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.
In european countries like Denmark there is a lot of societal engineering that goes on so that people can live nearby work.
In Singapore, something like 80% of the people live in government owned housing, which is mandated by law to have specific ethnic quotas in each building.
It is unlikely anything like that will happen anywhere in America. Pretty much lower income people will shack up together in group houses in inconvenient outer suburbs and take buses to their jobs. "Lower income" will extend to almost everyone besides the 1 % and a small band of high level professionals, much like how the economic caste systems of Mexico, Russia, Argentina and Brazil are structured. For an example of this in our own country just look at the Bay Area where people making close to six figures have to live in shared housing because they can't afford to rent a place on their own, or New York where all the cops live in Breezy Point.
The "american dream" was sort of based on a unique point in time where land, fuel and automobiles were cheap and credit was very easy to obtain.
I really just don't get it. What are these people supposed to do? Where do all of the people who work in Whole Foods and New Seasons live? Is it simply time to abandon the "dream" of owning a home? Is communal living the model moving forward?
Yes, these people live with several roommates. Fortunately, Portland has a large base of SFR, much of which has been converted to communal rentals.
Going forward, very little SFR construction beyond replacement is likely or even possible in Portland, so almost all new construction will be unaffordable multi-family buildings.
In european countries like Denmark there is a lot of societal engineering that goes on so that people can live nearby work.
In Singapore, something like 80% of the people live in government owned housing, which is mandated by law to have specific ethnic quotas in each building.
It is unlikely anything like that will happen anywhere in America. Pretty much lower income people will shack up together in group houses in inconvenient outer suburbs and take buses to their jobs. "Lower income" will extend to almost everyone besides the 1 % and a small band of high level professionals, much like how the economic caste systems of Mexico, Russia, Argentina and Brazil are structured. For an example of this in our own country just look at the Bay Area where people making close to six figures have to live in shared housing because they can't afford to rent a place on their own, or New York where all the cops live in Breezy Point.
The "american dream" was sort of based on a unique point in time where land, fuel and automobiles were cheap and credit was very easy to obtain.
Have you seen the documentary "Inequality for All"? I had a "revelation" along the lines of the bolded above while watching that movie, and felt compelled to write to Robert Reich to see how he might reconcile that. I won't copy my entire email to him here, but here's a relevant excerpt:
Quote:
I think it is pretty clear that the American economy was something historically special in the 30 years or so following WWII. But, if I'm understanding correctly, Mr. Reich is attributing the success of that period to government policy, particularly with respect to labor unions and investment in higher education. I am concerned that he has overlooked, or at least has not included in his presentation, the fact that America was also in an historically unique position of power during that period. Europe and Japan were in ruins, China had not yet emerged, and America stood as a singular superpower with an intact infrastructure and ability to exert its economic will.
The response from his assistant was as follows:
Quote:
The global economy isn't a zero-sum game in which we do better if major competitors are almost wiped out. To the contrary, we did far better in the 1960s and 1970s than we did in the 1950s because Europe and Japan were bouncing back, able to buy our exports and supply us with exports as well. In fact, the early post-war years were particularly challenging for the United States because we had to rely almost entirely on what we alone produced.
I'm more concerned about the psychological "damage" that that era has caused, though. I experienced what you mentioned above when I lived in NYC (well, NJ, because that was where I could afford to live, even though I made really good money). I felt really discontent, even though things were by most standards pretty nice, because I felt like no matter what I did, my "dream" of buying a house in a place that I actually wanted to live was just never going to come to fruition.
Is it time to start an anti-American Dream educational program?
I'm more concerned about the psychological "damage" that that era has caused, though. I experienced what you mentioned above when I lived in NYC (well, NJ, because that was where I could afford to live, even though I made really good money). I felt really discontent, even though things were by most standards pretty nice, because I felt like no matter what I did, my "dream" of buying a house in a place that I actually wanted to live was just never going to come to fruition.
Is it time to start an anti-American Dream educational program?
Here is exactly how it went for me... I felt really discontent, even though things were by most standards pretty nice, because I felt like no matter what I did, my "dream" of buying a house in a place that I actually wanted to live in Portland was just never going to come to fruition.
I think its time to perhaps figure out exactly what is important to each of us, then educate ourselves on what makes us happy and how to achieve it.
I think the American dream gets presented as some sort of entitlement. There is work and sacrifice involved in achieving home ownership. It is easier in some places than others. If your local government is literally working against "your American dream" vote it out or move. I did the latter.
My current level of living far surpasses anything I enjoyed in Portland. This is what is important to me. I made the plan and moved after realizing it just was not possible on the path I was on.
I believe that personal freedom is what most hold dear. I think that home ownership is symbolic of that in a way, for a lot of people.
It's never a free ride.
Last edited by Squidlo; 11-02-2014 at 11:08 PM..
Reason: present tense
Is it time to start an anti-American Dream educational program?
I don't know. I think some people had it figured out, and some didn't.
I think your average middle class white person had it real easy for quite a long time. They were able to get a C average, go to all the football games, get drunk on the weekends, major in psychology, and still be able to get a house in the burbs and 2 cars. Up until probably the mid 1990s. Keep in mind that there weren't even credit scores until 1989. The mortgage agent just sized you up and if you seemed like a straight shooter with an ounce of gumption you got the loan. These people didn't really prepare their kids right for the future when everything was real competitive and an average house cost $750,000.
However a lot of asian parents seemed to know what the future would hold. My Korean friends all grew up in crappy 2 bedroom apartments in LA and NYC. Their parents all tiger-mom'd them into studying hard, going to elite colleges, and becoming dermatologists, investment bankers, engineers and lawyers. They all can easily afford the $750,000 houses and aren't too worried about what the future holds. Maybe it was because they came over from Korea, and had to bust their butt to even be able to get here, and even just afford a crummy apartment. They were more prepared for how hard you had to work.
It's not that the american dream is impossible, it's just that it isn't easy anymore.
This is such a stupid thread. 95% of the U.S. is dirt cheap. If you want to buy a house go move to any flyover state. There are only a few expensive areas in the coastal areas on the U.S.. Want cheap? Move to Michigan and you can buy a house for $50k. Indiana? North Carolina? New Mexico? Tennessee? Nebraska? Texas? Arizona? Idaho? It goes on and on and on. ANY city that is popular in the entire WORLD is ridiculously expensive. Try to rent a place in Tokyo, Paris, London, Hong Kong, etc... Even a place like Rome where the economy sucks and there are a lot of poor people is still incredibly expensive. When a ton of people want to live somewhere the laws of supply and demand is going to drive up the cost of housing. It will always be that way and it will never change.
And people who say the American dream is over is such a giant load of BS too. I do a lot of travel around the world and where is it better??? Nowhere in this universe. You just need the right skills and drive and there is a ton of opportunity. Instead of whining on CD threads. There are a ton of high paying jobs that go unfilled and HB 1 Visa immigrants have to be recruited for them because there are no Americans with the skills to fill them.
I don't think so. You cannot buy a house for $50K in North Carolina, Nebraska, Arizona, Idaho. You can buy a mobile home in the middle of a depressed part of those states. Wages have remained flat since the 1990s and housing prices, fuel prices and food prices have skyrocketed. The cost of living in a trailer park in rural tennesee is not the point of the thread. It is "why middle class americans cannot afford to live in liberal cities."
I really just don't get it. What are these people supposed to do? Where do all of the people who work in Whole Foods and New Seasons live? Is it simply time to abandon the "dream" of owning a home? Is communal living the model moving forward?
Why would someone/a couple on the income of $60k have to abandon the 'dream' of owning a home? There are plenty of condos and townhomes under $200k and a few starter homes.
And yes ... communal living seems to be the way to go for the younger generation. Most of my friends live with roommates if they don't live at home.
Here is exactly how it went for me... I felt really discontent, even though things were by most standards pretty nice, because I felt like no matter what I did, my "dream" of buying a house in a place that I actually wanted to live in Portland was just never going to come to fruition.
I think its time to perhaps figure out exactly what is important to each of us, then educate ourselves on what makes us happy and how to achieve it.
I think the American dream gets presented as some sort of entitlement. There is work and sacrifice involved in achieving home ownership. It is easier in some places than others. If your local government is literally working against "your American dream" vote it out or move. I did the latter.
My current level of living far surpasses anything I enjoyed in Portland. This is what is important to me. I made the plan and moved after realizing it just was not possible on the path I was on.
I believe that personal freedom is what most hold dear. I think that home ownership is symbolic of that in a way, for a lot of people.
It's never a free ride.
This. I moved away just as Squidlo did because I didn't want to live a life of scraping by, renting until I'm 40 (or beyond), and being a slave to my employer because they know that it's not easy to move around in PDX.
Fast forward to where I'm at now, and I'm in my late twenties and have *tripled* my income from 60k-180k within the past 4 years, own a 3000 sq ft home with a pool, wife, child, 2 cars, "0" crime neighborhood, and hey can actually eat out/take vacations/pay for random crap that comes up without really having to worry about it. The key here is that Squidlo and I ARE NOT SPECIAL. I know I certainly am not.
Compare that to my friends who sticked around in PDX, they're all still renting, all still have very slow career advancement (if any at all), and really have to think and stress about expenses on a day to day basis.
I really just don't get it. What are these people supposed to do? Where do all of the people who work in Whole Foods and New Seasons live?........
Well, for a started, $62,000 a year is enough to buy a house.
People with lower incomes don't buy. People who can't save up a down payment, don't buy. They are tenants. People with really low incomes have roommates. Families with 2 minimum wage jobs rent apartments.
My experience with minimum wage workers, though, is that they are often coupled with people who make more. The girl who works in the coffee kiosk has a partner who works in construction. The clerk in New Seasons, who, by the way, is making more than minimum wage, is partnered with a bank teller, who is also making more than minimum wage.
The people who are making minimum wage and who really want to own a house figure out how to qualify themselves for a better higher paying job. A person has to really be lacking in any ambition at all to remain in a minimum wage job for their entire life. Those are supposed to be started jobs and people generally move up from there. Don't be surprised if people who remain in minimum wage jobs all their life are considered to be content where they are.
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.
