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.
Let's face what the real problem is for LA/PHX or America's metropolitan areas in general: our insane culture that every person must buy a single family house with a yard and a white picket fence to be considered "successful"
This fundamental want drives zoning regulations, sprawl, cars, freeways, low density housing neighborhoods and causes problems when more people want to move into some given amount of space (due to desirability, economic, or other factors) than the amount of housing units some given piece of land offers (which consequently drives prices up in a free market).
Exactly! ...And this gets aggravated and multiplied now due to social media.
The mainstream that are hooked into social media are always envious of their "friends" and always comparing themselves or trying to "one up" someone else. It's very passive-aggressive behavior and it's not healthy, but it's the "American Way"...
When we sacrifice our longtime family relationships and close friendships just to get that house with the picket fence, it's tragic.
Something's gotta change soon with our priorities because we are socially rotting as a nation.
Let's face what the real problem is for LA/PHX or America's metropolitan areas in general: our insane culture that every person must buy a single family house with a yard and a white picket fence to be considered "successful."
I almost agree with you. The problem is the mind set that every American is entitled to own their own SFR. The government put their weight an influence behind that (by twisting the arms of mortgage lenders to qualify unqualified lenders), and that was the cause of the housing bubble! -- The problem resulted because buyers had no skin in the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kttam186290
Something's gotta change soon with our priorities because we are socially rotting as a nation.
Oops! Too late. Past tense. Already rotted.
The question now is how to fix it. As I already said earlier, buyers must be required to have more skin in the game. Once they do they cannot afford to simply walk away from their investments.
Of course the actual meltdown of the bubble occurred when Wall Street weaponized mortgages by bundling them and selling the bundles as investment instruments. The market for the derivatives failed, and the backlash rippled back and caused the housing market to explode.
And what did the government do? Did they bail out homeowners (citizens)? No, they bailed out the banks and Wall Street with the citizen's/taxpayer's money.
Nobody is going to be allowed to recreate the derivatives but we still have the situation that many times buyers still have too little skin in the game.
I almost agree with you. The problem is the mind set that every American is entitled to own their own SFR. The government put their weight an influence behind that (by twisting the arms of mortgage lenders to qualify unqualified lenders), and that was the cause of the housing bubble! -- The problem resulted because buyers had no skin in the game.
Oops! Too late. Past tense. Already rotted.
The question now is how to fix it. As I already said earlier, buyers must be required to have more skin in the game. Once they do they cannot afford to simply walk away from their investments.
Of course the actual meltdown of the bubble occurred when Wall Street weaponized mortgages by bundling them and selling the bundles as investment instruments. The market for the derivatives failed, and the backlash rippled back and caused the housing market to explode.
And what did the government do? Did they bail out homeowners (citizens)? No, they bailed out the banks and Wall Street with the citizen's/taxpayer's money.
Nobody is going to be allowed to recreate the derivatives but we still have the situation that many times buyers still have too little skin in the game.
I'll counter your statement with politicians buy into this entitlement also and therefore our government is a reflection of this culture and can't really be blamed for it. Otherwise, they wouldn't get elected. Imagine a politician saying, I'm not going to allow everyone to buy a home because it wastes too much space, I will force you all to buy small townhomes.
But I think a bigger issue is, people buy more crap than they actually need. Most homes constructed in Gilbert in the past decade has been humongous homes, like 2000-4000 sq ft. That's absolutely insane for a family of 4. A family of 4 can easily do with a 1500 sq ft home. Then these people who buys these homes takes out a big mortgage and becomes dependent on the economy to make their payments and feel depressed in the meantime since they get trapped into the vicious cycle of work -> pay bills -> go home & sleep.
I'll counter your statement with politicians buy into this entitlement also and therefore our government is a reflection of this culture and can't really be blamed for it. Otherwise, they wouldn't get elected. Imagine a politician saying, I'm not going to allow everyone to buy a home because it wastes too much space, I will force you all to buy small townhomes.
But I think a bigger issue is, people buy more crap than they actually need. Most homes constructed in Gilbert in the past decade has been humongous homes, like 2000-4000 sq ft. That's absolutely insane for a family of 4. A family of 4 can easily do with a 1500 sq ft home. Then these people who buys these homes takes out a big mortgage and becomes dependent on the economy to make their payments and feel depressed in the meantime since they get trapped into the vicious cycle of work -> pay bills -> go home & sleep.
Well, I have a 3600 SF 5 bedroom for a family of 4 and didn't take out more mortgage than I can afford (less than 10% of our monthly GROSS income goes to the mortgage on a 15 year loan, and we actually pay more and will own free and clear in 7-8 years). You can say I don't need it, but each child has their own bedroom, one room is my home office (I own and operate my business from the house 70-80% of the time), there's room for one guest bedroom and a playroom, which will turn into a teen room as they get older. Sure, we could make 1500 sf "work" by having toys all over the living room and have my office in the master bedroom like some do, but why? If you earn enough to afford it, why not get something better? You're assuming people can't afford these large houses, it reminds me of the people that see someone in a nice car and assume stories about them about being in debt up to their eyeballs. I just say to myself "nice car".
Well, I have a 3600 SF 5 bedroom for a family of 4 and didn't take out more mortgage than I can afford (less than 10% of our monthly GROSS income goes to the mortgage on a 15 year loan, and we actually pay more and will own free and clear in 7-8 years). You can say I don't need it, but each child has their own bedroom, one room is my home office (I own and operate my business from the house 70-80% of the time), there's room for one guest bedroom and a playroom, which will turn into a teen room as they get older. Sure, we could make 1500 sf "work" by having toys all over the living room and have my office in the master bedroom like some do, but why? If you earn enough to afford it, why not get something better? You're assuming people can't afford these large houses, it reminds me of the people that see someone in a nice car and assume stories about them about being in debt up to their eyeballs. I just say to myself "nice car".
The point was, buying what you need to survive will almost always be less than what you can afford. There has been a few statistics that shows this (namely, the size of the homes being built now vs. 50 years ago + increasing value/size of the storage space industry) but maybe you're the odd one out. But I saw somewhere there was another study that showed people only utilize the kitchen, bedrooms, and bathrooms the most. The other rooms (living, dining) are completely wasted space as it's underutilized. There's nothing wrong with buying more than what you need if you can afford it, but moderation is key. Then again, in your case sure you can make a 1500 sq ft work and your toys all over the place. But then again, does your kid need that many toys that the entire living room is littered? Sure you also have an office in your house a dedicated room to it, but you can't fit the office stuff into your bedroom? I'm sure your master has a large enough space to fit office stuff in there, rendering the "office room" useless. This brings me circles back to the whole buying too much crap and needing more space to fit it in. The solution is to buy less crap, not more and that starts with changing people's behaviors.
People just don't realize it. You just think it's a normal part of your life, until you take a step back. We Americans already consume most of the world's goods per capita, buying the largest homes, use a majority of the world's energy, produce a huge portion of the world's pollution, etc.. But somehow people aren't happier here than for example Denmark. Why? There's no denying something is wrong.
This thread was talking about the affordability of homes in LA causing people to migrate to AZ. Is that really the issue, or is it just that we're asking too much for our cash. I happen to believe in the latter but that's just me.
I'll counter your statement with politicians buy into this entitlement also and therefore our government is a reflection of this culture and can't really be blamed for it. Otherwise, they wouldn't get elected. Imagine a politician saying, I'm not going to allow everyone to buy a home because it wastes too much space, I will force you all to buy small townhomes.
I'll up your counter... by agreeing with you! There has to be something crazy when the government does stupid stuff because the voters asked them to do stupid stuff. Bernie Frank played a pivotal role in unleashing the lenders much the same as Nancy Pelosi unleashed Obamacare on the public. Both may have seemed to be good ideas at the time, but in retrospect both proved unworkable. But the real damage was done when mortgages were wrapped up into derivatives which provided the detonator that blew up the bubble in the end. The regulatory part of our government did not understand or recognize the danger of the derivatives until too late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by man4857
But I think a bigger issue is, people buy more crap than they actually need. Most homes constructed in Gilbert in the past decade has been humongous homes, like 2000-4000 sq ft. That's absolutely insane for a family of 4. A family of 4 can easily do with a 1500 sq ft home. Then these people who buys these homes takes out a big mortgage and becomes dependent on the economy to make their payments and feel depressed in the meantime since they get trapped into the vicious cycle of work -> pay bills -> go home & sleep.
I may not agree with your exact numbers but I agree that a 4,000 sqft house seems excessive to me unless for a very large family. I'm single in a ~1,700 sqft house and feel a bit cramped. I won't move for that alone, but if I do move I'll be looking for somewhat a larger house. You may disapprove but that is what I would be comfortable in, maybe 2,500 sqft. I don't intend to remain single, do want a significant other, but of course one master bedroom will suffice for we two. I'd like a separate exercise room for example, treadmill etc.
I started out with a 1,500 sqft house built in the early '50s, 3BR 1BA. That WAS the typical home at the time. Make the master larger and add a master bathroom suite and that would seemingly do the job for most families, as long as they limit multiplication to 2 children.
If somebody gets into the "vicious cycle of work -> pay bills -> go home & sleep" then they have only themselves to blame. My parents managed to avoid that yet lived in a '40s 2BR house and raised 2 children. My parents put a fold out bed in the family room as their own bedroom. What fantastic sacrifices they made for their children!
Well, I have a 3600 SF 5 bedroom for a family of 4 and didn't take out more mortgage than I can afford (less than 10% of our monthly GROSS income goes to the mortgage on a 15 year loan, and we actually pay more and will own free and clear in 7-8 years). You can say I don't need it, but each child has their own bedroom, one room is my home office (I own and operate my business from the house 70-80% of the time), there's room for one guest bedroom and a playroom, which will turn into a teen room as they get older. Sure, we could make 1500 sf "work" by having toys all over the living room and have my office in the master bedroom like some do, but why? If you earn enough to afford it, why not get something better? You're assuming people can't afford these large houses...
You made it work for yourself. That's all that counts.
Myself, I'm not in favor of this "mini-house" concept. Maybe America wants that--I don't. Of course I'm retired and have different needs than first time homeowners, and due to a career of hard work I also have more capital, enough to spend it on what I want, not the minimum out of some spirit that I don't deserve a larger house than I absolutely need. I believe you and I are of a like sort.
The point was, buying what you need to survive will almost always be less than what you can afford. There has been a few statistics that shows this (namely, the size of the homes being built now vs. 50 years ago + increasing value/size of the storage space industry) but maybe you're the odd one out. But I saw somewhere there was another study that showed people only utilize the kitchen, bedrooms, and bathrooms the most. The other rooms (living, dining) are completely wasted space as it's underutilized. There's nothing wrong with buying more than what you need if you can afford it, but moderation is key. Then again, in your case sure you can make a 1500 sq ft work and your toys all over the place. But then again, does your kid need that many toys that the entire living room is littered? Sure you also have an office in your house a dedicated room to it, but you can't fit the office stuff into your bedroom? I'm sure your master has a large enough space to fit office stuff in there, rendering the "office room" useless. This brings me circles back to the whole buying too much crap and needing more space to fit it in. The solution is to buy less crap, not more and that starts with changing people's behaviors.
People just don't realize it. You just think it's a normal part of your life, until you take a step back. We Americans already consume most of the world's goods per capita, buying the largest homes, use a majority of the world's energy, produce a huge portion of the world's pollution, etc.. But somehow people aren't happier here than for example Denmark. Why? There's no denying something is wrong.
This thread was talking about the affordability of homes in LA causing people to migrate to AZ. Is that really the issue, or is it just that we're asking too much for our cash. I happen to believe in the latter but that's just me.
Nah, I've lived in 1500 SF before when I was single, I could make it work but it wouldn't be comfortable. To make room for all of my office supplies and some files I need to keep, it would look like a hoarder house. If I were just scraping by, sure I'd live like that, but when people work hard to earn advanced degrees and move up in a corporation or in my case take a risk and start a business and work hard at it until it becomes successful, why not enjoy some luxuries in life? I hardly think I'm the "odd one out", I know my neighbor paid cash for his house last year (around $700K) and he's mid 40's. On the surface you'd probably think he's up to his eyeballs in debt, but you don't know his financial details. I try to make it a habit of not counting other peoples money and making assumptions.
As for wasted space, the only thing that is "excessive" when we purchased was the guest bedroom. It only gets utilized by guests about 15 days a year and I didn't want it (was my wife's requirement). After having it, I have grown to like it. It gives us a place to go when one of us is sick, so we aren't waking the other one up. It has turned out to be a great luxury and something I now appreciate. The kids don't have too many toys, but keeping the toys and noise somewhat contained is something I wanted. It will also be great when they get older and have friends over to watch movies or play video games as we won't have to be in the same room and they can have some privacy.
It's not 1900, I work hard and refuse to live my one life like a minimalist. As long as the retirement goal doesn't suffer, I have no problem in buying "wants".
You made it work for yourself. That's all that counts.
Myself, I'm not in favor of this "mini-house" concept. Maybe America wants that--I don't. Of course I'm retired and have different needs than first time homeowners, and due to a career of hard work I also have more capital, enough to spend it on what I want, not the minimum out of some spirit that I don't deserve a larger house than I absolutely need. I believe you and I are of a like sort.
I totally get the tiny house thing, it's just not entirely for me. I think it really started with the "Mr Money Mustache" blog which turned into a mini-cult. His whole thing is retiring early and just living with what is needed. I do get that, but it's just not for me and luckily I like running my business so waking up on Monday is not such a drag as it may be for others. We will downsize dramatically when we return to So Cal and kids don't live with us anymore and I don't have to run a business. That's when the 1500 SF will be fine but I'll probably still want a bit more
The point was, buying what you need to survive will almost always be less than what you can afford. There has been a few statistics that shows this (namely, the size of the homes being built now vs. 50 years ago + increasing value/size of the storage space industry) but maybe you're the odd one out...
This thread was talking about the affordability of homes in LA causing people to migrate to AZ. Is that really the issue, or is it just that we're asking too much for our cash. I happen to believe in the latter but that's just me.
I think it's more like not one size fits all. The home buying population consists of all types. I'm retired and I want to reward myself with creature comforts I couldn't afford earlier in life.
First time home buyers can't afford more than the minimum. The market should be (and is) selections for a wide variety of buyers.
There can be no doubt that affordability of AZ houses is part of it, but IMO frustration with CA government tax-and-spend, the higher cost of living caused in part by this, particularly the much higher cost of living in CA -- that is the driving force behind the exodus.
The only negative I can even conceive of is the hotter weather Phoenix has. (The Phoenix economy looks very healthy.) Once you accept the heat, why not move?
Note that it is inevitable that Phoenix population will increase, and not just because of inbound Californians. They say build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door. In the case of Phonenix, as long is it's a nicer alternative than where any Americans live, Phoenix will attract them like a magnet. Rather than bemoan that, Phoenix should prepare for a larger population. That is the key to proper city design: build the infrastructure with a mind to future need of capacity.
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.
