By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump has expressed a desire to increase housing prices, despite current record-high prices and low affordability that are excluding younger generations from homeownership. This stance suggests a focus on asset appreciation, potentially benefiting existing homeowners while disadvantaging those unable to enter the market. While the article explores motivations ranging from a desire to boost asset values for the majority of homeowners to pandering to older voters, the proposed solution of artificial scarcity through pressuring homebuilders to build less exacerbates the housing affordability crisis, which carries significant social and economic consequences. The conventional path to wealth in America has been homeownership, and current market conditions, coupled with Trump’s proposals, threaten this pathway for future generations.
Read the original article here
The stated desire to drive up housing prices presents a stark contrast to widespread calls for affordability, painting a clear picture of a political agenda that prioritizes one segment of the population over another. While others might focus on making homeownership accessible, the intention here seems to be the exact opposite, aiming to increase the value of existing properties. This approach, if successful, would inevitably lead to a ripple effect of rising property taxes, a burden that falls disproportionately on those whose incomes aren’t keeping pace. For the middle class, already navigating financial uncertainties, an increase in taxes without a corresponding rise in salary can be a significant hardship, making the dream of owning a home even more distant.
This stance could be interpreted as a kind of “pulling up the ladder” mentality, a scenario where those who have already achieved a certain level of financial security, like homeowners, are seen as benefiting at the expense of those trying to get ahead. The idea of making it harder for families to buy homes, and seemingly reserving property ownership for the wealthy, is a perspective that is unlikely to resonate well with younger generations. Indeed, there are indications that this approach could alienate key voting demographics, such as Gen Z and Millennials, who are already grappling with the challenges of an unaffordable housing market and have shown a discernible shift in political allegiance.
The notion that increased housing prices primarily benefit the wealthy is supported by an understanding of how investment banks operate. When housing prices climb, the value of properties held as assets by these institutions rises as well. This appreciation allows investment banks to leverage these assets for loans and to engage in riskier investments, potentially leading to greater profits for them. Therefore, an increase in housing prices aligns with the financial interests of these powerful entities, and it appears that this agenda is being tailored to appeal to a specific segment of the Republican base that views housing primarily as a financial asset.
The pursuit of higher housing prices can be seen as another instance of promises that may not align with the realities faced by many. While it might be framed as increasing one’s net worth, the practical outcome is that when housing becomes prohibitively expensive, it ceases to be an asset that benefits the broader population. Instead, it can lead to a situation where people are paying exorbitant amounts for properties that are out of reach for many, potentially creating instability in the market. The disconnect between such pronouncements and the daily struggles of individuals trying to afford basic necessities like groceries, or even a modest home, highlights a significant disconnect.
The current housing market, with its sky-high prices, already presents a formidable barrier to entry for many. The experiences of those who have been forced to sell their homes for less than they might have achieved in a bidding war, or those who can no longer afford a home that was once within the reach of families with a single income and modest means, underscore the severity of the affordability crisis. It’s a complex issue where homeowners may not want to see their equity decrease, yet the increasing unaffordability of housing is a growing concern for a large segment of the population. The reality that making new housing more affordable can also bring down the prices of existing homes is a point often overlooked.
The idea that increased housing prices could be a deliberate political strategy aimed at appeasing certain voters, perhaps those who see housing as a primary investment, is a plausible interpretation. This approach, however, is fraught with challenges, especially when many are struggling to afford even basic necessities. The contrast between this focus on asset appreciation and the desire for economic policies that benefit a wider range of people is stark. The potential consequences for younger generations, who may never be able to afford a home, are particularly concerning and could lead to significant social and political unrest.
Furthermore, the argument that an increase in housing prices is beneficial for homeowners is complicated by the fact that it can also lead to higher property taxes and insurance costs, directly impacting the finances of those who already own property. For families with children, the prospect of their offspring being priced out of the housing market entirely is a bleak outlook. This approach can also create a situation where, even if a homeowner sells their current property and realizes a profit, they are still faced with the same inflated prices when looking to purchase a new home, negating the benefit of increased equity.
The notion that housing should become a luxury, attainable only by the ultra-wealthy, with corporate ownership dominating the market, is a troubling vision. This aligns with concerns that policies may be designed to benefit large corporations and wealthy investors rather than the general public. Efforts to lower interest rates, for example, could be seen as a means to stimulate home buying and increase prices, thereby benefiting these entities, even if it comes at the cost of inflation and a devalued dollar. This could effectively push homeownership out of reach for the average citizen.
The housing market is indeed a difficult issue, and politicians often find themselves navigating a fine line. Making housing cheaper can devalue the assets of current homeowners, a fact that can make even liberal-minded individuals hesitant to support such policies. Conversely, focusing on increasing housing values can exacerbate affordability issues for those trying to enter the market. This political tightrope walk has led to decades of politicians addressing the issue without implementing effective solutions. The belief that individuals who aren’t wealthy are simply not working hard enough is a perception that demonstrates a profound disconnect from the economic realities faced by many.
The idea of housing prices skyrocketing is not a new phenomenon, yet the stated intention to further drive them up is a significant point of contention. It raises questions about the long-term sustainability of such policies and their impact on social mobility and generational wealth. If the goal is to make housing a less accessible asset, it raises serious concerns about the future of homeownership and the societal implications of widening the gap between the rich and the poor. The current trajectory, where even those who own homes are concerned about rising property taxes and the inability of their children to afford a home, highlights a fundamental flaw in policies that prioritize asset appreciation over affordability.
The current housing market presents a paradoxical situation where policies aimed at benefiting homeowners through increased property values simultaneously create insurmountable barriers for first-time buyers and younger generations. This creates a cycle where individuals are priced out of their own communities, and the dream of homeownership becomes increasingly unattainable. The potential for such policies to alienate vast segments of the population, particularly younger voters who are acutely aware of these challenges, is a significant political risk. The notion that one’s own accomplishments are negated by the desire for others to have a “leg up” is a perspective that underscores a deeper societal debate about economic fairness and opportunity.
The argument that “illegally” entering immigrants are driving up housing costs, while not widely supported by data, is sometimes used as a justification for broader housing market issues. However, if the logic were followed, one might expect policies that encourage immigration to be favored if the goal is to increase demand and thus prices. This highlights the often-contradictory nature of such arguments. The challenge of “trading up” in a rapidly appreciating market, where the price of the next home also doubles, means that increased equity may not translate into greater purchasing power, leaving many in a similar financial predicament as before, but with a larger nominal net worth.
Ultimately, the expressed desire to drive housing prices up, while potentially benefiting existing homeowners in the short term and certain financial institutions, appears to be a policy that largely ignores the needs of a significant portion of the population, particularly younger generations and those struggling to enter the housing market. It raises questions about whose interests are being served and whether such a strategy contributes to a more equitable or sustainable society. The contrast between this objective and the widely held aspiration for accessible housing underscores a fundamental divergence in economic philosophy and priorities.