How the size of our houses inflated the housing crisis.
Comment: ."House lust" .Americans let their egos buy their McMansions. This was happening in the early 1990s. Now they have to eat at McDonalds to keep their mortgage current. I wonder how soon we'll see rusted out Lambos up on blocks in the front yard.
Comment: I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing the McMansions being subdivided? 5200 sf would get you 2-3 nice sized condos.
Comment: Learn from Obama.....Take money from Lehman Brothres, Fannie and Freddie, and known felons. Buy a house.....on fraudulent money. Then even go after half of the property of your neighbor to get a bigger house. When that does not work, Obama abandons his 2 children and lives in hotel rooms. He now expects the american taxpayer - 50 per cent who dislike him - pay for his living expenses. Talk about someone who is using us.
Comment: To answer the question do you deserve to lose your house if your current finantial situation changes. I would have to say yes. A key factor in affording one's house and life style is being able to pay the bills despite of what is happening in your life. Life happens; people divorce, marry, die, lose their job and get pay raises. If you are stupid enough to live month to month and have no money left for savings, who are you going to blame when you can't afford your bills any more? Americans love buying and spending and the majority of people losing their homes now, overstretched their budget to buy homes they couldn't truelly afford from the biggining. Now they are crying and wanting sympathy from t.he rest of us who are smart enough to live within our means. The best advice I received from my father was to save for a rainy day. I don't know what will happen in they future, but whatever it is, I have insurance and savings to help pay for my finantial obligations.
Comment: I bought a rancher with 3 bed rooms, 1 bath a finish basement and addition I turned into my movie room. It has a 1 car garage, a large wood shed and nice landscaping on a1/4 acre of land for 189000. That???s more than enough for me, my son and my daughter who rather live with her mother so she is never there. I bought a house I could afford and I don't go crazy spending. I had to put a lot of work into it to get it the way I wanted it, new kitchen, new carpet, new wood flooring, and new ceramic tile. I plan to put in a basement bath and a deck in the future. Most of the work I did my self. I knew my limits, I bought a house with fix interest payment that I can afford and have enough skills to do my own home fixing. Buying a house is no joke, you have to buy with your brains not you hearth. Yeah I wanted the new construction with all the new stuff but reality was staring me right in the face. To many people living a fairy tale then reality bites them in the rear end.
Like my mom use to tell me ???your eyes is bigger than your stomach???.
Comment: The consumer mentality caused this. Everyone says "look what I got!" Then a few months later they cry about the bill. Years ago, people made do with less. Years ago people were happier. It's too bad that the people steering the economy keep trying to avert a correction. It will just make mattes worse.
Comment: SOMETIMES IN OUR QUEST TO REACH HIGHER WE OVER EXTEND OURSELVES. MANY THINGS CAN CONTRIBUTE TO LOSING YOUR HOUSE... CHANGE IN WAGES, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, DIVORCE, DEATH AND THESE ARE JUST A FEW. DON'T BE SO QUICK TO ASSESS WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DESERVES. IF YOU LIVE IN A SMALL HOUSE IT MAY BE BECAUSE THAT'S ALL YOU COULD AFFORD , WHAT IF YOUR FINANCIAL SITUATION CHANGED AND YOU COULD NO LONGER AFFORD EVEN YOUR SMALL HOUSE? DO YOU DESERVE TO LOSE IT?
Comment: SOMETIMES IN OUR QUEST TO REACH HIGHER WE OVER EXTEND OURSELVES. MANY THINGS CAN CONTRIBUTE TO LOSING YOUR HOUSE... CHANGE IN WAGES, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, DIVORCE, DEATH AND THESE ARE JUST A FEW. DON'T BE SO QUICK TO ASSESS WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DESERVES. IF YOU LIVE IN A SMALL HOUSE IT MAY BE BECAUSE THAT'S ALL YOU COULD AFFORD , WHAT IF YOUR FINANCIAL SITUATION CHANGED AND YOU COULD NO LONGER AFFORD EVEN YOUR SMALL HOUSE? DO YOU DESERVE TO LOSE IT?
Comment: SOMETIMES IN OUR QUEST TO REACH HIGHER WE OVER EXTEND OURSELVES. MANY THINGS CAN CONTRIBUTE TO LOSING YOUR HOUSE... CHANGE IN WAGES, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, DIVORCE, DEATH AND THESE ARE JUST A FEW. DON'T BE SO QUICK TO ASSESS WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DESERVES. IF YOU LIVE IN A SMALL HOUSE IT MAY BE BECAUSE THAT'S ALL YOU COULD AFFORD , WHAT IF YOUR FINANCIAL SITUATION CHANGED AND YOU COULD NO LONGER AFFORD EVEN YOUR SMALL HOUSE? DO YOU DESERVE TO LOSE IT?
Comment: I live in a small raised-ranch with a small mortagage. I didn't take out an exotic jumbo loan to buy an oversized home just to impress my neighbors, so I don't feel sorry for the people who did. Let them lose their houses...it can - and should - be a very humbling learning experience.
Comment: Blogsomebody:
Did the builder force you to sign the contract?
Comment: Blogsomebody:
Did the Builder force you to sign the contract ?
Comment: Why can't we force the builder of new homes to take back a house that they know was sold at an overpriced value. 2 years ago, I bought a house from Prime Home Builder in Homestead Florida. They sold me a house for over $300,000, but the real price should have been no more than $200,000 and even that may be too much. Well they somehow persuaded my lender to give me over $260,000 loan to buy this house. So why can't we force these builders to take back these houses 2 years later, even oif they give me only $260,000. they can keep my deposit. But since average sale prices are about $250,000 K and nobody is buying they should be forced to buy it back from me. They were the Scammers!
Comment: The market price is determined by the market. That is you. If you were willing to pay $300,000 for the house, then that is what it is worth to you. I can't believe you think the builder should not have taken the $300,000 from you. Isn't that capitalism? Why can't you take some responsibility for your actions instead of expecting the builder or the government to bail you out?
Comment: Market value is determined by the market. That is you. If you were willing to pay $300,000 for the house, then that was its value to you. I can't believe you are blaming the builder for taking the $300,000 from you. Isn't that capitalism? You were in the driver seat in determining the price of the house. Take some responsibility for your actions instead of blaming everybody else and expecting the government to bail you out!
Comment: Considering the tax breaks given to big oil companies on one end and , the working poor who recieve way more eitc than they pay in to the system,the mortgage credit is one of the few things people who actually work hard every day to suceed in life can take advantage of. It encourages investment in every community in the country, and creates jobs. You should be able to deduct it without having to itimize.
Comment: We are always looking to blame someone else - especially the gov't. This is just a Market Correction - let it take its course. That is the American Way, and it all turns out well in the end, Supply and Demand. Stop buying homes, they will build less homes, the price goes down. Thank God we live in a country where the govt doesn't control it all and allows markets to correct themselves. If you don't like Walmart, don't shop there - its your choice, see what happens...
Comment: My husband and I own a 1000 square post WW!! home where we raised 5 children. We lived comfortably and paid our house off years early. Now we can increase our savings and live comfortably. In our neighborhood, there is just one house reclaimed by the bank, That house is one of the supersized versions.
Comment: When we married 15 years ago, my husband and I brought 5 teenagers into our 1000 square foot home. We considered enlarging, but only briefly. We may necessary repairs and paid the house off many years early. Now the children are grown and we are able to invest part of the former house payment Our neighbors in the post WW!! neighborhood are in the same situation. Despite the recession in Michigan, there is only one house for sale in our area and nary a foreclosure sign.
Comment: As a real estate agent in Colorado, I can relate completely to the "bigger is better" mentality. I see so many people trying to buy the biggest, most elaborate home they can afford. While that may be all fine and good, they also have the fanciest cars they can manage to lease and the wardrobe and the toys to go along with it. Too many of these folks make as small a down payment as they can and disregard any advice from me to consider something a bit smaller, less expensive, less "look at me". While the wealthy can choose whatever they want and cost is a small consideration, most of these folks aren't wealthy. They may have high incomes and have great prospects, but the fact remains that they have very little net worth and almost no ability to ride out an illness, job loss, divorce or any other curve ball life may throw at them. We see plenty of foreclosures in the million dollar price range just because people insist on living beyond their means.
Comment: First the AMT phases out the interest deductibility for high income earners as well as the oversize property taxes that comes with them. Next the top 10% of earners pay over 70% of the income taxes while the bottom 50% pays just a paltry 3% of federal income taxes (IRS 2005 numbers). I am so tired of the soak the rich ranting by politicians when the numbers indicate they have been doing just that forever. I would advise those who rant about their lives being so miserable due to income inequality to go to college, get a graduate degree and join the top 10%. It isn't so hard and you will feel much better about yourself.
Comment: All your stats are purposefully skewed and incorrect. A cursory examination shows that the total burden by a group is irrelevant. It's the percentage. Numerous loopholes for the rich and corporations, put there after much lobbying the average Joe cannot muster, makes sure that their actual individual burden is very light in percentage terms.
Comment: The authors following comments are not entirely true. For vast majority of people the Alternative Minimum Tax kicks in and does away with most of those legitimate deductions.
" In 2008, the tax deduction for mortgage interest payments will cost the federal government $89 billion. The savings go heavily to the upper-middle class and the wealthy???the least needy people???and encourage ever-larger homes."
Comment: The authors following comments are not entirely true. For vast majority of people the Alternative Minimum Tax kicks in and does away with most of those legitimate deductions.
" In 2008, the tax deduction for mortgage interest payments will cost the federal government $89 billion. The savings go heavily to the upper-middle class and the wealthy???the least needy people???and encourage ever-larger homes."
Comment: I had a large home with 3 floors so I put kitchens on each floor and rented out beautiful 1200 sq ft. flats with lake views for only 900 per month. Those flats never went empty for even a week, until the city stepped in and said I was renting in "single family zoning. " So the problem is not the houses, it is the stupid zoning thing which prohibits people from sharing a house unless they're married or something. Cities hate renters and want to keep them out. Its discriminatory, really. Cities have no right to tell us how to live in our own homes, or who to associate with. Nor do they have any right to use city ordinances to advance their idea of social mixing. Big houses are designed for more people, older people especially should gang up in these grand houses. Cities have no right to zone up the best real estate for their idea of what a family is. Modern families aggregate by choice now, not genes. Zoning, codes and ordinances must be limited to clear safety issues, and not grow into social steering programs that are obviously discriminatory. The single family zoning code must be replaced with a "single person per sq foot code". Then we can use the valuable real estate for all.
Comment: Why do people want to live in those McMansions anyway? My husband and I always laugh when we drive by those hideous houses. Aside from the fact that they're just charmless cubes (gotta love those tacky two story foyers), they all seem to be too large for their lots and have zero privacy. Why would anyone spend all that money on a house where you can't even bbq in the backyard without the whole neighborhood and passersby knowing?
Comment: Let???s look at the future. While the richie rich prosper, every one else???s salary is going down. Remember the global economy means American workers are in a wage competition with workers in Banga Desh. Who???s going to win? In addition, the next generation will be saddled with college debt. Since fewer employers are offering health insurance, particularly to younger employees, the next generation will have to cough up $12,000 to $ 21,000 for health insurance. (Source: American Prospect.) If Libertarians have their way, public schools will be privatized and parents will have to shelling out tuition the instant their child enters kindergarten, somewhere between $ 5,000 to $ 20,000 a year, depending on the quality of education a parent opts for,. If Huckabee replaces income tax with sales tax, the cost of a house will go up by 23%. Homeowners will not be able go get deductions for mortgages, which incidentally did help low income home owners as well as the rich. With this in mind, where will the next generation live?
Check out Barbara Ehrenreich???s book Nickel and Dimed to find out the options and remember that could be your future. Can all the folks investing in McMansions expect to resell their high class mausoleums? I don???t think so. The folks making six digit salaries simply can???t live everywhere at once. Expect housing values to go down - far lower than Robert Samuelson and company can imagine.
Comment: The bubble mentality also had a lot to do with the bloated homes being built. When you are getting 10% appreciation per year, would you rather get that on a $150K house or a $450K place? And sure the lenders are falling all over each other to hand you the money and the various govt bodies are giving out more tax breaks for this shed on which you are making more money and...why wouldn't you go for it? Except that you wake up one day and the champagne has gone flat 'cuz the party she be OVER, dude.
Comment: Now here's a house I wanted to build, but land in the area I wanted to live was unavailable. None of the builders in NJ are doing anything like this perfect 2100 square foot home:
http://www.houseplans.com/plan_details.asp?id=22061
Comment: It's not the government's fault and it's not the lender's fault either that the housing market is in this shape. It's the buyer's fault. If you're not able to take a responsible look at your finances and decide what you can afford, then too bad. Our bank offered to finance us for more, but given the fact that my husband is a Marine and we moved to Texas to escape the California housing prices and I don't work, we chose to finance much less. Now I still get to be at home with our children instead of sending them to daycare while I bust my butt to pay for what is a skewed version of the American dream. When I hear my neighbors talk about how they bought too much home (and I see unfurnished rooms in their houses because of lack of money) and they tell me about their $800 heating bill (compared to my $170 bill) I sleep even more soundly at night.
Comment: The government comes into play to some degree, depending where you live. If zoning laws and building codes don't allow one to build a house that is affordable for you, then that IS the government's fault. We bought an old, 650 sq foot house, and it is plenty big for the 2 of us. However, we never would be allowed to build a new house this size in many communities today.
Comment: I love my "little" 1600 sq ft. 3 bedroom two bath home. It accomodates my five member family more than adequately. I really love it when it's time to write my sub-$900.00 mortgage payment every month to pay down my fixed-rate 15-year note. Every time I imagine living in a bigger home, I just pull out the vacuum cleaner and when I'm done, the house is plenty big, thank you!
Comment: I hear you! I wish they still offered new homes in these sizes. Originally, I was looking for a 3 bedroom house, but with the features of the bigger homes, like the private master bath suite. Also didn't need both a family room and formal livingroom, since the livingroom gets very little use. In today's market in my part of the country, I was willing to pay $300,000 for a new house like I describe, but builders simply don't offer that. They force you to choose between larger homes with 4-5 bedrooms, or 3 bedroom townhomes that share a wall with your neighbor.
Comment: I'm all for home ownership, and I believe it should be subsidized by tax exemptions. However, this is not about home ownership; it is about greed and hubris. Let the market adjust, and let people and corporations pay for their poor decisions.
--Self-righteous purchaser of a small home
Comment: Ego appears to be at least a factor. In my area, central/southern New Jersey, homes that we would have once called "mansions" are now commonplace. Former fields and forests are populated by developments full of these mamouth homes, with wings that jut forward of the house in order to accommodate multiple garage bays, walls of windows to show off 15 foot Christmas trees and $20,000 chandeliers. The rooms are massive as is the waste and energy spent to keep these homes functioning. I have visited the model homes for each of the new developments and it is clear that the homes are marketed for people who want high-end opulence. People are obviously free to spend their money how they like. But it appears that people's desire to have the biggest, shinest version of the exact same thing that everyone else has helped move the housing market along.
Comment: Can someone please explain to me how the government will lose $89 billion when it was never the government's money to begin with? As far as I'm concerned, the government confiscates my money and holds it, interest free, for nearly a year before giving it back to me. I'm not some anti-tax kook, but it's disingenuous, at the very least, to state that the government is going to "lose" this money. Maybe this seems like a silly point, but I think it belies a socialist viewpoint on the part the authors that was alluded to by Wild Bill in an earlier post.
Comment: The government is all of us. It's the people. Read the Constitution. Revenue that is lost to the government cannot go to pay for infrastructure (and sprawl creates more stress on this), police, fire and even wars in foreign lands. The vast majority of people that cry "socialism" at every turn, when the commons is discussed obviously have little understanding of what the term means.
Comment: Writers for big magazines always struggle to make headlines by pointing to our weaknesses, and blaming us for our woe. But this writer is wrong, my ego did not cause this awful mess. It's the lenders, stupid.
Years ago, banks didn't write "jumbo" mortgages. Once they started doing this, everyone needed one or risked loosing their prospective home to those who did get one. I lost in bidding wars on three houses before I won one and got a dinky townhouse. Now everyone needs one just to afford even a small house, so this article blaming our egos couldn't be more wrong. Don't blame my ego for this ridiculous situation, blame the relaxed lending practices. Some bankers got big commissions for underwriting big loans and other bankers didn't want to miss out, so the supply curve shifted and price moved with it. Now, we get to lose equity we never had, but are legally responsible for. Don't blame my ego, I did what I had to do to provide shelter for my family.
Comment: You did what you had to do to provide shelter for your family? Once again, the individual is never at fault, It was the bankers' fault for forcing people to accept loans tha they knew they could not truelly afford right? We are all just victims as usual. I can do my own math and figure out that when a mortgage takes most of my monthly income, it is too high to be truelly affordable. I also understand that variable intersts will vary over time, they may increase and more than likely they will. I also know that jobs are not 100 percent permanent. I could lose my job, and I need to be prepared for less than ideal circumstances. I agree, Banks were lending to people who couldn't really afford the loans, but when you take out intersts only mortgages and are living above your means you are at fault, Quit trying to pass the blame to everyone else. If you made bad finacial decisions learn from them and shut up.
Comment: Having helped many people move into homes and now helping many people loose their homes I find that yes, many bought way above their means and need, a fmily of 4 with a 3,500 square foot home is crazy.
Comment: Older homes can be retrofitted with the latest energy saving features, but it does take some investment. The good news that it can pay for itself in lower heating bills.
The stock market returns beat the real estate returns on investment in the past 100 years and will do so in the next 100 years. And what kind of liquidity do have on a house in comparison to a portfolio of stocks/mutual funds?
These larger homes on larger lots create more sprawl which require more and bigger roads which means you have to live far out and have to drive everywhere. It is lose-lose situation as far as traffic congestion/infrastructure financing and environmentally speaking.
Comment: AnneB,
I am a portfolio manager for a $1.5 billion real estate portfolio and I think you were given inaccurate information. I have been doing this for 15 years and have never, in that time, seen an appraisal that puts the the structure on the land at 50% plus of the overall value (in otherwords, the structure is woth more than the land). They only time I have seen this happen is when it is a condominium buiding with over 100 units. Generally 1st time homeowner loans go to first time homeowners who are buying it a primary residence with a Pre-Payment penalty if they attempt to refinance or sell the house within the first 24 to 36 months.
Comment: Let me correct that, in non-urban and non-multiple home developments, many times the land is worth more than the house.
Granted, a bank can make up the own rules, but in our area, any house on Miami Beach would be worth less than the land whether it be on the water or not. This is because the home is older and has much to fix up. But non of the bank we work with would ever tell a first time home buyer, "We're sorry, you can not buy a house on Miami Beach." I know that this is not a Federally regulated rule of first time home buying.
Comment: A simple change in the tax laws would change some of the problems here -- no longer providing AS MUCH of a tax break on mortgage interest over houses of a certain size. After all, I think the intent in the tax break is to provide the average person/family with an average home, not a super sized luxury one. By setting it to square feet (and controling what is counted as square feet) it will reduce the tax incentive for those who have pure luxury homes buy ensure it for those who are buying smaller homes.
The flip side of this... is finding more minimalist housing options. Seems like most of the new housing builds are large with many spendy options. I only know of one builder in my area that specializes in smaller, low cost 'cheap but not cheaply made' homes. But they only work with owners who already own a lot, they don't do track housing/mass building. Of course, the prices of lots in the metro area are still completely unreasonable, so even building a 'minimalist' home could put you well over the average local income.
Comment: oh, I see, punish the people that have true prosperity and flip the burden of supporting those that are dependent on "government" tax funded programs to pay their way. Hmmm?, lets see, does that work? well, yes for a little while and then you will start saying that it's unfair that the people that are inherintly paying a higher tax premium are living in nicer houses and driving nicer cars and that you can't because you need a "government" subsidation to allow you the same lifestyle without the cost or risk of what it takes to live that way. Please, the fact that anyone in this country even entertains the idea of home ownership is because others have gone out with a entrepenuer spirit and made it possible. Stop crying about being dependent on others taking the true risks and then you benefiting on their sucess and blaming others on your failures.
Comment: Another greedy sot claiming their success is their own, when in reality those at the top are more dependent on government and the commons for their opportunity to consume to excess. The public commons provides the infrastructure and framework that allows fat cats to get rich. There is no free ride. Those that benefit the most, should pay the most.
Comment: I couldn't disagree more. I and many of my friends and coworkers are educated successful people, who pay in the higher incomtax bracket. Why should we pay more so people who barely work and have children get whatever little tax contributions have made returned back to them at the end of the year? Are they using no services from the government and society? Aand as if that is not enough, some people get all their tax contribution and then some extra given back to them. It is nothing but wellfare. The same is true for medical cost, those who pay insurance have to pay for the cost of caring for the uninsured. Our entire system is based on wellfare. Instead of complaining about the people who are successful you should say thank you to them for paying more than their fair share so you can get your share back.
Comment: I have one small thing to add to Mr. McGinn's article. Yes, consumer greed is partially behind the McMansion boom, however, as my husband and I found out four years ago when we purchased our current home, many first-time homebuyers can not take advantage of a first-time homeowner loan if the land the house sits on is worth more than the house. Let's face it, land is getting more expensive as Americans leave the cities for the suburbs. So you end up with builders who want to cash in on people wanting new homes, but the home has to be worth more than the expensive land so the only option is to build McMansions almost on top of each other.
If you ask me, the whole system is messed up and needs to be torn down and replaced.
Comment: The current administration with the assistance of the FED boasted for several years that they were assisting in"American's achieving their dream of owning a home". Well, this is a big lesson in the concept that just because it is your dream does not mean you should have it come true. It comes down to this, the Government and the FED dropped the rate they paid banks on their deposits to a point where the banks were forced to lend as much as possible to replace the money they were losing on the overnight cost of funds. Because of this, they had to lend to people they would normally turn down. Buying a home is the second largest investment one will make (having a child is the first) and one should do ALL the homework before buying a home especially if not a fixed rate mortgage. However, it seems that a small percentage did any research at all. So basically, it is going to suck for homeowners and the home industry for a few years to come. It is about time to accept the truth, the housing market is going to get pretty bad. If you are having a hard time with your mortgage now, you will loose your home in the next couple of years. Rates WILL go back up eventually and so will your payments. Seeing that incomes have gone up only a couple percent on average the past few years, the cost of living and your mortgage will far outgrow your income.
Comment: The current administration with the assistance of the FED boasted for several years that they were assisting in"American's achieving their dream of owning a home". Well, this is a big lesson in the concept that just because it is your dream does not mean you should have it come true. It comes down to this, the Government and the FED dropped the rate they paid banks on their deposits to a point where the banks were forced to lend as much as possible to replace the money they were losing on the overnight cost of funds. Because of this, they had to lend to people they would normally turn down. Buying a home is the second largest investment one will make (having a child is the first) and one should do ALL the homework before buying a home especially if not a fixed rate mortgage. However, it seems that a small percentage did any research at all. So basically, it is going to suck for homeowners and the home industry for a few years to come. It is about time to accept the truth, the housing market is going to get pretty bad. If you are having a hard time with your mortgage now, you will loose your home in the next couple of years. Rates WILL go back up eventually and so will your payments. Seeing that incomes have gone up only a couple percent on average the past few years, the cost of living and your mortgage will far outgrow your income.
Comment: I'm African American, and I'm simply happy to be able to buy a home. It was something that my parents had been unable to do. There simply was not enough money left over for them to save the required 20% downpayment and closing cost fees. I am part of the 74% who desire a newly constructed home. Construction was completed on my 2,500 sqaure foot home in August, but It is in a community where homes are as large as 4,000 square feet. I admire the large homes, but I don't see the need for them and their correspondingly high operating costs. I don't throw parties on a monthly basis that calls for huge amounts of interior room or backyard space. I actually enjoy talking to my heighbor when I step outside, so I do not need acres of land between my home and the next home. And my modest home is expensive enough in today's market. God bless the neighbors around me who are making mortgage payments on larger homes that cost $100,000 more than what I paid. I do, however, feel sorry for anyone who is struggling to make their mortgage payments because they had to own the largest and most impressive house offered. What good is it to own the largest house if you can't afford to furnish all those rooms, heat it or water the lawn?
As far as greenhouse gases are concerned, I'm willing to bet that my newly constructed, "Energy Star" rated home, has a smaller carbon footprint than any older home. Double-paned windows, dual zone digitally managed HVAC, high efficiency insulation and TYVEK wrapping (to reduce drafts and heating losses) all combine to make my home cheaper to operate than the average 25 year old house.
Comment: While mgw is correct in saying that newer homes are more energy efficient than older houses, I 'd like to observe that new houses averaging between 1000 - 1500 sq. ft, leave an even smaller carbon footprint than new houses averaging 2500 - 4000 sq ft. Just because some people have more disposable income, they seem to think it gives them license to use up more energy and to leave larger carbon footprints than the average Joe. They seem to forget that responsibility comes with wealth.
Comment: While mgw@abmac.com is correct in saying that new houses are more energy efficient than older ones,
Comment: Mr. Samuelson...You could'nt wait to write a piece about excess. With socialist undertones and somwhat anti-capitalist views you and your "global warming" colleagues will begin the greed is bad campaign, if only for a short time.
Comment: Greed is bad. We need to start shaming people who wallow in excess instead of idolizing them. Only then will the tide turn. Shame is the most powerful tool for change we have. The only reason it hasn't been applied to greed, is because we've been conditioned to think greed is somehow virtuous.
Comment: Dan McGinn is bang on! I've been watching the growing trend towards mega-houses with increasing discomfiture over the last twenty years. Many families were then content with living in houses that averaged 1,000 sq ft or less, as was mine. McGinn could have gone into how much impact such homes are having on the global environment: increased deforestation caused by the huge amounts of lumber that go into such houses, the wasteful amount of water used in the maintenance of lawns and gardens on huge lots, the amount of electricity used to power more and bigger electrical appliances and electronics than could fit in smaller homes, increased amount of energy needed to heat or cool mega-houses, excess fuel consumption caused by hauling materials used to build and equip such houses. and so on. Such housing leaves a huge carbon footprint. What really gets me is that most such houses accommodate only two to four persons. 20 to 30 years ago, many families with more than 4 - 5 children were content to live in 1,000 sq. ft. houses without any ill effects. If status is the driving force behind possession of mega-houses, then their owners lose my and others' respect and esteem, What a poor trade-off!
Comment: in this article, I have not read one sentence which directly discussed the headline of the article " How the size of our houses inflated the housing crisis". I read about increased costs, which the rich can certainly afford. I read about the increase in greenhouse gasses. I read about the income tax deductions effects on the Middle classes, but not one word about "Inflating the housing crisis". I read about "Nosiness of people trying to find out the value of their neighbors home on Zillow or Realtor.com, which just offended me, because it isn't being nosy to determine the value of your home in comparison to others in your neighborhood. Would I recommend buying this book. An emphatic No. The author comes off like an angry jerk.
Comment: this article has many fine points ,however a home is tangable wealth you can see it live it and feel it and it makes you feel good.stocks however are a risk that many have taken and have beensent to the curb. Ill take my house thank you
Comment: A very high percentage of the foreclosures in this area are due to the predatory lending practices to prospective homebuyers who lacked the essential knowledge of ARMs and loan costs. People who can afford to own a large home should not be ostracized and they are apparently prepared to pay the costs inherent in large homes. As taxes rise, insurance costs increase and utility costs escalate the owners of these homes will reconsider. However at that point few people will be in a position to purchase these
homes for the same reasons.
Comment: I have no simpathy. It's simple. If you can't afford it don't buy it! If your not sure if you will be able to afford it, don't buy it! Go ahead let them forclose, I'll buy that house from the bank and rent it back to them!
Comment: Call me clueless, but there seems to be something inherently unethical about bundling predatory mortgages and trading on whether people will be able to make their mortgage payments. Where I live in South Carolina, it seems that everything under construction is $200,000 or higher; there are little or no moderately priced homes under construction in our area. Single mothers, minimum wages workers -- the people who serve and clean up after the weatlhy, cannot afford a decent place to live. Apartment rent is more than a mortgage payment for most of these people. Builders who have been building overpriced homes, and mortgage companies that have been grossly overcharging homehowners for mortgages, are getting what they deserve.
Comment: It's simple. If you can't afford it don't buy it! If your not sure, don't buy it! Go ahead let them forclose, i'll buy that house from the bank and rent it back to them!
Comment: Brought to you from the Department of Redundancy Department
Comment: Sure, the "McMansion" is an easy target, and blaming successful people for our subprime crisis, greenhouse gases, housing bubble and the Miami Dolphins bad season is easy too. But try to look a little deeper. Where are the mortgage defaults occuring. In Atlanta, a recent survey showed them south of the city where smaller homes were built. Predatory tactics by production homebuilders pushed people into financial situations they could not afford. And who drives the production homebuilders? Wall Street. The real criminals are not the successful entrepreneurs who build business and they make the decision to purchase a large house. No, it's the MBA analysts working on Wall Street who push public companies to exploit their customers in neverending quest to increase profits.
Comment: Once again, It is the system and not the individual who is to blame. People have to be accountable for the choices and decisions they make in life. We are responsible for our financial decisions. Poor us we are so naive that we are at the mercy of those MBA trained people. We cannot even balance our own monthly budget, we are not responsible for anything we have ever done or will ever do. We cannot read or do math. I agree, there were many things done wrong, but no one was forced to sign a mortgage against their will. If you don't understand, don't sign.
Comment: I agree, and it is not going to hurt just the people taken advantage of by predatory lenders to buy poorly constructed production homes...When they foreclose it hurts people like me who live in 10 to 20 yr. old homes that would like to build up equity but can`t because the market is flooded with them. I sell water treatment and I always wondered why I was having clients that lived in brand new homes of all price ranges not getting approved for water treatment and its because the lender of water treatment was looking at credit worthiness which the mortgage business was not....
Comment: Don't forget to add restrictive town zoning which limited building of larger numbers of (presumably smaller) new homes thus forcing builders to build fewer larger more expensive homes to continue to keep their sales profits high.
Comment: This is what has happened in my town. The only way to buy a new house in my portion of NJ is to buy a McMansion, be a senior and move into a new adult community (which has houses that are about the perfect size for a growing family) or knock down an older house and rebuild (which is cheaper than the McMansion). Instead of builders placing 6 average sized houses on one portion of their 10 acres, and leaving the rest as open space, builders just built larger houses to maximize profits. One result is that only people with serious money can now afford to live here.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
STRATEGIES Isn't it ironic: Xerox is hoping it can profit by teaching companies how to reduce their printing.
Sponsored by
|
Sponsored by
|
Loading Menu
