Housing.com News, Analysis & Opinion: Housing News: Annnnnd....We're Back!

The Wired article I mentioned earlier about the coolness of new-tech prefab houses is online. Well worth reading, just for the geek factor alone.

The New York Times had a fairly good look at whether or not homes are more affordable now. The conclusion seems mixed--you can get a lot more home for your buck, but you also need both the husband and the wife out there winning bread to get it done. And not only that, but the house is being used not only as a dwelling, but as an ATM--a "bank" to pull money out of for expenses both necessary and luxurious. Money quote:

In a nationwide New York Times/CBS News poll conducted this month, 75 percent of respondents said they thought most families in their community spent a larger share of their income on housing now than in the 1980's. Only 5 percent said the share was smaller.

This has caused mortgage payments to rise over the last generation - especially among high-income families, according to Federal Reserve data - for reasons besides the cost of housing.

Bankruptcy expert and Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren provides some much-needed contextual analysis over at TPM Cafe. Actually, the most telling bit of news isn't in Warren's article, but one of the comments, specifically this one. Granted, Orange County is one of the richest regions in America, where $300,000 a year is middle income, but California has always been a prophetess of the housing market, for good and ill. What happens there on the microscale may be what we can look forward to on the macro scale.

Of course, then you have guys like Ed Glaeser, who insist that Boston's own slowdown isn't due to insane prices, lack of land, or consumers' dwindling appetites, but those pesky environmental regulations. Never mind that those regulations are responsible for, say, the air we breathe.

This is another example of the housing boom battle in microcosm--the NIMBY attitude of suburban homeowners who want space and luxury, versus the "grow at any cost" developers and builders who want to erect junk condo after junk condo. It's a lose-lose situation, especially since the real losers are first-time homebuyers and renters who simply can't pull together the funds to meet the astronomical demands of the market. The slowdown is going to force everyone to reevaluate their stances on housing, and hopefully will produce better results than all this bitching.

Of course, if you want to bitch about the housing market, read this absolutely merciless essay on how Greenspan skewered America. Bernanke would do well to check this out--it's a look into his own future if he doesn't get things back on track.

Trackback Pings

Hope everyone had a pleasant and appropriately debauched New Year's Eve. I'd talk about mine, but the arrest warrants just got issued the other day, so my lawyer advised me to stay silent. Moving on... The Wired article I mentioned earlier about the coolness of new-tech prefab houses is online. Well worth reading, just for the geek factor alone. The New York Times had a fairly good look at whether or not homes are more affordable now. The conclusion seems mixed--you can get a lot more home for your buck, but you also need both the husband and the wife out there winning bread to get it done. And not only that, but the house is being used not only as a dwelling, but as an ATM--a "bank" to pull money out of for expenses both necessary and luxurious. Money quote: In a nationwide New York Times/CBS News poll conducted this month, 75 percent of respondents said they thought most families in their community spent a larger share of their income on housing now than in the 1980's. Only 5 percent said the share was smaller. One possible reason for the perception is that many families have recently taken on mortgage debt to pay for items other than housing. Some have folded higher interest loans, like credit card debt, into their mortgage, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. Others have used home equity loans to pay for a new car, tuition or even a vacation. This has caused mortgage payments to rise over the last generation - especially among high-income families, according to Federal Reserve data - for reasons besides the cost of housing. Bankruptcy expert and Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren provides some much-needed contextual analysis over at TPM Cafe. Actually, the most telling bit of news isn't in Warren's article, but one of the comments, specifically this one. Granted, Orange County is one of the richest regions in America, where $300,000 a year is middle income, but California has always been a prophetess of the housing market, for good and ill. What happens there on the microscale may be what we can look forward to on the macro scale. Of course, then you have guys like Ed Glaeser, who insist that Boston's own slowdown isn't due to insane prices, lack of land, or consumers' dwindling appetites, but those pesky environmental regulations. Never mind that those regulations are responsible for, say, the air we breathe. This is another example of the housing boom battle in microcosm--the NIMBY attitude of suburban homeowners who want space and luxury, versus the "grow at any cost" developers and builders who want to erect junk condo after junk condo. It's a lose-lose situation, especially since the real losers are first-time homebuyers and renters who simply can't pull together the funds to meet the astronomical demands of the market. The slowdown is going to force everyone to reevaluate their stances on housing, and hopefully will produce better results than all this bitching. Of course, if you want to bitch about the housing market, read this absolutely merciless essay on how Greenspan skewered America. Bernanke would do well to check this out--it's a look into his own future if he doesn't get things back on track.