The American Home

Re: The American Home
What's your point? There are a lot of statistics here, but what are you trying to establish or suggest?

Re: The American Home


Seriously? Homes meaning houses and flats or houses only?

I'm having trouble buying this, how did you come up with these numbers?

I think the point is to denigrate President Bush and his administration by the use of deceptive statistics.

Actually home ownership is higher today than at anytime in our history. In 1900, 46.5% of all Americans owned their own homes. Home ownership declined every year after that (except for1930, 47.8%) until 1940 when only 43.6% of Americans owned their own homes.

After WWII home ownership began a steady rise. In 1950, 55% of Americans owned their own homes. By the year 2000 that number had risen to 66.2%. The highest rate of ownership was in West Virginia where 75.2% home ownership was reported. The District of Columbia was lowest at 40.8%. Over that 50 year period, and even today, 60% of all homes owned were single family detached. (The source of these statistics is the Bureau of the Census)

Today, under the Bush Administration (which probably has next to nothing to do with home ownership), slightly over 72% of Americans own their own homes.

After Manhattan Island, San Francisco is the second most expensive city in the United States to find housing in. Both are extremely dense urban areas with no room for expansion, and both are highly desirable locations. Not a good example of the overall conditions in a country where density and urban size is considerably less pressing.

Does this mean that everything is peachy keen? Not on your life. Finding good and affordable housing is a problem for at least 11 million Americans whose annual income is below $27,000 for a family of four. Housing for Humanity is doing a heroic job of working to provide homes for the deprived, but their efforts are limited. Whether the Federal government should do more is a political question, and it isn't an easy one to answer.

Conservatives tend to argue that market forces should be as unfettered as possible. This is the philosophy that has predominately prevailed for over 200 years in American politics. Conservatives also argue that the Federal Budget deficits need to be controlled. We are currently engaged in an expensive struggle against a determined, fanatical organized group of international terrorists. The costs incurred to secure our People, to the greatest extent possible, from further attacks like 9/11 can not be cut. Additional Federal expenditures, like Social Security, are both costly and unavoidable. The Federal Budget must be constrained, so many deserving programs are competing for fewer Federal dollars.

Liberals, who happen to be out of power at the moment, argue that social programs should have the highest priority in Federal spending. One of the reasons they object so strenuously to US military efforts is that they would prefer those dollars be spent in programs proposed and supported by Democratic politicians. They argue that the Federal deficit is ruinous, but insist that no cuts be made in social programs.

The Federal government only has X amount of dollars to spend. More than over 90% is already devoted to programs that can not be altered. Now if Y is the budget for the military and the other costs associated with the effective management of the Government in Foreign and Domestic affairs, whatever is left can be spent on programs that are not central to operation of the government (Z). Y and Z can not exceed the amount of money available, unless the Federal government "borrows" the money in which case the obligated debt service will further reduce the total amount of discretionary expenditures. That's why things like the Federal deficit and the costs of Social Security loom so large in trying to construct a Federal budget.

What programs get slashed is not necessarily the same as which programs should be slashed. Everyone has their own ideas of where the dollars should be spent, especially members of Congress. All those who receive any direct benefits from the Federal Treasury are unwilling to see those entitlements cut by even a dime. Conservative Republicans who speechify the need for fiscal restraint and responsibility are just as guilty of biases as the most liberal socialist-leaning Democrats.

Nice speech, Asherman; but I don't think it was an attack on the Republicans per se in the first place.

Rather, whether it be the Republicans or not, there is a lot of evidence that the housing market is spiralling far out of control and is due for a major crash. It seems that the higher you raise prices these days... the more people are willing to pay.

You state that it is difficult for the 11 million Americans making below 27k a year to have a home; let me tell ya, it's difficult for a lot more people than that. Ask Cjhsa how much it costs for homes in HIS area. I know here in Austin, the prices are through the roof, ESPECIALLY if you don't want to live in a suburb away from the city. I mean, huge price expansions in just the last two years.

In my neighborhood, houses and duplexes which sold for 150k two years ago sell for 3 or 400k today.

Part of the reason that this is happening is due to the advent of the variable rate mortgage; when the market drops out, the negative equity combined with high payments is going to f*ck a lot of people here in America.

Cycloptichorn

I generally don't have as much time to devote to the internet as I would like and so I couldn't really compose a lot of material to accompany the basic statistics I threw out. They're from the latest edition of Mother Jones and they so astonished me that I had to share them.

I know many people link home ownership with accomplishment and stability and say that the real problem minority children face is not coming from homes that are owned by their parents.

I have developed some theories about the outrageous increases in house prices that we've witnessed over the past 30 years. My theorizing started when I read Paper Money by "adam Smith" in the early 80s, which opens with a discussion of why folks don't want to pay off their mortgages.

I'll post some of my theories tomorrow but the rise of real estate prices illustrates the disparity of incomes in the US today.

BTW, Asherman is always interesting.