Wife and I are going through the home buying process in what most people would call a low cost of living area. For reference, homes are about 180-400k where I live in New York State.

I heard the horror stories but I had no idea how bad the issue is. I'll get to that in a minute.

I am curious what's going to happen with housing. Because on one hand, it seems like it's going to continue to rise until there is genuinely no such thing as middle-class home ownership. On the other hand, I see some troubling signs that remind me of a bubble.

The housing market will continue to be unaffordable
-I keep hearing that it's a supply issue. That we need to double the number of houses for things to get better. I also hear this isn't happening and that immigration is a factor. Sounds like a dog whistle but I'm curious if there is any truth to this.

-Other developed nations are worse. Many have 40-50 year mortgages and some countries even have multi-generational mortgages. This shows that it could get worse.

-Companies and wealthy individuals trying to make us all rent forever. Of course they would like nothing more and they'll probably keep working on this.

The current market is not sustainable

-There is a feeding frenzy on every single home that goes for sale in my area. Total shit boxes with sagging roofs are selling no problem and way above asking.

-The bank approved my wife and I for way too much money. We have student loans and daycare costs. The amount they approved us for would absolutely put us in the negatives every month. I thought that wasn't supposed to happen anymore. It feels strange and reckless for the banks to do that. For reference, we make about 100k/year combined but student loans and childcare take up a significant chunk of that. They approved us for $300k to get a home. We could get a $2400/mo* mortgage, which immediately wipes out 50% of our take-home pay. We ran a budget and even avoiding any purchases that aren't literal necessities, we would be running a deficit every month. We could never buy a shirt, a baby toy, a makeup product, a movie ticket, or even a pair of shoes and we would still be in the negative. Nevermind what would happen if one of our very modest, very used vehicles needed to be replaced or repaired. Obviously we didn't bid anything near 300k on any home. Wife's mom offered to front some inheritance money (give my wife some money now and then just leave the inheritance to her sister to make up for it) and we weren't even close still.

-When did a married nurse and teacher become completely priced out of the market? Is that a sign of a normal and healthy market? Now, to be fair, my wife could increase her salary if she wanted to go back to working in the emergency room. She doesn't want to do that while we have a baby at home and I understand that completely. But you would think we would be able to afford something.

I am clearly speaking from a position of relative privilege here. I recognize that. I grew up in a foreclosed and auctioned home that was old and small. My parents moved to an economically depressed town to get that house because they had no money and no help. There was no "borrowing a few grand from an inheritance" for them and if my wife wasn't in the picture that would never be an option for me either. I think my wife and I are doing a lot better than many other people in this area. What are couples who work at Amazon doing? Just saying fuck it and renting forever?

Anyway, I'm half venting and half asking. What is the actual endgame here for Americans? What happens next?

Random thought. What if we taxed property based on the area per person of the property, as opposed to sale value?

Edit and quick intro to those who mostly rent: most real property in the US, especially residential property, is taxed yearly based on some variation of something called "fair market value," usually assessed by a local tax assessor's office

I'm proposing that a property would be taxed for every square meter of space per person in the designated property unit. It can't be totally simplified, but should be fairly straightforward. There could also be progressive brackets. It might not make make sense to apply it strictly per person, but rather for a typical use. That is, we would assume "single family residential" properties to house 3.4 (totally made up number) people per house and property.

The goal of this is to find a fair, market-driven incentive to build density into urban cores.

A similar approach could be applied to commercial space (but probably not industrial).

It could be coupled with a sales tax (currently missing in most real property tax regimes, at least in the US) to capture runaway property valuations in certain jurisdictions.

Alternatively, we could drop the property value based tax rate (but not eliminate it), and then add a per person-area surcharge.

It's not meant to increase revenue, although it could certainly be used that way. It could also be use to decrease revenue, and maybe that would be a good way to sell it. But at the end of the day, developers and residents would both have an incentive to pursue as dense development as possible, even if there is not a density driving pressure of desirablity, which only exists in a few really cool urban cores.

Fair warning, I'm a dummy trying to talk about stuff I don't fully understand, but I wanted to see others' thoughts on this.

In the 1960s, America's GDP (per capita) was $3,000.
Also, in 1960, the federal poverty limit was $3,000 for a family of four.

In 2023, the GDP (per capita) was $82,034.
The federal poverty limit for a family of four in 2023 was $30,000.

This can't be good for the American people. Unless I'm drawing comparisons between two completely unrelated things?

People who are barely in poverty today would have to earn ~2.7x the amount they earn to stay consistent with those who were barely in poverty in the 1960s if GDP and FPL were still equal to each other. So what about the families caught in the middle? Too high earnings to get help and too low to thrive? They just suffer, I guess.

Out of curiosity, I calculated what the thresholds would be if the percentages of GDP to FPL were swapped between 2023 and 1960.

1960s numbers adjusted if FPL matched 2023's percentage:
GDP=$3,000
FPL=$1,111

1960s numbers adjusted if GDP matched the percentage comparison of 2023:
GDP=$8,100
FPL=$3,000

Please let me know if it actually matters that the GDP per capita is 2.7x the federal poverty limit for a family of four. Also, let me know your thoughts.

There's a couple of other words that describe what I'm talking about - neoliberalism, lassez-faire capitalism, and in a more general sense, the Chicago school of economics - but I chose market fundamentalism because it seemed to best describe precisely what I'm talking about. I mean the belief that the market is capable of self-regulation and that governmental intervention will cause damage to the economy.

I'm asking this because there's still a lot about economics that I don't know about and so I was hoping someone with a background in the subject who would be able to better answer the question. But I realize it's probably also a political question. I wonder if it's more of an issue of our politicians pressing these views than economists and academics.

Personally, with my life's experience, it seems almost obviously wrong. I've lived through several market downturns and even a crash, and looking through history it seems like every market crash can be attributed to the market failing to correct itself.

Everywhere I turn everything is more expensive.

I'm spending less and less every month on non-necessities, buying more basic foods, never eating out, spending less on entertainment, etc but everything else just keeps going up and up.

Electricity just went up 12%, my gas bill is up 20%, rent has gone up 10% year after year, water is somehow 30% more expensive than it used to be, my groceries are more expensive than ever even though I'm buying in bulk and not buying anything fancy, I've stopped eating luxuries I used to enjoy like steak and fancy cheese because they've just gotten outrageous.

I have a good job that pays decently but my raises have been less than 3% a year and I feel like I'm getting squeezed out of everything I once had. There's no light at the end of the tunnel is there?

I've started to notice this narrative in my news feeds. The argument is high wage growth is contributing to stubborn inflation. So cooling wage growth is seen as positive. It'll help central banks pause the hike cycle sooner.

My knee jerk reaction is if wage growth is contributing to inflation it's minuscule; just enough to print the headline. I can't help but feel this narrative is a way to distract from the earlier price gouging narrative and to help employers scapegoat out of raises.

But I'll admit, I haven't looked into this topic deeply. So I'm happy to be schooled.

Rate hikes. "COVID mortgages" up for renewal at much higher rates.

Wondering how badly the current rate environment is affecting people IRL. How much of this do you think (or know) is actual bad news vs. just media doom and gloom?

Putting aside specific criticisms of the GOP as it exists today, what do you think of using the debt ceiling as a tool to reel in spending and put the US on a sustainable path with its national debt? People make it out to seem backwards and manipulative, but this whole situation seems like we're driving a hundred miles an hour toward a cliff and the person saying we should slam the breaks is getting flack because it'll damage the car.

I was reading this text from the Washington Post (sorry for the maybe paywall):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/06/xi-jinping-crackdown-china-economy-change/

The opinion asserts that in response to liberalization of Chinese life, driven by capitalistic economic growth, is the reason that Xi Pinjing "cracked down in every sphere imaginable — attacking the private sector, humiliating billionaires, reviving Communist ideology, purging the party of corrupt officials and ramping up nationalism (mostly anti-Western) in both word and deed."

My conspiratorial brain latched on to the humiliating billionaires line, and started thinking about a between the lines message along the lines that billionaires are good and should not be humiliated, a subtle warning-response to the progressive grumblings here in the U.S. that a failure to support capitalism will result in totalitarianism.

Then I started thinking about the questions, are billionaires good for society? I had always held the position that a billionaire is a market failure (in my econ 101 understanding of the term), much like pollution. It is improper hoarding and unfair leveraging of capital into disproportionate and un-earned degree of pesonal privilege.

It is certainly a by-product of euro-american capitalism, whereby the desires and welfare of the many are trodden on by those with the ability to fight and to shape the regulatory machine meant to protect the interests of the common-wealth.

I see a few possibilities. One, is that my understanding of economics is wrong, and producing as many billionaires as possible is the ultimate goal of capitalism and in fact good for everyone, even in theory.

Two, it is indeed as I suspect, a market failure. And the failure here is one of degree, it is not, in fact problematic to have some individuals with significantly greater wealth among us, and is, in fact, beneficial overall, but to have some with so much more than the rest of us (wealth inequaility) is a result of getting in the way of a clean functioning marketplace.

Three, economic theory is working as described, and economic theory/activity is an insufficient foundation for the maintenance and success of a whole society, and we need to find a way to constrain it to its own sphere, so that it provides us with what we need to be healthy and happy, but no more.

I turn to the bright minds of tildes: am I looking at this right?

This question has been going through my head for quite some time. UBI has been talked about quite a bit now, and usually the question is if it should be introduced and if yes, how much should everyone get?

But how would you stop UBI from inflating the economy? If everyone suddenly gets 1000€/month purely because they exist, how do you stop rent from suddenly going up 1000€/month? How do you stop it from going up gradually?

Well hello,
I'm still learning about the blockchain day by day and it's quit interesting to try to "predict" the future use of this technology. But i have my own doubts.(maybe I'm still lacking in research)

1. If everything will be decentralised, how will you make the profit out of it?(business point of view)
2. If you have million dollar today to work on blockchain technology what business would you get into to get appropriate profit in near future?(Of course excluding those exchange of cryptos)
   P.S: You are not a tech company and just want to enter in the field.