Note to reader: The long range plan is to upend the established order of private property ownership. Why? In particular, renters rarely ever establish any true sense of household formation normalcy and stability. Statistically speaking, renters rarely ever build wealth and establish themselves in communities.
There is only one reason why housing is becoming less affordable every year. The federal government continues to escalate its deficit spending, which greatly increases M2 supply and which, greatly increases the amount of debt servicing.
Prices continue to increase as the collective economy is under ever-growing pressure to service outstanding debts as well as grow.
Unfortunately for the wage earners, the federal government has a vested interest to underreport true price inflation. This results in a continual and compounding divergence between reported price growth and true price growth.
While officially reported real wages and salaries and real price sensitive economic data are over estimated by the government data agencies, the “real” real data are always lower.
Over a short time frame this divergence is minimal, but when we scale out to 20 years and longer, the differences in the reported versus the actual price inflation numbers are immense.
Yes, this is the one and only reason why housing is unaffordable. The more government intervention we have, the less affordable house prices become.
By definition, Government intervention and spending restricts supply, while raising demand. It’s not just the government programs and zoning laws that restricts supply. We must consider how demand is stimulated just by the continual increases in the money supply as well as the home purchasing incentive programs and the subsidization of the mortgage markets. This is advanced Macroeconomic and Microeconomic theory, and only an objective person can see this.
The governing authorities are not ignorant to this dynamic. By creating the very housing market problems they claim to address, the collective oligarchy running the governments creates the framework necessary to provide their solution. The answer is to establish “social housing” for a growing portion of the population.
The governments, working through public and private trusts, will effectively become the landlords, while the bank’s finance the endeavors and private corporations manage the developments. For instance, this system would work similarly to what was established during Nikita khrushchev’s regime in the Soviet Union. It will also work in a similar fashion to the housing market in Berlin, Germany. Germans have a problem in the post World War II environment, homeownership percentages are low.
Here in the States, the social Democrat politicians know exactly what they are doing. New York Mayor, Mamdani, for instance has publicly declared that New York City should engage in programs to develop social housing. This type of housing is not the typical voucher housing project, rather it is designed to house workers and the city would effectively manage it.
But in order for these socialists to make their goals a reality, they must dismantle the established order. Thus, the silly concepts of rent freezes in a high inflationary environment are not misguided. Rather, it helps their long-range plan. First, the landlords must be foreclosed upon. Next, the public private trusts snatch up the properties at a huge discount.
My advice to my readers is to do whatever it takes to own our own domiciles.
Harvard’s housing report has a darker message than affordability—the middle-class home was always a historical accident
A new Harvard study documents a housing market in crisis. But its real argument is more unsettling: the era when an ordinary American could expect to own a home may have been the exception—not the rule.
For half a century, Harvard has been writing versions of the same warning. In 1977, researchers at what was then the Harvard-MIT Joint Center for Urban Studies observed that only the most affluent families in the United States would be able to own their houses if housing trends from the time continued. In 1970, nearly half of all families could afford a median-priced home. By 1975, only 27% could. The study’s authors warned that an average home could cost $78,000 by the 1980s—a number they offered as a sign of alarm. The median price of a new single-family home in 2025 was $417,400.
Nobody listened, and then—briefly, strangely—the warning became wrong. The early 1980s brought punishing interest rates, but the decade that followed delivered falling rates, rising wages, and a housing market that stayed, if not generous, at least navigable for the broad middle class. For a generation, the crisis that Harvard’s researchers had spotted seemed to resolve itself.
But it didn’t.
The Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies’ 2026 State of the Nation’s Housing report is a meticulous account of just how thoroughly that dynamic has returned—and how much worse it may be than it appears. “Across the U.S., persistent affordability challenges and rising economic uncertainty are hurting housing markets,” the authors stated, citing weakening labor markets and plummeting immigration dampening household growth and mobility as sales of existing homes sit at three-decade lows.
It is true that rents have fallen somewhat, but there’s a structural problem: the drivers of demand are weakening. The slowdown in household growth reflects, the Harvard center concludes, “reduced household formation among young adults amid a weakened job market, burdensome student debt and low consumer sentiment.”
The Harvard authors do not say this, but the implication is that what America experienced in the postwar decades—when homeownership surged 20 percentage points in a single generation, when being middle class reliably meant eventually owning a home—was not a natural feature of a capitalist economy. It was the product of a specific, unrepeatable, and heavily subsidized set of historical conditions. And now those conditions are gone.
The window and what created it
The GI Bill sent veterans to the suburbs. Federal mortgage guarantees lowered the barrier to entry for millions of first-time buyers. Highway construction made cheap land available. And strong union density compressed wages upward, so that a factory worker’s income reliably grew faster than a house’s price—until about 1973, just before the Harvard warning about the future trajectory of the national housing market.
“In the past, if you were middle class, it was almost assumed you would become a homeowner,” Ali Wolf, chief economist of the building consultancy Zonda, told Realtor.com in 2024. “Today, the aspiration is still there, but it is a lot more difficult. You have to be wealthy or lucky.”
What changed was not any single policy or market failure, but that the scaffolding holding up the postwar homeownership society came down piece by piece. Union density declined. Real wage growth for non-college workers was largely stagnant for decades until the short-lived “Great Resignation” of 2021—which happened smack dab in the middle of the Pandemic Housing Boom, as home prices surged 54% in a compressed and almost hallucinatory run-up from 2020 to 2022, turning the residual gap between incomes and prices into a chasm.
The 2026 Harvard report documents what that chasm now looks like from ground level. The median existing single-family home in 2025 sold for nearly 5x the median household income—versus a ratio of 3.2x averaged throughout the 1990s. Monthly mortgage payments on that median-priced home, at roughly $2,420 assuming a modest down payment and a 30-year fixed rate, were nearly double what they were at the end of 2020. Just 16% of renter households earned the $120,800 minimum required to afford that home, Harvard calculates. And listings affordable to households earning $75,000 or less, per the National Association of Realtors and Realtor.com, fell from 49% of the national inventory in 2019 to just 23% in March 2026.
The inheritance economy
What makes the current moment distinct from prior affordability crunches—the early 1980s, say, or the aftermath of the 2008 crash—is not just severity but structure. Homeownership is increasingly behaving less like something earned and more like something inherited.
Aggregate homeowner equity reached $34 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2025, up 88% and what Harvard dubbed an “astounding” $16 trillion since 2019. The average homeowner held about $295,000 in home equity. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that children of homeowner parents who extracted equity accumulated roughly one-third more housing wealth by age 30 than children of renters. A May 2026 NBER study using data on more than 3.4 million families found that “housing capital is substantially more persistent across generations than earnings”—and that less than half of that persistence can be explained by what children earn.
The Harvard report supplies the market-level evidence to match. The median first-time buyer is now 40 years old and NAR finds that first-time buyers accounted for just 21% of all purchases — an all-time low. The homeownership rate for households under 35 has fallen to 37%, down from 39% in 2022. The Black-white homeownership gap, at 28.7 percentage points, now exceeds the gap recorded in 1995. So many indicators are near 30-year lows that taken together, they suggest more of a return to the 1990s than the 1970s. The subsequent expansion of homeownership in the early 2000s—which eventually triggered the Great Recession—has been all but unwound.
The labor market that no longer bridges the gap
Postwar workers could often compensate for a lack of inherited capital with rising wages. That mechanism is largely broken.
The United States added 116,000 jobs in 2025—the smallest annual gain in a non-recession year since 2003. The economy has become “low-hire, low-fire”: stable at the top, constrained at the bottom, with diminished churn that limits the income mobility young workers need to accelerate savings. Student loan delinquency rates surged from under 1% in late 2024 to 10% by the end of 2025 after pandemic-era payment relief ended.
Household growth slowed for the third consecutive year, to 1.1 million in 2025 from an annual average of 2.0 million in 2020 and 2021. Many young adults are not forming households at all. The share of Americans who moved in the prior year fell to a record low of 11.2%.
Immigration, historically the most reliable source of renter household growth, has been cut drastically. Net international migration fell from 2.7 million in 2024 to 1.3 million in 2025. The Census Bureau projects a further drop to 321,000 in 2026—roughly a third of the annual average from 2001 to 2019. Harvard is direct about the consequences: the impact of declining immigration on household growth will be “substantial and increasingly evident over time.”
The federal government exits the field
If the postwar housing window was created by policy, its closing is also partly a policy choice. And the 2026 Harvard report is unusually frank about the direction that policy is moving.
Federal rental assistance reaches only about one in four very low-income renter households, leaving 13.8 million income-eligible households unassisted, including nearly 9 million with worst-case housing needs. Public housing budgets have been cut. HUD has proposed eliminating existing disparate-impact language—the rule that considered facially neutral policies unlawful when they produced discriminatory housing outcomes. Fair housing staff have been deeply cut. Major discrimination cases have been dropped.
On homelessness, the administration has moved away from Housing First models toward treatment prerequisites for housing access. Homelessness reached a record 770,000 people on a single night in January 2024, up 33 percent since the start of the pandemic. FEMA attempted to cancel its two largest hazard-mitigation programs in 2025, shifting disaster recovery burdens to states and localities that cannot absorb them.
“Only the federal government has the scale of resources needed to meaningfully reduce the shortage of housing affordable to those with the lowest incomes,” Harvard writes. That government is currently moving in the opposite direction.
A partial window, closing on everyone
There is a necessary complication in the “historical accident” thesis—one that strengthens rather than weakens the argument.
The postwar homeownership surge was not universally accessible. FHA loans explicitly redlined Black neighborhoods. The GI Bill was administered in ways that largely excluded Black veterans from its housing benefits. Restrictive covenants kept communities segregated. The middle-class homeownership society that is now reverting was always a partial society—one that opened its door to many white working-class families while leaving others in the entry hall.
But the reversion is no longer limited to those who were historically excluded. Cost burdens are rising fastest among middle-income households earning between $45,000 and $75,000. A college-educated 30-year-old without parental equity support faces a market that is, in structural terms, the most hostile to first-time buyers in recorded history. The window is closing on nearly everyone except those already inside.
The housing market is evolving, has evolved into a mechanism for compounding wealth upward and foreclosing it downward, over decades, across generations. A labor market too weak to bridge income to asset accumulation is not a headwind to the housing market — it is a structural feature of an economy that has made housing the primary dividing line between the asset-owning and the wage-dependent.
The postwar window is not closing. It has closed. The question Harvard’s 2026 report raises — without quite asking it — is whether America is prepared to acknowledge what replaces it: a housing market sorted not by income, but by inheritance.
Link to original article;
Very good article on housing. As I understand it, prior to WW2 most people rented. When the war was over and the USA was the last man standing, a huge housing boom followed. The 1950’s was a good time to be an American. Of course, the war in Korea, which my dad was in, and the red scare was going on at the time. Another negative was the Brown vs the board of education decision!
MSTR board has authorized the selling of large amounts of Bitcoin and shares to fund common share and preferred share repurchases. The company’s press release indicates that they would monetize as much as $1.25 billion.
My concern is that there are other companies out there who instituted these Bitcoin and crypto treasury programs. They will probably have to go to the same route to stay solvent.
Another problem with MSTR concerns the legality of its functions. While the firm may boast about its 2.5 billion dollars or 3.8 billion solvency War chest, the company may be sued anyway and be forced to change its ways.
I’m still sitting on the sidelines waiting.