This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The Economist doesn't seem to know economics.
I was presented this article by Reddit as an ad. Though the ad used the subtitle about Trump as the title. This article packs more "wrong" in a coherently-written article than I've seen in a long time. The actual title is "America’s huge mortgage market is slowly dying".
Right out of the gate, we're told mortgage debt has dropped over 30 points as a percentage of the GDP since the housing crisis, and now is at its lowest level since 1999, before the bubble. Wait a minute? Isn't that a good thing? We've finally returned to normalcy after the bubble? In fact, the graph appears to show just that. Mortgage debt is still higher as a percent of GDP than any time other than the bubble.
We're then told "mortgage debt has shrunk to just 27% of the value of American household property—a 65-year low". Uh, yes, but those of us who are paying attention realize that this isn't because mortgage debt has shrunk, it's because the value of American property has increased. Which doesn't have much to do with any dying of the mortgage market.
Then we get this howler:
Uh, how exactly is lenders' appetite for risk a measure of mortgage availability?
The article then goes on to call this a "collapse in credit", because in 2003 (peak bubble), 35% of American mortgages went to people with credit scores below 720, whereas now that number is 22%. But the attached chart shows total originations are fairly close to immediately pre-COVID numbers. There's no real drying up in credit since the end of the bubble, just extension of the same credit to more creditworthy borrowers. Note that more than half of Americans with a credit score have one over 720. American's credit scores have increased, and lending less to people who are higher risk just makes sense. The bubble lending DIDN'T make sense, that's how we got the bubble!
Did I call the previous one a howler? No, that wasn't a howler. THIS is a howler:
Uh, bitch, prices are high. Time on market is low. There's LOTS of buyers. It's a seller's market. If developers aren't building (and indeed they aren't) it's not a lack of prospective buyers causing it.
This is heart of the problem with the article: if there is indeed a mortgage drought preventing people from buying houses, house prices should be falling, not rising. Basic Econ 101 stuff. The article completely ignores this right up until the very end, when it notes
I don't know what G-S means by that, but "any policies meant to make mortgages more widely available will only push house prices higher" makes more sense than anything else in the article, and it contradicts the whole thesis of the article.
The housing market has plenty of problems. Unavailability of credit is definitely not one of them.
Reminds me of this viral Substack series: Part 1, Part 2..
...
The median age of first time homebuying has gone up from 28 in the 1990s to 40. First-time buyers now comprise just 21% of all home purchases.
Nothing about this seems sustainable to me. At least the younger generation will inherit the houses? Well, no. Usually inheritance passes down to the next generation, which currently owns their own homes. And many elderly are forced to sell their houses to pay for eldercare, meaning that all that home value goes to the health care system instead of anyone else.
Ok, but then who are the elderly selling to? People in their 40s able and willing to get into tons of debt. OK, but who buys when you exhaust that group? Property investment firms who are able to rent the houses out. Can that go on forever? Well, if they're buying houses at a certain price, they're hoping the rent will be more than the mortgage over the length of the life of the home. This happens when rents increase over time. Will we always have more people looking for homes than there are available?
To put a finer point on it, it seems like the system requires that there be perpetually fewer homes than desired, but this is not really desirable as a society because we like when everyone has a home and punish people who do not have a residence. And, regardless of what's good or bad or anyone's wishes, eventually the population will decrease as the boomers die off.
Home prices have to fall, right? And I wouldn't even be mad about it, though I'd be one of those holding the bag. I'd like for my kids to afford a home. I'd put me in a precarious financial position until the bulk of the principle is payed off. But I will pay the monthly amount I agreed to pay because I'm an adult, and I'll be happy to see my kids in a better position than me because I'm a normal human being.
But anyone who was hoping to trade their $800,000 home for 8 months in hospice care might be in for a rude awakening.
Convenient compilation of debunkings
The article seems to think that Greene is asking for the government to interfere by subsidizing families more. However, I have not seen anything of the sort in his articles or his X timeline. Instead, I suspect he's going to recommend building more homes and daycares to lower costs, based on how Part II ended. "We are a nation of builders." (bolded in the original.)
Boehm also says that Greene refuses to acknowledge tradeoffs, but Boehm hasn't provided the numbers for what tradeoffs exist for a couple in their 20s who are hoping to have replacement-rate level children by the time they're 40. Boehm seems to think that children are optional luxuries, ("First, all choices come with tradeoffs, and having kids is no exception.") On the individual level this may be true, but on the societal level this is not true.
Saying "you only need to pay the outrageous cost of childcare for the first 5-10 years of parenthood and then the cost becomes smaller" doesn't lower the barrier to entry at all.
In Part II, Greene added up the percentages of jobs that could support children in Lynchburg, VA, and it came up to 63.6%. This complements perfectly the 36% of people who responded to a Pew Research poll indicating they could not afford kids. This stood out to me as something significant but no one on either side of the debate has commented on it yet. (Edit, this is a mistake on my part, it's 36% of people who don't have kids already who said the reason was they could not afford them, not 36% of the total population of people age 25-45.)
Complaints about the articles I am sympathetic towards:
Greene completely messed up his calculation on Part I by picking the numbers in a county in NJ, instead of actual National Averages. In Part II, his correction to $100,000 seems more accurate.
Greene is really trying to calculate the "Middle Class" line and distinguishing it from the "Working Poor" line. He conflates "Working Poor" with "Impoverished."
The articles being flawed doesn't detract from them being viral and noteworthy. They struck a cord with people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Don't forget about reverse mortgages! Basically, boomers sell their houses while continuing to live in them, use the money to go on cruises, then when they die the house goes to the bank and their kids get nothing. I see tons of ads for them whenever I watch OTA television.
They truly are the locust generation.
I mean, on the bright side, advertisements mean there is a significant oversupply- more people wanting to offer them than people wanting to take up those offers.
Could it be the other way around too? They are profitable so they can spend money on marketing. Same reason VPNs and gacha games once dominated YouTube sponsoring.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't see how he gets his numbers.
Green:
Bureau of Labor Statistics (size of consumer unit by income before taxes: consumer unit of four people with income < 15 k$/a):
*I have submitted a pull request to fix this nonsensical CSS.
**Tax credit of 2 k$/(child⋅a) × 2 children overwhelms all federal income tax for a couple with taxable income < 37.2 $/a, which implies total income < 66.4 k$/a. I don't care enough to figure out the refundable "additional child tax credit" on top of that, let alone state income tax.
(Totals may not sum due to rounding.)
A lot of people complained about that, and it's really his fault but Part I is actually kind of Part 1.5. He wrote an article earlier about affording a home in Essex County, NJ, and used the numbers from MIT's Living Wage analysis for Essex County, New Jersey in his calculation. He wasn't expecting the article to go beyond his readership so he didn't really explain that part well until Part II.
That rather blatantly contradicts his statement in part 1 that he was using "conservative, national-average data".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this statistic, plus this well-known one about Millennials being "behind" on homeownership, plus COVID, goes a long way to explaining the current run-up in real home prices. Compared to Boomers and Gen X, more Millennials preferred to remain renters. Then COVID hit, and that changed those attitudes, in a lasting way. So there's a fairly large group of older non-homeowners. Being older, they are wealthier than typical first-time homebuyers in years past, so they can outbid Gen Z (and younger Millennials) who are also in the market. That's the demand side. The supply side is also messed up, for various reasons including (but not limited to) the ideological success of anti-growth and anti-sprawl policies.
When the elders leave the houses (whether due to death, incapacity, or moving to a rental unit) they typically become available for another buyer, whether the money goes into healthcare or not. This will drive prices down. But it's going to be a while before the boomers start dying en masse; life expectancy for an 80-year-old (the oldest boomers as of 2026) is ~9 years, and for a 62 (youngest boomers) year old, 20 years. So yes, house prices will have to fall (barring a massive increase in immigration, which is definitely possible in that time frame if President AOC opens the floodgates)
The falling percentage of first-time buyers suggests that they’re outcompeted by people who’ve already owned a house, not just older first-timers.
More details in the report highlights, although I don’t see a chart of median age over time. But there’s nothing here suggesting the demand surge is concentrated in millenials.
The craziest stat on that page is that, since COVID, all-cash purchases have gotten much more common. It’s got to be an inflation thing, right?
Unless we're talking about people who went to an apartment and are moving back to a house, or people buying second homes, non-first-time buyers can't crowd out first time buyers because they vacate one house when they buy a new one.
I was able to find the current report and the 2022 report. In 2022, 10% of first-time buyers were 18-24, 36% 25-34, 26% 35-44, 13% 45-54, 8% 55-64, 6% 65-74. In 2025, 4% were 18-24, 32% 25-34, 25% 35-44, 16% 45-54, 14% 55-64, 8% 65-74. So Millennials, but Xers and Boomers too.
Redfin has different numbers up to 2021.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I heard this on the Odd Lots podcast and the host essentially says: "Everyone wants the real estate market to be low and cheap when they can afford it, then never low and cheap again, always increasing in price until the end of their lives". I think there are plenty of people like that now, hoping for some 2008-style crash where they can "deploy dry powder". Most people have wishful thinking on how they will successfully time the market twice (first time is not getting in the market before the crash; second is getting in the market at or right after it hits bottom). If we talk to New Yorkers, many can certainly tells you some hindsight-stories about Williamsburg in the 00s, or just anywhere in the city in general in the 80s, but that's the point, regret is powerful fuel for memories. If the tides actually goes out, companies are doing layoffs, banks are failing, societal services shutting down, buying a home would not seem like a good idea. And real estate is special because of how local it is, in case of a collapse, maybe you get 80s New York, or maybe you get 50s Detroit. Not to mention, others who are more well versed have pointed out that structurally things can be even worse and that even more can still be squeezed out of all of us. Personally, I don't bank on house prices being low over the long term, and that's even before talking about the cost of home ownership. If I can maintain and not have to liquidate my little parcel of the pale blue dot, I think that's enough to be considered as an astounding financial success.
More options
Context Copy link
This is obviously false simply by glancing at the alternative.
Person A: No income but has a million dollar house
Person B: No income, and also no house.
Person A is a million dollars of value richer. If people B want a home too they have to give the people A a million (or build their own, which is becoming increasingly not allowed).
Nothing here is negated because A bought in early or because A wants their current situation of having a home instead of B's situation. They still have a million more dollars of value.
The value isn't increasing in the same way as other assets. He compares it to a painting:
Whereas, if you have a house increase in value, you can't sell it for that full value and pocket the proceeds. You need to live somewhere:
The fact that a person who doesn't own a house is in an even worse position does not negate that home inflation shouldn't really be considered the same as other assets.
Don't compare it from No home to Has home. Compare between a world where homes inflated 10x to one where homes only inflated 2x. Which world has generated more "wealth?"
These are super viable options. No, they're not as good as having cash, but they're way, way better than nothing. 80+% of the way from "nothing" to "cash".
More options
Context Copy link
But none of that changes the simple fact that at the end of the day if you compare 65 year old senior with a million dollar home and 25 year old kid from a renter family without any major assets, just the house alone puts the senior a million dollars richer in value.
The senior's total value here is Renter + 1 Million
The difficulty in liquidating their holdings is only because they are actively using the one million dollar house, a choice the latter does not have unless they spend a million.
Yes, the renter is worse off. The renter has such a huge barrier to buying a house it might as well be on the moon.
But 1 Million in the stock market would be better than a 1 Million house, can we agree on this much? If your net worth is 1 Million, that doesn't tell us a complete picture of financial health. I think that's all that I'm trying to say here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It makes more sense if you switch from
No house == homeless
to
No house == renter
If your home goes up hugely in value, and you sell without buying another house, then yes in a manner of speaking you have only acquired the approximate equivalent of a few decades of rental value which you will now have to pay, making the transaction net zero.
But if you had been renting all that time, you would still have to pay the new inflated price but you would have no assets to set off against them.
EDIT: I apologise, I see some of this was in your original post.
More options
Context Copy link
Are you denying that homeowners who have there house values massively increase aren't richer?
Sure the fact that you need to live somewhere does make that wealth harder to access, but HELOCs, reverse mortages, downsizing, purchasing a new house with a mortgage (rather than outright), etc are all options that are now available to you and give immediate access to that huge source of wealth, with many options both for where to live and how to structure your debt/asset mix.
My own parents, who bought their houses decades ago, leveraged housing price increases as collateral to purchase multiple rental and vacation properties. Sure the world didn't generate more wealth from this, but the point is my parents got much much wealthier at the expense of those who still need to purchase/rent, as they are the ones driving housing prices.
No, I acknowledge that a homeowner who has had a large home where the value massively increased can downsize when the kids are out and add the difference to their retirement. But I disagree that reverse mortgages and HELOCs are "wealth." Yes, it is possible if someone is lucky to have been born at certain times to leverage home values and buy rentals and extract economic rent that way.
What I don't think, and what I think the article author is trying to get at, is that home value increases are wealth in the sense a good stock and bond portfolio is, but they are often treated as such in economic calculations. Accessing that wealth requires lowering a standard of living in some way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If a painting goes from $1,000 to $1,000,000 at the same time general inflation goes up by a factor of 1000, you have gained nothing. If shelter inflation goes up more than general inflation, then if you own a home which goes up only by the value of shelter inflation, you have in fact gained (though not by as much as if your home went up and general shelter did not). It is true that to realize these gains you need to actually spend something, but that's just a matter of not being able to have your cake and eat it too -- if you want to realize the gain from the painting you won't have it after you sell it either.
You don't need a painting but you need a shelter. You don't need an Apple stock and you can sell it without needing to buy another S&P stock to replace it. I don't think that home value increases are wealth in the sense a good stock and bond portfolio is, but they are often treated as such in economic calculations. Accessing that wealth requires lowering a standard of living in some way that isn't replicated with other assets.
If I sell an appreciated painting, I no longer have it; my standard of living is decreased by exactly as much as having that painting increased it. Further, I CAN extract some value from my home (by borrowing from it) without reducing my standard of living. That you have arbitrarily rejected this does not make it not so.
This is trivially true, but it just means that having a painting doesn't increase your standard of living by as much as a similarly priced house does. This won't change any relevant conclusion.
More options
Context Copy link
Being able to go into debt is not wealth or everyone attending college right now would be worth $100,000.
No, the house is the wealth. It's made liquid by borrowing against it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link