by those who claim to "help" was shown in my local paper last night. More or less, the local "affordable housing committee" was telling the world how our city needs more affordable housing with some pictures of housing was become unaffordable for many in our community. Here are a few of them, along with my comments on why this is so appalling:
1. A teacher earning starting teacher's pay is currently unable to afford the average two bedroom apartment in our area. (exactly why does a teacher just out of college need a two bedroom apartment all to himself?)
2. A policeman earning starting pay is currently unable to afford an average home in our area. (see comments on new teacher)
3. A family earning 80% of the median income is unable to get a 100% (no down payment) mortgage on a house of average (mean) price. (two big mistakes here; not having a significant down payment, and buying a house of mean price, not around 80% of median price)
In short, those who are trying to "help" the poor with "affordable housing" have completely unrealistic expectations for what kind of housing is appropriate, and if they pass these expectations on to their clients, they're signing them up for a lifetime of debt slavery. This, in turn, may prevent many of them from moving on to higher paying jobs.
Some kindness.
Senator Mitchell, Redux
-
Senator Mitchell (DFL Woodbury) was arraigned for First Degree Burglary in
Becker County yesterday. I’ll cop to the fact that I honestly hope someone
who h...
14 hours ago
12 comments:
welcome to my world. you deal with this in the abstract, I'm doing it every day.
Oh, I deal with it in my property, sales, and income taxes. Not as directly as you, I admit, but I do deal with it. :^)
touche. arrogance defeated.
Arrogance? I certainly wasn't ready to accuse. I do look forward to more posts on this from you, though.
The problem with young people today is that they are trying to pick up where their parents left off instead of working their way up like their parents did.
Our parents lived in crappy apartments and crappy homes until they were able to apply discipline and patience to save.
They didn't expect a handout or government help and they bought what they could afford not what they thought they were entitled to.
jroosh...problem is, we're a lot more wealthy than (your/my/our) parents were. I'd be surprised if, and I don't know how this would be quantifiable, the percentage of 'raised expectations' were that much higher today than they were for our parents over our grandparents.
In brief: your parents didn't expect to live in a single room house without a sewer system.
Luxuries become mundane in a generation in our wealthy society.
...and, whether or not you were accusing, I was being an arrogant know-it-all. :)
Actually, wages have been more or less stagnant in terms of the cost of living over the past 30 years. What's changed is the terms of credit.
For example, it would have been rare 40 years ago for someone to get a mortgage without a 20% down payment. (why my parents lived in an apartment for their first 2-3 years of marriage) You couldn't get enough credit cards to buy a car, and student loans were nowhere near as easy to get as today.
So surprise surprise, we find we're buying homes, cars, and college educations a lot earlier than our parents did, and our homes are 50% bigger than those our parents bought.
And, surprise surprise, we find the bills are so big, we cannot make ends meet.
I know this is nothing new, but it STILL floors me that people think that enabling 100% mortgages is a good idea.
All you need is one slight drop in the housing market plus one emergency need to sell a house quickly (unemployment, disability, unexpected pregnancy, need to relocate quickly) and you've suddenly dug yourself a very unpleasant hole. And yet not only do these people think that 100% mortgages are a good idea, they think that government action is necessary to *enable* people to dig this hole for themselves. The mind just boggles.
...wages may be the same, but benefits have gone way up.
In short, it seems a common thread on Econtalk (which is where I've learned the most about stuff) that we've gotten continually wealthier; there's not been stagnation. You may disagree with them, but I'm letting you know that that's what they say: I don't have a quote, but 'in real terms, we're LOADS wealthier than at the turn of the century'. I find it hard to believe that all of that wealth was created in the first 70 years, and then it leveled off in the last 30.
Certainly since the turn of the century; not a whole lot of point in arguing that. And certainly as well in terms of the things we have now that we didn't even think of 20 years ago; improved drugs, computers, etc..
That said, there has been a slowing in the past 30 years, I've read. Absolute stagnation? Nope. But certainly a slowing of earlier, robust growth rates.
Oh, and those 100% mortgages? Passe'. Try 125%.
Post a Comment