Megan McArdle and this Post analysis both describe a booming real estate market in the suburbs, as the "professional" (AKA "upper middle class") take advantage of cheap money and flee the crowded cities. I can see that in my own neighborhood: in the last year or so there have been several townhouses change hands in my cluster. These would likely be entry-level houses, currently selling in the $350K range. By the old standards of 2.5 times yearly income that means household income of $140K--not likely. A two income family would, I'd assume, come close to $90-100 K (say two school teachers)
IMO the country needs some way to counter such trends. We don't need McMansions, we don't need everyone having their own private bathroom, we don't need 2.4 rooms per person, 2,700 square feet in a house, much less more than that. I write this knowing my wife and I occupy a house with 2 baths, 2 half baths. But it's less than 1500 square feet. I didn't need that big of a house when I bought; we don't use the whole house now.
When I bought I found the biggest house I thought I could afford because I figured it was a good investment. I assume that parents would buy the biggest house they can afford in the best school district they can find for similar reasons: their kids are good investments; their house is a good investment, or so they think.
The only current way of countering ever more investment in housing is real estate taxes.
No comments:
Post a Comment