politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
And depending on their area, that house may sell for a million+ now to millenials who have no other option if they want to live the classic american white picket fence dream
I think that the US as a country needs to abandon the idea that every family should have a detached house with four bedrooms, two cars, and a lush green front garden surrounded by a picket fence. It's just not sustainable. That made sense in 1960, but the country's population has doubled since then.
On the other hand, I would like to see it possible for every family to be able to at least afford a basic 2-bedroom condominium with all the amenities that modern life has to offer, including walkable spaces, accessible green areas, and reliable public transportation.
11,000 hours of minimum wage labour in my city would be $185,000. Maybe a bit too low to be entirely realistic, but $200,000 is probably within reach with a bit of elbow grease on the government side.
There are a ton of factors but most problems simply stem from greed. Boomers pulling the ladder up behind oneself and then making fun of millenials for having less assets and saying it's because we're lazy.
I don't agree that the reason single-family detached homes with lawns are necessarily unaffordable primarily because of greed. That might be one factor, but I think the main factor as to why they're unaffordable is simple geometry. Councils don't want to pay for miles of roads, pipes, and electrical cables just to serve less than a hundred families, so these costs get imposed on the developers and homeowners. Some states, including mine, will require new single-family developments to have an HOA, which is responsible for paying for the upkeep of some of these resources. That directly results in higher assessments for ratepayers. Or, where the council absorbs the costs, they still get passed on to owners and renters through higher property taxes.
So while I'm sympathetic to your arguments, I feel that blaming only greed is a shallow understanding of why nobody can afford a house.
"Councils don't want to pay for miles of roads, pipes, and electrical cables just to serve less than a hundred families"
Yes, correct, they don't want to pay for it. We need to allocate more taxpayer money to corporate bailouts.
Remember to add the 's/' for sarcasm
There may be GOPs reading this and that's their mantra
To make my point clearer because you missed it: Councils should NOT be paying for these regardless of whether anything relating to corporate bailouts happens, because detached single-family houses are a poor use of resources and an inefficient and wasteful form of housing.
Yeah - you forgot the realtors and realtor groups.
Absolute scumbags.
This is not a popular observation around these parts, but it's true. My city has almost no private equity presence in the market, yet we still have a housing affordability crisis. The geometry problem came first, caused here in the U.S. by zoning and building codes; then houses became the biggest source of investment wealth for individuals because of the artificial scarcity those codes created; then private equity smelled money and moved in.
I live in one of Italy's richest cities, gross wages for millennials may go from 24k€/y to 60k€/y for the luckiest ones. A normal 80m² apartment goes for about 200-400k€.
It's not just an American problem, and apparently more efficient housing isn't enough of a solution.
I think that is a different situation in your city. I don't know which city it is, and I don't claim to know much about how the Italian economy works, but housing prices seem similar to what I've got in my city (Portland, Oregon, USA), except that wages are drastically lower. So my guess is that it's a problem with people being underpaid as Italy is a developed economy, similar to the US.
€24,000 a year would be about €12 an hour which is below minimum wage in my city. A minimum-wage worker would be paid about $34,000 annually, or €29,500. The mean hourly wage in my city works out to about $76,000 annually (€66,000). I prefer the median as a better estimate of what ordinary people make, but the census bureau only reports the mean as far as I could find.
Older Millennial's had options after the 08 crash
True, but you had to be in a position with money saved up and your career unaffected by the recession so unfortunately that's a relatively low percentage
I mean prices were lower for like 8 years before exploding with low interest rates, time was there to save
Sure but the job market was a joke so if you weren't already established in a stable career, your income was going to be pretty garbage on top of school loans. Realistically, you would be looking at college grads who have enough seniority in their career that wouldn't put them at risk of being let go as well as having little to no school debt. You're looking at people who are at least 23, more likely late 20s in 2009ish. That's certainly near the '81 cutoff for millenials. I was 18 in 2008, luckily retained my low paying retail job while going through uni, with my school debt and the garbage job market, it wasn't feasible at all for me to take advantage of the prices.
I was also in uni in 2008 but graduated in 2010, bought my first place in 2011
I'm happy for people that were able to do that but you gotta understand you're probably in the like <10% that could do that. I doubt you would say you were in the same situation as most people born between '81-'96. Gen x was in the best position to take advantage.
My younger sister somehow bought a house with her friend. Her first job paid $80k a year. I made $7.25 and hour and this was not an option.
Just another, the privledged got to buy, and the poors didnt.
I was dead broke after I bought. Making $16 per house and my wife was making $20 an hour so not a lot by anymeans
double income. You married so young?
$20 an hour for 2008 is A LOT.
threw it into the inflation calc. $20 an hour in 2008 is $31 today.
I was making $7.25 with a ten cent raise at the end of the year.
you were lucky, no shame, but both you and my sister were lucky.
Wait, when did the cutoff for millennial become 1986? Last I saw it was 1981-1996, with some fuzziness at the edges.
My bad, typo, I'll edit
Thanks :) I was worried I'd have to start fitting the stereotypes of a different generation.
I was 20 and making $7.25 an hour.
They do not give you a loan if you earn nothing because you're unemployed and you don't have any capital in the bank.
There would have been a way for me but not without generational wealth and immediately landing a great job out of college.
TLDR: if things went great in your life yes you're right.
Yeah I had the option of being ruined
One job loss and I could have been ruined too but luckily that didnt happen