shortage of affordable housing for young adults

Define affordable in terms of a price.
How large should an affordable house be?
It seems the costs of labour and materials run about $150 per square foot today, so a $50,000 house would be about 333 sq ft or a little more than 18' x 18' or 6m x 6m.
And then there's the cost of the land to factor in, and property taxes and insurance.
January 2007 the median house price was $254,400 and January 2017 the median house price was $317,400 or a 24.8% increase. Inflation over that period of time has been 18.1% meaning the median house price exceeded inflation by about $16,850.
If you buy a home would you prefer to see its value diminish or increase.

 

What is the minimum standard of living that a , lazy, welfare-mooching youth needs to satisfy you?

I believe the whole Section 8, and government housing plans should go in the dumpster. Since I'm nice, I would at least give them the following options:

 

The problem with section 8 is that in many areas the cost of housing is so expensive that even if only half the cost comes out of their earned income, they still can't afford it. And if they work that money comes out of the amount of welfare they get. So if they work they actually end up being worse off. Got to pay those taxes too.

Basically these people can't afford apartments in the areas they're in, Section 8 or not. So I don't see how that really addresses the underlying problem. Just another half-baked idea that leads to dysfunctional economic outcomes for society.

 

I know section 8 well:

a) money you get is always adjusted for cost in living in your area
b) it pays up to 100% of rent depending and tenants income and expenses
c) most on it have jobs or SS or disability so get by

the huge problem is that its mostly a liberal life time entitlement that cripples people so the can never be productive enough to support themselves or teach their children how to support themselves.

 

So, once again, we see that government is the problem.

 

It is kind of hard not to assume the possibility with Che posters in Obama headquarters, “a congregation working toward economic parity,” Sanders, and you in the paragraph I am responding to saying, “This is how USSR and Red China slowly starved 120 million to death.”

 

Well all we can do is hope that as our libCommies attempt to steal more and more wealth there will be more and more resistance to their anti-American activities. I'd love to see a picture of Che Guevara arvObama headquarters??

 

snopes.com che1.jpg and che2.jpg

seek and ye shall find.

 

All of us need to consume what we can afford to consume. For those items like a house or car which we will never have the cash we must buy within our means whatever this might be. Options for shelter are renting, buying or waiting. 'Housing is unaffordable' doesn't make too much sense to me because what a person can afford varies from person to person...how can we stereotype that 'housing' is unaffordable? Housing is what it is and as long as housing remains in the private sector then the theory of supply and demand will dictate the prices, therefore, if there is high demand as the thread title suggests, the prices are going to be high...

 

Do you think this applies to Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Phoenix, Dallas, Denver, Atlanta, Chicago, Boston, New York, etc. etc. etc.?

 

Most of the cities you mention have been run by Democrats forever.. don't even get me started about Chicago and the burbs , born and raised there left when I was 38 years old because of high taxes.

.

 

Please enlighten me on the attributes of a city being 'Democrat'? What precisely is the difference between a Democrat and Republican city?

 

So you are going to use the excuse no matter who ran the cities , democrat or Republican they both would of been in the pockets of the Union's?



.

 

What "we" individually or "we" collectively can afford?

While not disagreeing with the above, assuming the census bureau figures are correct, the median price of a new home in 1963 was $17,200 and taking into consideration inflations effect on the buying power of the dollar would result in a median price of $137,687.12 while the census bureau shows the median price now to be $310,800. I haven't found figures relative to renting, but in the early 60's I paid $25 per month to rent an apartment which based on inflation would equate to $200.13 today which I doubt seriously could be found in the same area today. From what I see, both buying or renting has exceeded the inflation rate of most everything else which makes them less affordable compared to the past.

As long as housing remains in the private sector?
Detroit might be a good place to find affordable housing at the moment.

 

inner cities have been run by Democrats for 50 years and they are living hell holes as a result. If you want to see liberalism in action go to Chi-raq which is more dangerous than Iraq!!

 

'We' individually...we must live within OUR means.

My first home around that time cost exactly $17,200 with a $141/month payment. But you can't just calculate inflation because supply and demand have strong effects from location to location. Population growth, especially in high employment areas, has created far more demand than supply and hence housing prices will be very high. In most of those high employment areas they have been built out nearly 100%...sure in some places they can build higher and higher but typically the infrastructure cannot handle the high density. I've got to think that our failure to provide efficient public transit in most of our urban areas contributes to lower density housing and total gridlock on the roads.

If housing prices are low, like perhaps in parts of Detroit, this means there is low demand. This can be a good or bad thing...

 

I agree 100%.

That's exactly why the State and local governments should be where all actions involving individuals directly should take place while the Federal government only creates problems by attempting to create equality nation wide, as there can be a great many different causes resulting in inequality which may require quite different solutions.

And in the case of Detroit, it should be the people living there and their elected government who are best qualified to determine the problems and how best to resolve them.

 

Actually, the $600k invested in your home will be worth twice that given reasonable growth and a span of say, 20 years. And you'll own every cent of that. The person who rented has given away the equivalent, and has NOTHING to show for it at the end of the same period - while his/her landlord has been gifted over a million dollars.

 

These people who refuse to leave capital cities have no one to blame but themselves. One can live very well in rural areas, on very very little. Housing is extraordinarily cheap, and there is enough space for food production. There doesn't even need to be a jobs market - welfare is enough to get you started. The idea being that you build cash reserves, while looking into work/business opportunities in the area. If you spend very little on housing, and very little on shop-bought food, you can save money even on welfare.

But of course, these entitled types don't want to work that hard. And they sure as heck don't want to live anywhere they can actually afford.

 

With the Foxy Blonde Legs Channel saying that a third party is our only hope after the failure of Republicans to remove the Obamacare entitlement, all the Neo-commies need is the Senate (consent to God knows what treaties and judicial activists) and another couple of turns. Third party resistance will be futile.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/obama-che.jpg

It is hard to just call stealing wealth anti-American when we through zoning steal James Bovard’s “Lost Rights” to an off-grid tiny house and a fence higher than four feet. https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Rights-Destruction-American-Liberty/dp/0312123337

 

of course a third party has rarely ever worked. The best bet is to persuade more Americans to elect more conservative Republicans.

 

And because liberals have destroyed their families schools and religion they are anti social loners who must live alone making the 2 can live as cheaply as one adage irrelevant in liberal America.

 

you mean unless he invested it and it multiplied 4 times in the same 20 years.

 

State and local governments don't typically have the resources to do all that is needed. Infrastructure today requires more money than exists! Sure taxes can be hiked on everything that moves but this has a significant negative effect as well. For example if the Feds did not engineer and fund I10 across the nation the individual states and cities never would do it. As far as housing today it's all based on local zoning and supply and demand for pricing. Since all of these endeavors requires boatloads of money, they also require boatloads of income to pay the debt. Another example and I'm just guessing here, but let's say we need a second Golden Gate Bridge parallel to the current bridge, and let's say the cost is $100 billion, it is impossible to generate $100 billion from local taxation and bonds. In the same city of SF, if approved to build a 30-story affordable housing rent controlled building, costing maybe $300 million to build, how can the net profit on low rent payments even pay off the debt? One step further, how can the occupants of these low-rent units even afford to pay for the maintenance and common costs to keep the building functioning? If we are truly talking about affordable housing, then IMO it must be subsidized by all taxpayers...

 

A liberal will always want more and more crippling welfare so that fewer and fewer
can pay their own way and fewer and fewer want to work. This is how USSR and Red China slowly starved 120 million to death. Ever heard of East /West Germany?