 and is estranged from our parents and probably struggling financially, but also she just contacted me for information for her passport application(parents birthplaces and such) since she’s planning a Switzerland trip, next youngest sister is 25 and works at a bank but just quit to go back and finish her bachelor’s degree in elementary education, which is possible since she moved back in with my parents who don’t charge rent and probably help her with expenses—I know my dad fixed her car recently and didn’t charge her for parts.  She is very excited about her life track.

but then one of my friends is in Denver and is a leader of their young adult program in her large megachurch, and she does report a lot of pessimism  about the future along with financial and housing instability.

The US is such a diverse and geographically large place that generalizations about anything seem impossible. 

Edited January 19 by Mrs Tiggywinkle Again

[SKL]

I also think that the thoughts presented on social media are not a good cross section of society.

I was optimistic until around age 23, when it hit me how big my student loan payments and taxes were going to be.  I am glad people weren't constantly talking gloom and doom into my ears back then.  I probably would not have sought a professional education had they done that, and then, I would have still struggled financially, only longer (possibly my whole life).  Of course I have lots of family that has never been financially comfortable and never will be.

So, the struggle isn't new.  What may be new-er is the constant online chatter getting young people worked up about it.  Apparently there's money to be made by getting people worked up on the internet (who knew?).  Our job as parents is to help kids understand the seasons of life, and if we can, provide a soft landing (emotional if not material) for when sh!t happens.

[Corraleno]

A couple of DS's 20-something friends are doing extremely well — what they have in common are wealthy parents, fully paid-for educations, and highly marketable degrees (Ivy finance degree, Stanford engineering degree). They're making 6-figures straight out of college and have zero worries about their future, their ability to buy a nice home, send their own kids to college, etc. But most of DS's other friends, who have average college degrees and average-paying jobs, are either scraping by living paycheck to paycheck in LCOL areas, or they are living with parents in MCOL/HCOL areas while trying to pay off loans.

Many of DD's 20-something friends are still living with parents while working full time, although some have apartments with multiple roommates (for example her boyfriend pays $600/mo to share an apartment with 3 other people). Some take classes while working, while others have degrees but still don't make enough to afford an apartment + car + gas + utilities + insurance in this HCOL area — especially if their job doesn't cover health insurance (DD's insurance is $480/mo, and that's with an $1800 deductible and $17K max OOP).

I'm so sick of people who had access to cheap tuition, good jobs, and affordable housing ragging on "kids today" for not just "working harder." Things have changed SO MUCH even in just the last 10 years. Nine years ago I bought a basic middle-class house that needed some repairs and updating, in a nice older but not high-end neighborhood, for $350K; the very similar house across the street from me sold last year for $700K. You cannot even get a tiny fixer upper in this city for under half a million. The only house available in my city right now for ~$500K is a 1400 sq' house built in the 1970s which needs a ton of work and is next to a massage parlor.  

Rent for a 1 BR apartment is roughly equivalent to what people would have paid for a mortgage on a small starter home just 10 years ago, and now you basically need a combined household income of 150K just to get an older 2 BR condo — and that assumes the couple were able to save up a hefty downpayment while paying high rent, student loan debt, and ridiculous health insurance costs. Daycare averages $1500/mo per child in my area, how can a normal young couple with average jobs afford $3K/mo for 2 kids on top of a mortgage, loan debt, etc?

My kids are enormously privileged: they are debt free and they have a parent they can live with who will also help with expenses and cover any emergencies. Many of their friends do not have those luxuries and when those kids see how hard it is to earn enough to even cover basic expenses, let alone save enough to afford a house and a family, they have every reason to be pessimistic. And then on top of inheriting this economic shitshow, they have boomers calling them lazy and insisting they could have a boomer-equivalent lifestyle if they would just "work hard like we did" — as if nothing has changed since 1973.