Squeezed by high interest rates and record prices, homeowners are frozen in place. They can’t sell. So first-time buyers can’t buy.
If buying a home is an inexorable part of the American dream, so is the next step: eventually selling that home and using the equity to trade up to something bigger.
But over the past two years, this upward mobility has stalled as buyers and sellers have been pummeled by three colliding forces: the highest borrowing rates in nearly two decades, a crippling shortage of inventory, and a surge in home prices to a median of $434,000, the highest on record, according to Redfin.
People who bought their starter home a few years ago are finding themselves frozen in place by what is known as the “rate-lock effect” — they bought when interest rates were historically low, and trading up would mean a doubling or tripling of their monthly interest payments.
They are locked in, and as a result, families hoping to buy their first homes are locked out.
I hate the phrase “starter home.” People don’t need 3000 sqft homes unless they have 10 kids.
I lived most of my childhood in a 100 year old 1000 sqft home with 1-2 siblings. Some extra space would have been nice but definitely not 3x as much. My current home would be considered a starter home at 1200 sqft. We will likely add on to get another bedroom and also not have a myriad of toys in the living room but I can’t see it adding more than 300 sqft. That would make it a 4 bedroom house with a den which is perfectly fine. People seem to consider anything under 2000 sqft to be a starter home which is absurd.
What we do need is for many starter homes to become available for sale. Many are simply turned into rentals.
Give me 750ft^2 and 5 acres of woods with enough sunny space for growing some food.
I’d be thrilled.
My wife’s best friend, however, has decided their 3500ft^2 2.5 floor + basement house on 3-4 acres with two sheds and a small barn (or xl shed?) isnt enough space for 2 dogs 3 cats and her and her husband.
They just bought this house last year.
I do not understand some people.
Isn’t that essentially worse? I get it on an individual level and having near private access to that much outdoors would be pretty sweet, but even if a small, but sizeable, portion of the population wanted something similar how tenable would it be?
“I just want so much land such that if everyone wanted the same amount, there wouldn’t be enough land in the world.”
Different strokes and all that, but I tend to say the more space you have, the more shit goes in it. We have about 1350sf, two kids, cat, on a quarter acre. We rely on the kids being able to (when they’re a bit older) go out around our town, which are homes on properties just like mine, but with parks and a downtown and a meandering Brook with green space all around it. I say to my wife, could we use a little more space? Absolutely. Could we use the space we have a little more wisely? Also absolutely. I just know that if we had more space, we would instantly fill it with more crap, so we’re good.
I fear the same. I am largely a minimalist but my wife is not and kids never are. But it would be nice to have a living room without toys absolutely everywhere and it would also be nice for them to each have their own space (own rooms). My sister in law lives in a very large house (~3300 sqft) and it is still filled with stuff that often doesn’t get used.
Yeah, I believe you will absolutely find something to put there. But I also write this from my dining room, which the China hutch behind me also has Lego sculptures and slime, and there’s cabinets with children’s art supplies and whatnot. And I to my right is the kids playroom, but also the way to our ground floor bathroom, and so you take your life (at least your feet) into your hands when nature calls. But I just tell myself, when they’re older, they have less shit, it’ll be better. Right?
My kids do each have their own rooms though, and I think that’s a fair line to draw. Boy and girl. Boy’s room is a shoebox, but he’ll survive.
Unfortunately, I renovated my detached garage into a place to hangout, and so I can kiss that goodbye in like 10 years.
My $750/month mortgage is offended at the term starter home. I like to call it my “forever home”.
cries into his $2400/month mortgage
1800/month buuuuuuuuut it’s at 2.7%
I could afford a lot more house but I love my interest rate, so MY starter home is off the market indefinitely.
The rate hike has been at the expense of you and I, the real offenders when it comes to inflation are the ones hoarding the wealth.
I would kill for 1200sqft living in NYC
That was also one of my thoughts. My friend lives in Manhattan with two kids in a 900 sqft condo. He is an investment banker.
This might be kinda unique, but I’m in a situation where I want to move to a different location (I mostly want something bike-able) and I’m remote so there is not that much of an urgency. It would be silly for me to get rid of my “starter home” because I got it at a very low interest rate.
Same. Sub 3% interest rate and my starter home is off the market indefinitely.
And this is why the housing market sucks.
I mean, I live here, the house is occupied and in use as a primary residence.
I grew up in an almost 3000 sq foot home with only 5 kids. I know you were using hyperbole with the ten kids thing, but it was cramped with 7. Always sharing bedrooms, never actually getting your own space, no playing music without bothering someone, hard to do homework when your sister is practicing her oboe. If you want a dining room table that fits everyone and a living room where your family can stretch out for a movie, you need the space. (Also I grew up in Florida so no basement or attic. Not sure how those figure into sq footage)
People don’t need 10+ kids either.