Young adults still not buying houses

WOW, some really DUMB posts here.... Does everyone have to act like that don't have a clue ?
Can you imagine sitting in a room with 50 other people making 35K a year in Ozark Missouri ? You job, Post as if you are a really rich republican and you hate Liberals ! This means you hate anyone that is of color, you are a devote republican and Christian. You are fine with making your FAKE 150K a year because the republican god fearing politicians have made things good for you ?

Now, does one think that the KOCH Brothers or even just the RNC may do something like this ? It is legal, right, am I right, right. Yes, they can, will and most likely do it. People will sell their souls to sit behind a computer, sip on a Slurpee and eat a slimjim.

 

And the trend continues. Lazy. Unwilling to understand that the bank of mom and dad is ending ever..... Millennials, et al refuse to become adults...

 

The housing and job opportunities aren't what they used to be.

Plus they are told they all have to go through college, so that exhausts a lot of energy and time out of many of them.

(In 1980 17% of white adults over the age of 25 had a four-year degree, by 2010 that had risen to 34%, many more these days attempt college but do not immediately complete it)

 

True, they aren't. they are infinitely better. As in more jobs, more high paying jobs, and mush easier credit. And even with all of those tail winds, lazy young people refuse to jettison from the bank of mom and dad....

 

Housing is a lot more expensive, and affordable housing more difficult to find.
(in many regions of the country)

 

Couldn't have said it better.

 

I don't have an issue with those who play devil's advocate, but I do have an issue with perpetual condescension and sneering.

 

And that was at a time when university was actually free, in many parts of the world. Even then, only the children of the rich attended.

Bizarre that there are now so many going to university, when it's incredibly expensive to do so.

 

Well, I know part of the reason it's so expensive in California is there's less public funding for universities per person. The state's population has rapidly expanded and there are more poor people.

In effect, the state is virtually no longer subsidising university education in the upfront sticker price of tuition. That's why many families in higher income brackets are just sending their children out of state; out of state tuition isn't really any more expensive for them now.

In the 70s the state was able to offer tuition in its state universities to resident students virtually for free (only a very small fee and the cost of books).

 

The economy is not failing us, government interference with free markets is.

Big surprise, liberal "social welfare" policies failed again.

 

You're not making any sense.

How do you think social housing investment impacts on homlessless figures?

 

I'm 28 years old.

I bought my first home just about 3 years ago when I was 25. The median home value in my neighborhood is $480,000, which is pretty low considering it's in transition and is held down by old housing stock that's gradually being torn down and replaced with million dollar homes-in Dallas.

I paid $240,000 for mine because it was a tear down. Walking in I knew I was buying a $300,000 obligation of work that needed to be done. I'm damn near finished, having done all but $68,000 of it myself. Including my HELOC(which financed the work I didn't do myself) My mortgage is sitting at $290,000.

****'s not that hard.

 

I apologize if it was unclear.

I was obviously replying to a comment where someone pointed out that Federal involvement in student loans created disastrous results.

I've spent a great deal of my time working in Section 8 housing, fixing things for friends and acquaintances which genuinely qualifies a landlord for the title of slumlord. Federal investment does very little to combat homelessness, as just having a home does not make someone anymore productive. All it does is take those in extreme poverty from terrible to bad.

 

How does America compare with other countries where social housing expenditure is much more significant?

 

Good for you. I always encourage kids to secure their first property before age 25. Very smart move!

 

I neither know nor care what least productive, poorer nations do.

Thank you

 

I'm sure you don't care about reality. You stated "federal investment does very little to combat homelessness, as just having a home does not make someone anymore productive. All it does is take those in extreme poverty from terrible to bad". We know that other developed countries twin lower homelessness rates and lower poverty rates.

 

There are retirees who for whatever reason either failed to prepare, or refuse to leave an area due to familiarity and a support system that they can not afford, who would be homeless without government support.

There are the mentally ill and disabled, who would never be able to support themselves in the first place.

Those are my who categories which are deserving of public assistance.

Spend as much as you want, and nothing will ever change for them besides not being homeless. For everyone else, government spending on housing simply takes them off the streets and into a slightly worse situation, severely hampering their economic mobility and more than likely trapping them in poverty.

 

Again, the evidence shows otherwise. Your political bias is of no interest when referring to international comparison.

 

Are you comparing America to Europe?

 

With any developed country.

 

There's not really a direct comparison among developed countries in social policy.

I'm very much culturally German, but am also an American. America's social welfare budget dwarfs the German economy in it's entirety, and vastly beyond a per capita basis, because Germans are austere and industrious, while Americans are generally lazy and unproductive in comparison.

But compare an American to say a Frenchman or Italian, and they look like the shining star of the world.

 

Of course there is. Countries spend more, countries spend less. Bit obvious really!

 

You can not 'fix' a poverty which is self-determined. And ALL poverty in the west is self-determined, when it's not a result of disability or advanced age.

 

Why is US poverty so much higher than European rates?