| 0 comments ]

30-Year Fixed-Rate Mortgage Reaches Highest Level In Almost A Year

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The average weekly rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is at its highest level in nearly a year, contributing to elevated housing costs and dampening buyer interest.

A home for sale in Alhambra, Calif., on Aug. 28, 2025. Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

For the most recent week, the mortgage rate was at 6.55 percent, according to a July 16 statement by Freddie Mac. This is the highest level since the week ending Aug. 27, 2025, when the rate was at 6.56 percent. Since mid-May, rates have consistently hovered around 6.5 percent.

Rates have risen consecutively over the past two weeks, from 6.43 percent for the week ending July 1 to 6.55 percent currently.

Meanwhile, pending home sales in the country declined 2.2 percent for the four weeks ending July 12 compared to the four-week period ending July 5, according to a statement from real estate brokerage Redfin.

First-time homebuyers are facing a "tough time" breaking into the housing market, Christine Kooiker, a Redfin Premier agent in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said in the statement.

"High mortgage rates mean that even homes in the most affordable price point - under $350,000 in the Grand Rapids area - are a stretch for a lot of buyers, and they're hard to find and competitive," Kooiker said.

Many buyers are "sitting on the sidelines, too, because they're locked into low mortgage rates or can't find a new home they love."

Similar findings were made by the National Association of Realtors (NAR), which, in a July 16 statement, reported a 5.4 percent month-over-month dip in pending sales in June.

The decrease was most pronounced in the Midwest, followed by the West, South, and Northeast.

"The highest mortgage rates in nearly a year and the record-high national median home price together are contributing to a tepid housing market that is especially difficult for first-time homebuyers," NAR Chief Economist Dr. Lawrence Yun said in the statement.

Housing Affordability

Lawmakers have taken action to ease the burdens on prospective homebuyers and make housing more affordable for Americans.

On July 11, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law. The legislation aims to ensure housing affordability through various measures, such as rolling back permits and regulations, and offering financial support to homebuyers, builders, and state and local governments.

The bill was passed by the House and Senate last month. However, President Donald Trump refused to sign the bill until the election integrity bill, the SAVE America Act, was passed by Congress.

According to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, if a bill is not returned by the president within 10 days after being presented, it shall become law. Trump's deadline to veto the bill was July 10.

The bill "will cut red tape, lower costs, and boost the supply of housing," Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.) said in a July 13 statement.

"We need to build on this momentum and keep rolling up our sleeves to tackle the housing crisis confronting far too many American families."

Meanwhile, builder confidence in the market for newly built single-family homes declined in July from the previous month, according to a July 16 statement from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB).

The NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index was at 36 in July, the 15th straight month it has remained below the 40 level. This is the longest stretch of monthly values below 40 since 2012.

NAHB chief economist Robert Dietz cited housing affordability as the "primary challenge" facing the home building industry.

NAHB chairman Bill Owens said that many potential buyers continue to hesitate to purchase homes as they wait for mortgage rates to come down and for more clarity on inflation and the economic outlook.

While the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act has some important provisions addressing obstacles faced by buyers and builders, "these reforms will take time to implement," Owens said.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/20/2026 - 14:05
https://ift.tt/Wa3iMBd
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Wa3iMBd
via IFTTT

30-Year Fixed-Rate Mortgage Reaches Highest Level In Almost A Year SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

Judge Strikes Down Race-Based Provision In Biden-Era Internet Access Grant Program

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge ruled on July 15 that a race-based provision of the Digital Equity Act, signed by President Joe Biden in 2021 to close digital gaps, was unconstitutional.

A judge's gavel rests on top of a desk in a courtroom in Miami, Fla., on Feb. 3, 2009. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The Digital Equity Act was part of Biden's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which appropriated $2.75 billion to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to establish grant programs to expand high-speed internet access for minority groups and communities in rural areas.

After taking office for a second term last year, President Donald Trump halted the competitive grant program authorized under the Digital Equity Act, saying it was unconstitutional because it allocated federal funding based on race.

The National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a recipient of the competitive grant program, later filed a lawsuit in October 2025 seeking to reinstate the program.

In a 35-page order, U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled that the Digital Equity Act's provision authorizing the use of race in awarding federal funds was unconstitutional, citing the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling that struck down race-based preferences in higher education admissions.

Bates said that while the Digital Equity Act aims to address the digital divide among minority groups and other covered populations, the Supreme Court precedent showed that remedying general social disparities alone does not justify the use of race in government action.

"Addressing that gap is a laudable goal, but the Supreme Court has admonished that ameliorating general societal inequalities - as opposed to specific instances of past discrimination - 'does not constitute a compelling interest that justifies race-based state action,'" the judge stated.

"Otherwise, Congress could deploy racial classifications when confronted with any situation of an uneven resource distribution."

Bates said the grant program could be reinstated without the race-based provision, and the government had committed to restoring it upon a judicial determination that the provision was unconstitutional.

Trump welcomed the ruling in a Truth Social post, calling it a "big win" for the American people.

"The so-called 'Digital Equity Act,' a Biden DEI law, was ruled exactly what I said it was last year - A RACIST and UNCONSTITUTIONAL giveaway that never should have become Law," he wrote.

The decision to end the Digital Equity Act comes amid the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs from federal agencies and government initiatives.

Trump stated in a Jan. 20, 2025, executive order that the previous administration had forced "illegal and immoral discrimination programs" across virtually "all aspects of the federal government" through DEI initiatives.

Christopher Mitchell, director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, credited the National Digital Inclusion Alliance with helping to secure the program's restoration.

"Yesterday's ruling on the Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program is, on balance, a victory," Mitchell said in a statement. "The only real question now is how quickly NTIA moves to actually implement it."

The National Digital Inclusion Alliance did not return a request for comment by publication time.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/19/2026 - 18:40
https://ift.tt/uoWTYbQ
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/uoWTYbQ
via IFTTT

Judge Strikes Down Race-Based Provision In Biden-Era Internet Access Grant Program SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

The Data-Center Revolt Goes National: Tea Party Veteran Leads 142 Rallies Across 42 States

The backlash against the AI data-center build-out - which we've been tracking since it was a smattering of county fights across 28 states - staged its first coordinated day of action on Saturday: 142 protests across 42 states, from Wasilla, Alaska to Naples, Florida, organized by Humans First, the nonprofit that Tea Party veteran Amy Kremer co-founded and chairs. The crowds spanned both sides of the aisle...uniting a MAGA stalwart in a 'faith, family, freedom' T-shirt in New Jersey, a first-time activist in Texas, and a left-leaning organizer in California's Imperial Valley.

The fight looked like Kenilworth, New Jersey. Residents of the 8,500-person borough gathered outside the municipal court at mid-morning with drums, plastic horns, and sidewalk chalk to protest the $1.8 billion CoreWeave AI data center their planning board approved in May 2025 on the former Merck campus - a project that has since drawn more than 12,000 petition signatures against it, several thousand more names than the town has people. The woman in the "faith, family, freedom" T-shirt marched beside neighbors holding "Build community, not data centers" signs. When heavy rain arrived later in the day, they pulled on ponchos, shared umbrellas, and kept marching. One sign, caught by Business Insider's photographer on the scene: "You think this is pressure? Wait 'til there's no water pressure."

Texas, the country's hottest data-center market, hosted the most rallies - 18 - with Georgia at 11, California at eight, and Pennsylvania, Florida, and Indiana at seven apiece. In Imperial Valley, where a proposed facility could pull 260 million gallons a year from the Colorado River, Ivan DelSol, 54, told Reuters that around 50 people turned out in 100-degree heat. "It's dystopian that you would use this much fresh water for AI," he said. Organizers released no headcounts; turnout ran below expectations in some rural areas and in Atlanta, where about a dozen showed - most of them, a volunteer there said, driving in from the smaller Georgia towns where the biggest data centers are going up.

Kremer is a founding figure of the Tea Party movement who went on to found Women for Trump, and an organizer of the January 6, 2021 rally that preceded the Capitol riot (she neither planned nor took part in the riot itself). She has spent months calling data centers the defining fight of her lifetime, warning the technology could threaten humanity itself, and she is open about running the old playbook: grassroots pressure, town by town, aimed at both parties.

Her crowds bear that out. One of Saturday's Texas rallies, in Tyler, was organized by Eva Cardona, a 31-year-old self-described political nomad and first-time activist who told Reuters she wanted something more hands-on than posting on Facebook; about a dozen people came. And in Imperial Valley, the man who helped lead the rally leans left. The polling explains why a coalition that broad holds. A June Reuters/Ipsos survey found only 14 percent of Americans would support a data center in their own community. Gallup polling fielded in March found 71 percent oppose building an AI data center in their area - 48 percent strongly - a worse number than a local nuclear plant gets. And Morgan Stanley told clients in a July 14 note that support for local data-center bans runs strongest among Republican, higher-income, and urban voters, while Morning Consult's national tracker crossed a line of its own in May: "stop building" (about 45 percent) overtook "keep building while expanding energy supply" (about 38 percent) for the first time since last October.

For all the movement's reputation, Kremer's demands stop well short of a shutdown. She opposes a national moratorium and statewide moratoriums alike, telling Business Insider that each community should choose what gets built inside it, and that too many of those choices are made behind closed doors. Humans First's platform runs to transparent approval processes, environmental review before permits are granted, union construction jobs, and binding developer commitments of the kind lawyers call community benefits agreements. She has aimed as much fire at her own side, accusing Republicans of giving Big Tech a free pass and predicting the industry will cozy up to Democrats the moment the majority flips. The fix, she argues, belongs to Congress.

Amy Kremer is the cofounder of Women for Trump and Women for America First. Now she's taking on AI data centers. Jacquelyn Martin/AP

The organization is a narrower thing than the crowds it convened. Humans First announced in April that its non-conservative team members would spin off into a separate group, with Kremer promising "a topflight team of conservatives" to fight Big AI and its lobbyists. The banner over Saturday's rallies, in other words, was a conservative one - which makes the mix of people who marched beneath it all the more striking.

Official Backlash

The rallies capped a fast-moving week. On Tuesday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed an executive order imposing the nation's first statewide moratorium on new hyperscale data centers - an immediate pause of up to a year on state environmental permits for projects of 50 megawatts or more while regulators draft standards covering energy demand, water use, and air quality. Her office promised localities community-benefit guidance within 60 days, and Hochul will pursue repeal of the state's sales-tax exemptions for massive data centers. A tougher bill passed by the legislature, with a 20-megawatt threshold, remains unsigned on her desk; her office has called it complicated, and Hochul said the state wants to be "the first to get it right."

New York was not alone. Virginia's new tax on data-center electricity - 1.1 cents per kilowatt-hour - took effect July 1. Pennsylvania's House passed a ban on non-disclosure agreements in data-center deals by a 171-31 vote, and separately voted 197-5 to repeal the industry's sales-tax exemption, a break worth roughly $517 million a year by 2030. Arizona's governor signed a three-year moratorium on new data-center tax breaks in June. Legislators have filed more than 300 data-center bills this year; local pauses have passed at the county, city, and tribal level in at least 15 states.

Meanwhile In China

Nothing comparable is happening on the other side of the Pacific. Two days before the marches, Beijing-based Moonshot AI released Kimi K3, a 2.8-trillion-parameter system billed as the largest open-weight model ever built and claimed to perform level with America's best frontier models. Bloomberg has reported that Beijing plans to spend roughly $295 billion over five years on a nationwide network of AI computing hubs - and none of it will face a zoning board. Under the state's "Eastern Data, Western Computing" program, the buildout is steered into the arid, sparsely populated west; provincial governments compete to attract data centers with tax holidays, cheap land, and compute vouchers, and the state absorbs up to half of operators' energy costs, so the strain never shows up on a household bill. No Chinese county has passed a moratorium, because no Chinese county gets a vote.

The financial toll is no longer hypothetical. Third-party trackers cited by Morgan Stanley in its July 14 note put the value of cancelled or delayed projects at roughly $156 billion in 2025 and another $130 billion in the first quarter of 2026 alone - about $286 billion in all - set against the bank's own estimate of $877 billion in AI capital spending this year. The underlying quarterly count comes from Data Center Watch, a tracker run by 10a Labs, an intelligence firm whose client list includes AI companies, which logged at least 75 projects blocked or delayed from January through March - matching in one quarter the number of projects derailed in all of 2025 - as active opposition groups more than doubled from 396 to 833 and spread to 49 states.

Saturday itself stayed peaceful - chalk, chants, drums, umbrellas - though the wider fight has had harder edges: developers of the Piedmont transmission line into Northern Virginia's data-center corridor asked a federal court last summer for U.S. Marshals to escort survey crews after landowners threatened workers, an episode we covered at the time.

The industry answered forcefully. The Data Center Coalition warned that New York's moratorium tells investors the state is "closed for business" and will push jobs and tax revenue to neighboring states. Seven major AI and cloud companies - Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, and xAI - point to the Ratepayer Protection Pledge they signed at the White House in March, a voluntary commitment to cover the grid costs their facilities create. And White House AI czar David Sacks went after Hochul's case point by point on the All-In podcast, calling data centers "the scapegoat for all of the angst that people have about AI." His answer to the utility-bill complaint: let developers build their own generation behind the meter instead of competing with households for grid power.

Some industry allies go further, pointing to OpenAI's June disclosure that it banned a China-linked network using ChatGPT to mass-produce comics and comments blaming data centers for rising power bills. OpenAI itself found the operation gained almost no authentic traction - and the crowds in Kenilworth and Imperial County were unambiguously homegrown.

Kremer spent Saturday evening thanking volunteers and looking past the weekend. "America is not for sale, and our communities are not collateral," she wrote on X. She expects data centers on the ballot in November, and again in 2028. The midterms are less than four months away.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/19/2026 - 15:45
https://ift.tt/EjAL1D6
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/EjAL1D6
via IFTTT

The Data-Center Revolt Goes National: Tea Party Veteran Leads 142 Rallies Across 42 States SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

"Start Spreadin' The News": New York Losing Billions As Millionaires Flee Big Apple

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in the New York Post on the sharp decline in millionaires in New York, costing the state billions as many flee. The exodus has been building for years but may now be accelerating. As Mayor Mamdani holds another press conference promising to end the “violence of evictions,” businesses are reading the writing on the wall. Rather than work to make the state more attractive to wealthy residents and businesses, Democrats are seeking to diminish the appeal of two-tax states. They want to tap into a long-barred area of taxation: the wealth rather than just the income of citizens. By passing a national wealth tax, Democrats will reduce the benefit of fleeing high-tax states like California and New York.

“Start spreadin’ the news, I’m leavin’ today” — that’s how the famous song “New York, New York”  captures the Big Apple’s draw.

Today, the line is becoming more ironic than iconic: Many people are indeed leaving … from New York, New York.

Worse yet, those “vagabond shoes” that “are longing to stray” are on the feet of the wealthiest New Yorkers.

And as they flee, according to a new study, they’re taking away billions in badly needed tax revenue.

As Mayor Zohran Mamdani and others pledge massive social programs and free services by taxing the wealthy, the wealthy are just melting away.

The reason is simple: if “you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”

In today’s economy, it’s no longer necessary or even particularly beneficial to be in New York to make money in financial and other areas.

When any business meeting is a screen and a click away, you can go to a low-tax state like Florida or Texas and do as well as you can in the Big Apple.

Not surprisingly, many are choosing the money over the mystique and the madness.

This week the Citizens Budget Commission reported that New York’s share of millionaires fell from 12.7% in 2010 to 8.7% in 2022 — the largest drop of any state.

The exodus of wealthy citizens left New York short $10.7 billion in tax revenue.

By denouncing the remaining wealthy as effectively freeloaders who are “not paying their fair share,” Mamdani is only spurring them on.

It’s a demonstrably false claim that I discuss in my book Rage and the Republic — and part of a growing class-warfare theme the left is deliberately using to fuel political rage.

Yet it’s easy to form a mob —  and far more difficult to control it.

That is particularly the case when your economic policies destroy your economy, and your ability to pay for all the free services that you’ve promised.

There’s a good-faith debate to be had over optimal tax levels, but the fact is that the top 10% of Americans pay more in taxes than the other 90% of the country. The top 1% pays roughly 40% of federal taxes.

As rational actors flee the state, Mamdani and New York Democrats are forced to cull the shrinking herd of high-end taxpayers who remain, layering on special fees like a pied-à-terre tax to be imposed on NYC’s luxury property owners.

And rather than change course to make New York a more attractive place to do business and live, national Democrats are moving to make other states no better — by nationalizing wealth taxes and by taxing fleeing citizens as if they still lived in the state.

Many are following Sen. Bernie Sanders’ and Rep. Ro Khanna’s call to impose a federal wealth tax they’ve dubbed the Billionaire Tax.

The idea is to stem the exodus from California and New York by giving the highest earners no place to go . . . except out of the country.

That’s the option many took when similar wealth taxes were attempted in countries like France, only to be rescinded after doing massive economic damage.

Fleecing the wealthy is a revenue loser.

New York is losing billions, and California has reportedly lost trillions due to top taxpayers’ departure.

Unwilling to adopt greater fiscal restraints and truly compete for businesses and residents, Democrats are looking for pockets of new areas to tax.

The wealth tax is a virtual bonanza of untapped revenue — if it can make it through the courts.

Our Constitution was amended in 1913 to allow for an income tax, not a wealth tax.

Once you pay taxes on what you earn, you’re supposed to be able to use your hard-earned money to buy whatever you wish, from bikes to boats.

Democrats now want to tax those possessions: “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts,” as Sen. Elizabeth Warren once dramatically warned.

And Khanna recently confirmed what some of us have been saying for years: The Billionaire Tax isn’t only for billionaires.

“The tax should not stop at billionaires,” he said in a pitch to his party’s rising socialist movement; “it must reach centimillionaires. The tax has to reach all fortunes $50 million and up.”

Khanna and others hope that, once taken nationally, a wealth tax would destroy the benefit of moving to low-tax states — and open up literally trillions in new potential revenue.

In the meantime, New York will continue to burn billions as it taps its dwindling number of millionaires.

As their wealthy neighbors depart, those remaining will have to make up for their loss.

Being among the last to leave New York will be a costly distinction.

They will indeed “wake up” — and find that they’re “king of the hill, top of the list” for wealth redistribution.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times bestselling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/18/2026 - 17:30
https://ift.tt/jkwTZyH
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/jkwTZyH
via IFTTT

"Start Spreadin' The News": New York Losing Billions As Millionaires Flee Big Apple SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

Is Home Affordability Actually Better Than Headlines Suggest

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The doom feed says home affordability locked a generation out. The math on the payment you actually write says something the headlines won’t.

Here are the “facts” that the media tells you about home affordability.

Let’s start with a recent survey. Two out of three Americans now say it’s a bad time to buy a house, the most negative reading Gallup has ever recorded. Another study showed that a record 25.2 million adults under 35 are living with their parents. Scroll any feed, and you’ll hear that home affordability has priced an entire generation out for good. Those are the “facts” according to the media.

However, here’s the problem with that story. When you measure home affordability today against the metric that actually governs the check you write each month, the picture flips. By that measure, buying a home may be easier now than it was for the Boomers and Gen Xers who get blamed for everything.

Let me be clear about what’s real, because I won’t build an argument on a false floor. Since 2019, the median listing price has jumped about 34% to roughly $430,000. The payment on a median home went from near $1,700 in early 2020 to about $3,100 by late 2025. Rates tripled off the 2021 lows. That shock was real, and it landed in five short years.

So the frustration makes sense. What doesn’t hold up is taking a recent, regional price spike and turning it into a permanent law of physics that applies to every zip code and every buyer. The honest version of home affordability today is narrower, more local, and far more fixable than the headline suggests.

But let’s start with the narrative that the Boomer generation had it easy. As one individual posted on X:

“You boomers had it easy, you could buy a home for the price of bread and a gallon of milk.”

Boomers Did Not Have It Easy

Here’s the part the narrative skips. The Boomer who bought in 1980 financed at a 30-year fixed rate of 13.74%, watched it climb past 18% by October 1981, and had no way to know rates would ever come back down, which made every payment feel like a life sentence. Think about that. For a median home price of $64,600 with 20% down, that household sent roughly 39% of its income to the mortgage before property taxes.6 Add the taxes, and the typical 1980 family spent close to 47% of their income on housing.

Today’s buyer, financing about $417,000 near 6.5%, spends closer to 32% on the mortgage and about 43% all in. Two independent analyses ran this exact math and landed in the same place. On the payment that matters, 1980 was as hard as, or harder than, 2026. So home affordability today is mostly a payment story, and the payment math favors the present. Notice what the work did. It isn’t the price of the home, it’s the rate.

The Crisis Is Regional, Not National

Now look at where the “home affordability” pain actually sits. A typical home in Iowa costs about 3.7 years of household income, near where the national buyer stood in 2000. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kansas still sell near or below $300,000. Among large metros, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and Philadelphia rank among the most affordable in the country. Home affordability today is a function of your zip code first, your generation second.

The expensive markets are real, but they’re specific. And here’s the twist most coverage misses. The old escape hatch of moving somewhere cheap is closing, because Montana now costs 8.7 years of income, worse than California or New York. The same regional pattern shows up in who’s living at home. In New Jersey it’s 44% of young adults. In South Dakota, 18%.8 The map of “kids who can’t move out” is mostly a map of expensive states.

That “one in three” figure above also deserves a second look. It counts everyone ages 18 to 34, which includes college kids, 22-year-olds in their first job, and people who’ve always lived at home for a stretch. If you narrow that gap to a more realistic home ownership range, ages 25 to 34, the share drops to about 18%. And roughly 70% of those 25-to-34-year-olds at home are employed.2 So this “home affordability” story isn’t about a lazy generation or a broken job market. It’s a story about down payments, rent, and a marriage age that has drifted six years later since 1980.

Where The Skeptics Are Right

I won’t pretend that nothing has changed. Two things genuinely got harder, and waving them away would insult the reader. First, the down payment. In 1980, 20% down ran about two-thirds of a year’s income. Today it runs a full year or more, which is why the median first-time buyer now puts down just 9% to get in the door, and why the first-time buyer’s median age has climbed from 29 to roughly 40. That capital wall is a real barrier.

Second, insurance. Premiums jumped 24% from 2021 to 2024 to an average of $3,303, twice the rate of inflation, rising in 95% of zip codes. In Utah, insurance premiums rose 59%. That cost isn’t your fault, and it won’t be fixed by skipping lattes, but notice what both problems have in common. They’re specific and addressable, not a sentence handed down to an entire generation. The home affordability debate today has two honest exceptions, and naming them is what separates analysis from a comment-section rant.

Where They Aren’t

Here’s the irony buried in the down payment story. The 1980 buyer didn’t just face a 20% norm; they put down even more, averaging about 28%. To skip mortgage insurance on a conventional loan, you needed the full 20% in cash, no exceptions. There were no mainstream 3% conventional programs, no piggyback structures in wide use, no stack of state assistance grants to pull from. You saved the lump sum, or you stayed a renter.

Today, the menu is wide open. A first-time buyer can go conventional with as little as 3% down, FHA with 3.5% down, or zero down with a VA or USDA loan if eligible, and can cover even that with gift funds, a 401 (k) withdrawal, or a state assistance grant. The 20% rule is dead. The median first-time buyer actually put down 10% last year, not 20. Less down means PMI and a bigger payment, of course. But the belief that you need 20% in cash just to walk in the door is the single most expensive myth keeping renters stuck, and it hasn’t been true for decades.

The Playbook: Home Affordability Today Is on You

So what’s the move? Stop reading a national headline as a verdict on your situation. The buyer who treats “homeownership is dead” as gospel, while sitting in a market where a solid house costs three or four times income, talks himself out of a purchase he could actually make. Bob Farrell’s ninth rule fits here. When every expert and forecast agrees, something else usually happens. Sentiment just hit a record low. That’s historically when the patient buyer gets paid.

But mindset only gets you to the starting line. Here’s the part nobody wants to hear.

Working isn’t enough. Roughly 70% of the young adults living at home already have jobs, so a paycheck alone clearly doesn’t get you out of the basement. What gets you out is a set of decisions most people dodge because they sting. So let’s say them plainly.

  • Run the number, then automate it. A 3.5% down payment on a $250,000 home is $8,750, about $730 a month for a year. If you can’t find $730, that’s a spending problem or an income problem, and both are yours. But here’s the part the pushback misses. The inability to save that money isn’t just a down payment problem. It’s a signal you can’t afford to own yet. The mortgage is only the floor. Property taxes, insurance that now averages $3,303 a year, the roughly 1% of a home’s value it consumes in annual upkeep, and HOA dues, if you have them, all add up to the monthly payment. Can’t bank $730 a month as a renter? You’ll drown in those carrying costs as an owner. The savings test isn’t the barrier. It’s the readiness check.

  • Cut the big rocks, not the pebbles. The daily coffee isn’t what’s keeping you in your childhood bedroom, but the $650 truck payment, the $1,900 rent in a city you picked for the nightlife, and the lifestyle you finance to look successful on a phone screen absolutely are. Sell the financed truck. Get a roommate. Buy smaller, because the median new home is 38% larger than it was in 1980, making a 1,500-square-foot starter a choice rather than a hardship. Live below your means on purpose. Nobody is coming to subsidize your standard of living.

  • Then move to the money. The good jobs and the cheap houses rarely sit in the same expensive zip code you grew up in. They sit in Columbus, Des Moines, Indianapolis, and Greenville, where a median income still buys a median home. Remote work made that move easier than it has ever been. If you won’t relocate for opportunity, fine, but then you’ve made unaffordability a choice, not a fate.

  • Raise your income and your credit score at the same time. A side income of $1,000 a month is a full down payment in under a year. A credit jump from 580 to 620 can move you off a 3.5% FHA loan and onto a 3% conventional, saving you thousands up front and more over the life of the loan. And every year you stall has a price tag. The National Association of Realtors estimates that delaying a purchase from age 30 to 40 costs the typical buyer around $150,000 in lost equity.

The market isn’t fair. It was never fair. The only question that matters is what you’re going to do about it.

The bottom line is this. Housing isn’t unaffordable everywhere, for everyone, forever. It’s expensive in specific places, for specific reasons, and most of all since 2020. The rest is geography, a savings problem, and a story people keep repeating until they believe it. After three decades of watching cycles, I’ve learned the worst financial decisions get made when people accept a narrative instead of running the numbers.

Home affordability today is better than the Fed admits. Run your own numbers and see.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/18/2026 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/vf9hseT
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/vf9hseT
via IFTTT

Is Home Affordability Actually Better Than Headlines Suggest SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend