Posted on 07/30/2015 1:38:10 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In urban centers around the country, rental prices are soaring. Cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and New York City routinely report double-digit increases that make it nearly impossible for residents to make ends meet.
But it’s not just dwellers of those metropolitan areas who are having a hard time paying the rent. According to a report out this week from the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, more than half of renters in America are considered to be financially burdened by their rent, meaning that they spend more than 30 percent of their income just on where they live. High rents have become a national crisis.
And yet, when I write about poverty and debt on the Internet, there’s always someone—in the comments, on Twitter, or even in person—who will suggest that the issue isn’t so much a system that makes it hard to get ahead, but rather, the result of poor decision-making. The simplest solution, they will propose, is that people who are in financial turmoil “just move somewhere cheaper.”
That is terrible advice.
To address the cycle of poverty, we have to address increases in rent itself, not just where people choose to live. To suggest that the solution to the rent crisis is for everyone who’s being priced out is to “just move” is to derail a much bigger conversation about why people live in poverty and what can be done.
High rents are a national, not just an urban problem....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailydot.com ...
It’s tough living with a hoarder mentality sometimes.
Very wise words in your post.
Uncontrolled immigration of Democrats is increasing demand for all kinds of expensive things. Control the borders and rents will normalize as will most everything else.
The worst advice "we" give (especially) young people is that if they're living paychecktopaycheck that they can borrow their way out of it - that includes over-buying on houses, kinda like the people on the house-buying shows on cable TV, and it also includes the MYTH that buying any house prematurely is helpful. That's actually a terrible mistake, despite the fact that it's socially acceptable and in fact expected.
"Oh, you should see Susie and Johnny's new house!"
Anyone out there lurking, hear the voice of experience:
Get your uh... stuff paid off.
Make more money. If you have to do something else that's legal to make more money, call it personal growth. Work more hours, tend a bar someplace, whatever works for you.
Spend less.
Got it all paid off?
Good. Now save some money, a significant amount, because you're about to need it...
Now go buy an unpretentious starter house.
My brother is a slum lord. He buys small one bedroom units. He gets past the bad renters by renting to old ladies on social security. He says they always pay their rent.
Well, when you fools are paying $400,000+ for a 1200 sq ft 30 year old house I find it hard to show any sympathy.
But that's me.
My fear is that very soon a landlord will be forced to give priority to renters with Section 8 vouchers.
Sometimes you misjudge the persons. But most of the time the model works.
So far, a landlord has to agree (in writing) to comply with the requirements for a Section 8 tenant/rental. In practice, it is the landlord who initiates that arrangement.
They aren’t at the point of forced rentals like that, but that doesn’t say Obama wouldn’t try it if he has time before he is forced out of office in 15 months. They are already at the point of trying to force city councils to change zoning and licensing requirements to effect that kind of crap, but it hasn’t gotten down to the individual landlords - yet.
Another reason not to own cheap / slum housing.
If Obama had his way, the government would take over ownership of all housing and assign people where they live. It is the ultimate goal, and we get closer and closer to it with each passing day.
That’s probably true, but it isn’t any new concept. Communists have been doing that since they got their name.
Why let economics actually work, when we can CONTROL human nature, CONTROL economics, and CONTROL everyone's residence choices!!
(Hint to those who cannot handle Econ 101: Supply and demand... prices go up, demand goes down, prices go back down. If the rentals aren't renting at those rates, the owners will drop their prices. If the units ARE renting at those rates, then any third-party jackass who demands to insert themselves into the private agreement to control the prices that the parties have freely agreed to should be ignored and mocked and told to f*** off. They can only bring decay, a loss of freedom, and more government control.)
I bought a double-wide in 1991. I figured the square footage my family with wife and two kids needed and went from there. It was paid for in ten years vs a 30 year house mortgage. It will last me my lifetime I'm in my late 50's now. Also you can't predict things. Five years into the payments I became disabled. But we still managed to get the house paid off whereas a 30 year note on a regular home we likely would have lost it. The payments were considerably cheaper than rent. Now I'm in a 1200 square ft home living by myself. All the room I need and more at this time in my life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.