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.
A “starter home” is still a home, is still a roof over your head and a place to sleep.
And you’re not subject to the whims of some slumlord.
Owning your own home (even if it’s not “keeping up with the Jonses” compliant) is not a horrible position to be in.
Got a fixed rate 30 year mortgage and I’m paying less today for twice the space than I was paying 15 years ago when I first bought my home. I have a friend who got a relatively tiny 1400 sqft row house for $80k back in 2006 and paid less than $1k/mo in rent + utilities for nearly a decade, until she got married and needed extra space for kids.
If you’re confident you won’t be moving for the next five years, a house or condo at a fixed rate is consistently a way better deal than chasing apartment teaser rates every 12 months. But landing that kind of space means a steady income in a professional career. Its not something folks in the service sector - with irregular hours and changes in location and depressed wages - can reliably count on.
In the end, this is far more a problem of shitty unreliable working conditions than best-practices for picking a residence.
This comment is so wild to my non US eyes. I had to convert the sqft you gave because I missremembered. Friends of mine are family with two kids and live in a bit more than half that space (80m2) - and are not the exception from what I know.
To see 130m2 “too small for the family” is really weird and I’d love to see/understand where the differences come from. I guess that even how the space is calculated might have an impact. Really fascinating!
Thanks for sharing!
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.
People don’t need 10+ kids either.
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 would kill for 1200sqft living in NYC
Ikr. Just bought 1200 and 4 bedrooms (major city, not NYC) and I couldn’t be happier
It’s going to be about 4k a month though… Not too happy about that part
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
Cries into 3.6k a month…
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.
“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.
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?
Maybe we shouldn’t have played with the idea of “starter homes” and maybe its okay for people to live in one place.
Maybe housing shouldn’t be a fucking investment vehicle, how about that, and then none of this would be a fucking problem at all.
Starter homes aren’t the problem.
People need different types of homes as a single professional vs family with kids vs retiree.
In a normal market, people would have the freedom to trade out to the right kind of house, and move to a new city if that’s what they want.
“Normal” is a term used for idealistic dreams that don’t ever exist in reality.
Twice now I’ve sold my smaller home to move into a larger one to accommodate my growing family.
It’s been a normal thing for millions of families, but not when there’s an interest rate spike like in 2023 or 2008.
So its your own personal experience?
Kind of like… normal is your situation you’re using to define what is an ideal everyone else should have and want.
Ugh, why do people just want to confront people on here by focusing on some petty semantics like anybody gaf. It’s such Twitter behavior
I guess it’s just me, the article’s author, and the millions of families in the situation they described.
You’re 100% projecting. Also the other poster said nothing about “ideal” but what was normal. Which it absolutely was and still would be if interest rates weren’t so high.
Boohoo, I’m trapped in the house I can afford. I don’t have to pay rent. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh
The article did mention that it’s affecting those that are renting because those with the house that is now “too small” can’t sell it as the interest rates are too good to give up and the new larger house they’d want is now like 2x as expensive as it was in the past. That means that the house they have now won’t become available for someone like me who’s looking to buy a “starter home” so I, and people like me, are stuck renting forever.
I’m in the same boat as you. IMO the solution is to make it so expensive to own rental houses that the people holding on to them are forced to sell. That would free up a ton of real estate.
Lack of an “upwardly mobile” world was what killed the video star
Maybe we shouldn’t have kept interest rates at near zero for decades, especially when the economy was doing well. Maybe that would have eased the transition a bit.
Inflation was low. Raising interest rates when inflation is low is a recipe for persistent deflation like Japan has.
Oh no not the nightmare that is Japan, I want more GDP so the rich get richer.
Almost all countries with lower levels of inequality and decent income have inflation. Deflation actually works against the poor because they are the ones needing to borrow to make any large purchase and the banks can only set rates so low. The solution to wealth inequality is absolutely NOT deflation.
It’s not a solution to wealth inequality, but doesn’t drastically worsen inequality (Cantillon effect) like the dollar has since the Nixon Shock. We have 100% been played for fools.
Inflation works against the poor because that interest rate is added to the real rates offered to the poor - borrowers, not lenders, pay the price.
And what do you think happens when there is deflation, especially if it is negative by several percent? The real rate people pay is up significantly even if the nominal rate is 0%.
