Pops wrote:When I consider that a younger generation may not be able to see themselves ever owning a home at these prices and wages, or being all that impressed with the democratic process that doesn't enable them to have some kind of ownership, it makes me wonder about the viability of the system.
Is CA the entire United States? Is CA "the system? Is CA the economic model we should follow? (For me, the answers would be a resounding NO).
Look, my eldest niece got married a couple/few years ago. They wanted to move to SF, as he was from California, and this was their "ideal" environment. (She's way left of the rest of the family, which is fine with me, but not so much her father. Talking politics was literally banned during holiday family get-togethers by her father.)
And yet, they were willing to use some common sense and WAIT to move there, since taking a realistic look at housing prices, they realized it was pretty unrealistic to try to live there AND build up meaningful savings over time (an ethic I hope I helped instill into her).
So they're living in a nice little house in Georgetown, KY, a small red town in a very red state, but with:
a). Costs near the opposite end of the spectrum from SF, especially for housing.
b). Plenty of decent even good jobs and opportunities for folks with their education and skill level within 30 miles or so.
c). A very nice, safe, pleasant, even pretty (IMO) neighborhood, with decent walkable schools, shopping, etc.
And her husband works on the weekends as a waiter in a local restaurant to bring in extra cash (which I told her to mention to him that I was VERY proud of him for doing, as I figure a bit of encouragement never hurts).
A while after they had made that choice, I pointed out that though this situation is understandably disappointing for them in the short term, it's certainly not the end of the world.
A). Near by Lexington is a relatively liberal area (voting strongly democrat for most local offices, etc), just like Louisville. The typical urban / rural split for many red states re politics.
B). With their savings, as they move up the career ladder, hopefully if they still want to live on the left coast, even SF, they'll be in a financial position to reasonably do that at some point.
C). And at least in the mean time, they're not doing crazy-stressful stuff to make ends meet like my nephew who was commuting nearly 2 hours a day one way while living in L.A. to save on housing costs -- AND raising their baby while both working full time.
...
If housing prices were like CA everywhere, you'd have a point. They're not. They're quite cheap in many places, including some nice cities.
Here are some recent examples:
https://realestate.usnews.com/real-esta ... -in-the-usAre you going to maintain that the younger generation would have "no hope" of owning a home in places like these?
It's really funny to me how the far left constantly lauds CA as some kind of paradise, and then turns around and rails at the economic reality the left wing policies have generally helped foster there, and THEN have the nerve to act like it's some kind of magical failure in the economic process that has caused things to be expensive.
And this is an example of how the problems are NOT all the banks' fault. Do you imagine that there aren't banks outside CA in the US, or that those other banks act completely differently than in CA?
I'm NOT saying banks are wonderful. I ***HATE*** the banking lobby and the way the politicians kowtow to it. But that's far different than placing banks above government policy overall and above supply and demand, generally, in the list of things that influence the cost of living in various locales.