1. Yeah, I made an opinionated omission there. Sue me :D
2. That last part (the country’s largest sources of affordable housing) is even more damning than the rest. :( In a country that big, and that rich, with a frontier ethos like that, how the f*k does anyone think this is acceptable?
Sure, if you have free labor. I’d guess 99%+ of houses were built by a paid crew, so uh, it does not cost just 40k for a house. It costs $200/sq ft to build a house (in a midsize metro area of 3 million), without buying land.
That doesn't seem like a useful framing of the problem.
If nothing else, can you actually imagine a politician celebrating houses going down in price? Picture yourself walking up to a podium and announcing that the average 3 bed 2 bath in San Jose is now only $200,000, and what a fantastic achievement this is and how it will help people who have struggled to afford a home. What reaction do you get?
Homeowners would be crying for blood because, whether they care to admit it or not, when it comes time to sell they want 2+ other people working their asses off and saving every penny they can to just _barely_ be able to put in a bid.
I _am_ a homeowner, albeit of a cheap house, but I'd love to see prices fall because I wouldn't mind a second one. A spot on a couple acres near Portland might be nice, and some of them don't look too bad...
This is a big part of the problem imho - its a treadmill that you can't get off. With an ageing population that all own houses and getting generally more conservative, I can't see it changing any time soon. It strikes me as odd that everything is getting cheaper except houses - and you may say its land, but if thats the case apartments should be getting cheaper.
Facebook couple: "If we go for the cheap round-the-world holiday we can bid 3.3 instead of 3.2"
and on it goes.
Yes. Believe it or not, there are lot of people (especially people in positions of authority/power) that believe this type of scarcity drives labor, ambition, society, etc.. forward. I mean just look at the current discussion about minimum wage and/or stimulus checks.
But with real estate, I kind of agree with you, It can be a little far fetched to extend that mentality to housing scarcity. Housing scarcity is just because current owners want to have the value kept in real estate increasing. Hard to do when there's no scarcity. Only wannabe owners complain about housing prices.
Of course trailer parks are (hopefully) always among the most affordable housing options.
However, living in one should be a choice of the individual, and the fact that there is a notable population in these places tells me that these are not exactly free choices à la "I shall live frugally" but rather a systemic problem.
So: "acceptable that trailer parks are more than a mere curiosity of vanishing proportion in the story of housing in the US in 2021."
The politicians themselves are benefitting from the situation. So why would they change it?
Article from the guardian about US Senators investments https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/19/us-senators-...
Investment portfolios of some Indian politicians. I'm not familiar with the politics of India. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/plan/what-do-pol...
In general, wealthy of all stripes are invested in real estate to some degree. "Land - they're not making any more of it"