Home Sweet Home; The Future of Housing
Good Morning Middle America, your King of Simple News is on the air.
U.S. NEWS: Economists believe that we may be in recession. I believe that the sun may have come up in the East this morning. Economists also believe that unemployment may lead to a downturn in consumer spending. I believe that it is cold in Fairbanks, Alaska in January.
Most economists, along with “Bronco” Ben Bernanke, Alan “Cash” Greenspan, and George “Badlands” Bush also believed that “housing was not a large enough sector to affect our entire economy.” I believed that is was.
Now these same economists believe that our economy won’t recover until housing recovers. I believe these people are morons.
But, this news does lead me to a dire prediction; housing as we know it will never recover. I know, never is a long time. But hear me out and feel free to debate my points.
“Housing as we know it,” should be considered to mean, large, expensive, non-functional, inefficient, overpriced and having nothing whatsoever to do with basic shelter. The former description is what housing has become, has it not?
Totally non-functional roof lines, non-functional grand entries, 1000 square foot per occupant, energy eating black holes of granite countertops, imported tile floors and debt up to our eyeballs pretty much sums up “housing as we know it.” Sounds like utopia to me.
The fact that most home loans are based on two incomes doubles the jeopardy of making the dreaded house payment. If one of the happily and hopelessly indebted couple loses his or her job, well, there goes the happy home. Throw in an SUV payment or two and we have the former marital bliss hovering on the brink of civility.
As the recession deepens and job losses continue to occur, foreclosures will also continue to rise, not in sub-prime loans, but in the main sector of our recently unemployed citizenry who have become victims of both poor debt practices and our ill thought and badly broken economy.
This will further weaken the housing market as inventories of unsold homes rise rather than return to normal levels. In the mean time, lenders will continue to tighten qualifying standards, requiring down payments and proof of income, which they should, but this will also further exacerbate the problem.
As time goes by, our ever present enemy of purposely induced monetary inflation along with rising energy costs will drive the cost of essential goods and services skyward, leaving fewer and fewer discretionary dollars in the hands of the average consumer.
At the same time, the increasing competition of low cost foreign labor, combined with a glut of domestic labor created by increasing unemployment and the annual addition of more than 1 million legal job seeking immigrants will cause real income to fall drastically in comparison to future building costs.
Yet another negative factor that is often overlooked will be rising taxes. As our economic nose dive will continue to cause tax collection to wane, government will unwisely attempt to increase taxes, further reducing consumer purchasing power.
By the point that the existing unsold housing in the U.S. is absorbed (some years), the spread between declining average income and the rising costs of new development and construction will have become sufficient to halt the entry of the average person into home ownership; forever. Much as it already exists in the remainder of the world.
Globalization will have at this point accomplished what it was intended to do; share poverty equally.
Interestingly enough, at the lowest point in the housing debacle there will be bargains to be had that will be based on negative market forces, rather than replacement costs.
This is not necessarily going to be a windfall from a resale or profit standpoint, but simply from an affordability standpoint. One that may never avail itself again, as once the existing homes are purchased at enormous losses to owners and lenders, replacing that home with the future new construction costs, will prove impossible. This will be a very timely period; one shot is all you get.
We have in fact reached the end of an era and housing as we know it will be gone like the buffalo.


In ten years, with gasoline prices somewhere in the neighborhoood of $120 per gallon, one can pretty much imagine the cost of housing at that time. A new $150,000 home today will be priced just over $4 million dollars. Sure hope I can get a better price for my vacation home. -bb
Just a little note.. Even tho those people said that about housing, I’m not sure they believed it.. They have to say that the economy is going to be fine.. They might not always believe it.. Sometimes, the “misspeak”?? OK, they lie like a rug… WmA…
As I pointed out in my book, the residential housing bubble was the bubble that replaced the last bubble which was tech.
Bubbles are necessary in an economy that has failed and the leaders don’t want to divulge that pesky fact.
The question is, what sector will the next bubble arise from? We know that manufacturing is gone, banking is toast, stick a fork in the auto makers; they’re done, the airlines are down and out, tech already had it’s turn in the bubble, so what’s left…I know, we’ll all go back to school on government grants and have an education bubble.
You might give the energy bubble a whirl. it is coming to an neighborhood near you if you reside on planet earth. The talk I hear from our congresspeople about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, must be coming from another planet in our solar system somewhere, huh. -bb
Billy B,
Ya know, you may have something there. All this talk about becoming energy independent could be the precursor to a bubble in renewable energy development.
Government could hire millions of the unemployed to work in Windmill Camps. More millions could run on treadmills hooked to generators; weight loss, physical fitness and renewable power all wrapped up in one package.
Yes, this could the start of something really big, a really, really big bubble.
Hopefully our government will give us a couple of breaks a day. Would be nice if they would feed us too. Is government housing out of the question? -bb
“Globalization will have at this point accomplished what it was intended to do; share poverty equally.”
Great statement, might I add globalization was intended to allow the rich to prosper from the efforts of workers on a global scale?
Dean,
Thanks for the comment. Globalization has it’s roots in many places, but certainly one is that the rich and under-productive upper class of our society benefit greatly from the output of others.
Moving production to the least cost countries on earth certainly benefits the rich far more than any other group. It also consumes massive amounts of energy to move this commerce. This is unwise as energy as we know it is not renewable and labor certainly is.
I go into globalization in detail in my book, some of the reasons may surprise you.