The Left is bandying about the term “affordability” in their pre-election midterm rhetoric. They attempt to scare the public by saying that the cost of living is far worse than under the Biden Administration. Even though the inflation rate is demonstrably lower now, facts do not seem to matter. The constant drumbeat against capitalism is causing many young voters to embrace the Democratic Socialists of America.
To bolster their argument, the Leftists turn to the apparent housing crisis as evidence that home ownership for young couples is becoming unattainable. Although the housing market can be a struggle for some, there are still plenty in their age group who are buying houses in many markets across the country. There isn’t a glut of empty homes; rather, the market is quite competitive. And it is the competitiveness, by definition, that will leave some interested buyers empty-handed.
In our world where everything is about equity and equality, socialists hold that everyone, no matter who, should have the same as every other person regardless of the decisions a person may make. The same notion is extended to housing as well.
Americans have short memories, and the younger have no memory at all when it comes to housing. In the 1980s, the interest rates on homes were a whopping 16.63%. The crushing fee for borrowing money somehow did not dissuade people from buying houses. They did what was necessary at that time to finance a house for their families. If loans were secured and paid off back then, why can’t it happen now?
The simple answer is that the culture of some young adults today is far different from their parents’ time. The Left has always pushed that every person, regardless of their income or saving habits, deserves to own a home in the United States. The policies following this belief led the country to the housing and financial crisis of 2008. The risky lending policies that led to the collapse proved the point in a market-based economy: just desiring a house doesn’t equate to actually acquiring one and holding on to it.
In the past, this was understood clearly. If a private home was unattainable at the moment, some young people moved in with their parents or rented property until the time they could amass a decent down payment to secure a mortgage and pay for it.
What remains the same from the past is the difficulty in purchasing property. What is different from then and now is the attitudes of the potential young buyers. Most often in the past, it was commonly practiced that the first house was a starter house, meaning it was a basic house with less square footage and fewer amenities. A good portion of young buyers today want to skip this step and move into a house comparable to their parents’ home they grew up in at the outset.
Another attitude that has changed is the principle of sacrifice to attain something greater. For the past fifty years, religious teaching and the humanistic society have labeled sacrifice as something that needs to be avoided at all costs. Discipling oneself to start a savings account is not easy, especially in a consumer-oriented society. Also, quite a few of these young adults took little time in thinking about the college loans they took out and attended expensive four-year colleges instead of using community college as a stepping stone. Granted, a community college is less glamorous and has fewer extracurricular activities, but it is a cost-effective way to get college credits.
Then there is what can be called the Starbucks phenomenon. With the availability of credit, a good portion of spenders put nonessential items on credit, making it very difficult to save money for a 20% down payment and to make monthly payments with the high debt they are carrying.
Finally, there is the generation of expectation. They have been taught they deserve material things without work just because they exist. Fifty years ago, those young people who wanted to go to college often held jobs during High School and college along with any scholarships and grants they could muster. With the government guaranteeing college loans, young people today do not need to work. Different from the past, many college students who have loans do not work during summers between college years.
The housing affordability question comes down to a basic clash of ideals. You can either have a free market or a socialist notion of expectation. The problem is they cannot coexist. Young people must be taught to delay gratification, be more responsible with their finances, and expect less from their first house. If not, those who want to promote a communistic economy will soon find out that far from home ownership and independence, they will live in squalor and take everyone with them.