Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think we will have a shortage of affordable homes for a long time with the amount hitting the market every day. What has Obama done for affordable homes besides screw up the housing market with his programs and unemployment?
HUD is alive and well and still a red tape tangled mess. Obama could have taken the gutted out, decaying buildings in Detroit, put some architects/engineers to work and turn them into housing for the poor. Do you hear any hammers or see any shovels? We threw away precious stimulous dollars on road work projects that provided a few streets and roads with the removal of pot holes. These projects did nothing to put roofs over heads and you must be wise enough to see all these houses and buildings sitting empty and see the truth behind the man in the Oval office who does nothing but give good speeches. The amount of money he just sent to the Sudan would have housed quite a few people and saved some great buildings.
Rents are up 10 percent year over year in some areas. New rental construction has been in the tank for three or four years now. It will take a decade or longer - depending on how long it takes new construction to recover to pre-bust levels - to bring rents down to affordable levels.
As the economy and government spending continue to slide, NIMBY sentiment and policy will only increase, making it even more difficult to build new rental housing.
Well, a loan for 100k 30 year fixed at 4.2% is about 464 bucks a month (5k down). There are some older homes you can find in the 60k range which would be about 268 a month. Now that does not include taxes and insurance, which would be around 200-300 more depending on size of the home and what location you lived in, but technically it is possible, though for someone working as a burger flipper, single and living alone, it may be a bit much. That is why I stated "then they are not financially ready to own a home. ".
If you are trying to argue that a single minimum wage worker should own a home, then that is simply absurd. As I said though, homes are quite reasonable if you shop the right areas. Now if you are looking at some places in Texas that are high priced, well... all I can say is "stupid is as stupid does", more specifically anyone paying some of those home prices is an idiot and contributing to the same overpriced housing situation that happened in other states. If a person is living on minimum wage, then finding another job is easy and they can relocate somewhere where homes are likely better valued in the state.
I am saying precisely that a single minimum wage worker should own a home, because it is the most feasible and sound retirement plan for that person.
It is feasible and sound because it allows a single minimum wage worker to reach retirement age with no mortgage payment, allows them to use that cash to build their nest egg for retirement. This totally beats the pants off paying half your income on neverending rent, and therefore never being able to retire.
Since landlords are in business to make a profit, renters are paying their landlords' costs PLUS a profit to the landlord. Therefore I consider it silly to suggest that renters "can't afford" or "are not ready" to own a home. On the contrary, low income renters literally cannot afford to NOT own a home.
A burger-flipper in Lubbock could have bought my 20-acre farm with one and half year's salary and still had money left over.
But after paying the rent they're not going to have one and half year's salary to pay you. The burger flipper's problem is in saving up a down payment on top of living on minimum wage.
And speaking of Lubbock, it appears they have a NIMBY problem there:
“We realize that not all residents of an affordable housing development will, by default, be criminals. However, we are also not ignorant to the fact, which is supported by real statistics, that many criminals (especially violent criminals, drug-related criminals, and sex-offenders) tend to come from a lower socio-economic class. […] We feel that in this area, based on the types of newer developments we have seen being built, if another developer were to build on this land it would be apartments carrying a higher rental rate and would attract young professionals and business persons looking for a nice commuting neighborhood. […] We think we can all agree that affordable housing solutions can and should be made for those individuals needing the assistance, we simply do not feel like this is the appropriate location for it.“– Milwaukee Ridge Homeowners Association President Grant Koertner.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,882,632 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Who is Ibginnie and why is he/she deleting my posts?
Ibginnie is the moderator.
She is deleting your posts because she believes you violated forum rules.
If you respectfully ask her with a direct mail, what you did wrong, she may provide feedback for you.
Ibginnie is the moderator.
She is deleting your posts because she believes you violated forum rules.
If you respectfully ask her with a direct mail, what you did wrong, she may provide feedback for you.
As far as I can tell she has deleted only one so far, but since it's been deleted and this board doesn't have backtracking, I can't even tell what I was replying to. Any moderator can delete any message for any reason they want, so I'm not even going to bother waiting for feedback.
I am saying precisely that a single minimum wage worker should own a home, because it is the most feasible and sound retirement plan for that person.
Then you are wrong and you promote people getting things they have not earned. Minimum wage jobs are no skill, no responsibility jobs. That is why the pay for them is at the bottom end of the spectrum. People who want more than the "minimum" put in more than the "minimum" and it takes more than such to own a home. If that worker wants to own a home, they put in that time and effort upgrading their skills so as to market better and gain more money. This allows them to afford homes.
That said, homes here in Texas are pretty cheap, though they keep going up from all the idiots moving in and paying stupid prices like they did in their own state. This will change eventually when interest rates rise and people realize that they can't sell a 350k home because nobody could "reasonably" afford the payments.
As for your reason, sure... it is a sound investment (providing the person didn't pay idiot prices like many did when they were inflated), but it is a LONG TERM investment and often one that requires a lot of upkeep over that time to eventually see a return. There are many better ways out there to achieve a better return on an investment. Homes as an investment prospect is a side benefit unless you go heavily into real estate such as rental properties, etc... A minimum wage worker should be more worried about improving their wage through education, skill training and the like before they start thinking about homes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
It is feasible and sound because it allows a single minimum wage worker to reach retirement age with no mortgage payment, allows them to use that cash to build their nest egg for retirement. This totally beats the pants off paying half your income on neverending rent, and therefore never being able to retire.
Let me put it this way. If someone is planning on working minimum wage for the rest of their lives, they have to accept the consequences of that choice. It means likely no chance of a home unless they are pooling with another (or settle for buying a cheap condo, townhouse, etc...). It means no family, it means no lifestyle means that is comfortable. Anyone who decides to work as such and then expects to have the opportunities as others who do improve themselves is an idiot, a moron, a very stupid and confused person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Since landlords are in business to make a profit, renters are paying their landlords' costs PLUS a profit to the landlord. Therefore I consider it silly to suggest that renters "can't afford" or "are not ready" to own a home. On the contrary, low income renters literally cannot afford to NOT own a home.
They are welcome to seek means to be able to do so, but the reality of the situation is that they work for the low end of the spectrum wage pool, a wage that kids work for extra money, that people in between jobs work to bring in some extra income until they can get another job. It is not a career, it is a transition job, nothing more.
Now if that person works hard, they might be able to get promoted on up in their work place, making more money and as they do, they begin to step into the possibilities of these things you speak. Some will get into them sooner because they are a bit wiser in how they spend and save, others a bit later.
In the end though, the opportunity for another to gain these things exists. It is a process of improving themselves and by doing so increasing their work value. If they dont' want to, then they rent and live a life of limited income. It is their choice, nobody is telling them to stay at a skill level that can only obtain minimum wage, that is their decision.
I am saying precisely that a single minimum wage worker should own a home, because it is the most feasible and sound retirement plan for that person.
It is feasible and sound because it allows a single minimum wage worker to reach retirement age with no mortgage payment, allows them to use that cash to build their nest egg for retirement. This totally beats the pants off paying half your income on neverending rent, and therefore never being able to retire.
Since landlords are in business to make a profit, renters are paying their landlords' costs PLUS a profit to the landlord. Therefore I consider it silly to suggest that renters "can't afford" or "are not ready" to own a home. On the contrary, low income renters literally cannot afford to NOT own a home.
owning a home is a previlege not a right. It was never meant for everyone to be a home owner.
Rents are up 10 percent year over year in some areas. New rental construction has been in the tank for three or four years now. It will take a decade or longer - depending on how long it takes new construction to recover to pre-bust levels - to bring rents down to affordable levels.
As the economy and government spending continue to slide, NIMBY sentiment and policy will only increase, making it even more difficult to build new rental housing.
Do we really need NEW rental housing in this country?
How many of those created jobs paid more than minimum wage?
ALL of Obama's jobs were at McDonalds!!
Please, don't go there~
I would love to see Perry and Obama debate!
Obama is so yesterday's news!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
