Waking Up From The American Dream

The New Republic: Home Ownership Is Only A Social Good When It Helps Buyers Build Equity

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Joshua Rosner.

---

In the midst of the subprime crisis, there's an important question that analysts and policymakers have neglected: Did so many people need to own homes in the first place? The dream of home ownership has long been part of the American experience, but, as the federal government steps in to artificially support borrowers and lenders with tax credits that encourage more spending or with public spending that keeps over-indebted borrowers in unaffordable homes, we ought to consider whether it's time to wake up from that dream.

Indeed, we ought to consider what role the federal government has played in creating this mess. By stimulating home ownership while failing to account for the reasons home ownership is valuable to society, Washington has simply sought to buy our votes with our own debt. As the subprime crisis accelerates and threatens to spread through prime and near-prime markets, policymakers face a watershed moment. To keep us from an economic nightmare, they need to replace the dream of home ownership with policies that actually increase wealth -- not just the illusion of it.

The term "mortgage" comes from the French root mort, meaning dead, and the Germanic root gage, meaning pledge, which suggests how seriously the use of debt to buy a home was once taken. Traditionally, buyers purchased their first home in their twenties or thirties as they were starting a family, and, since the 1930s, they almost always financed that purchase with a 15- or 30-year fixed-rate mortgage that required monthly payments of principal and interest. Because it was relatively difficult to sell, the home was in essence a forced savings plan that increasingly tied the interests of the borrower to those of the community.

However, in recent years a confluence of factors -- falling interest rates, new types of mortgages, the elimination of the once-standard 20 percent down payment, and a perverse tax structure that provides the greatest benefit to those that borrow the most -- have transformed the home from an illiquid asset into just another consumer good. Home owners now have less equity in their properties, and, as a result, the social benefits of home ownership have decreased; their ties to their communities have been weakened. What's more, the decline in home equity means that Americans are likely to retire with fewer savings in what has been historically their largest asset and, in turn, place a larger burden on a social welfare system that will already be stressed by baby boomers' retirements.

The government has been directly responsible for this shift, working proactively with industry since 1995 to "achieve an all-time high level of homeownership." Unfortunately, the only way policymakers and the housing industry could do this at a time when home prices were beginning to rise rapidly was to create risky financial products, like mortgages with fluctuating interest rates -- or what the government euphemistically termed "creative financing." Borrowers, in turn, flocked to these loans because, while they dreamed of owning a home, the growth in wages had not kept pace with the appreciation in real estate prices for most of the past 40 years. As a result, in markets like Miami and Las Vegas, where home prices rose rapidly relative to wages, borrowers were forced to become more and more leveraged. And, even in markets like Akron, Ohio, and Ann Arbor, Michigan, where housing prices weren't so supercharged, falling wages and job flight made it difficult to buy a home at all. Today, more Americans may "own" their homes in a very narrow sense -- home ownership has jumped from its usual level of 62-64 percent (where it had stayed for 40 years) to almost 70 percent -- but the market's natural equilibrium has been disturbed by the government's attempts at social engineering.

Rather than artificially stimulating home ownership, the government should have focused more on supporting wage growth. This would have enabled workers to accumulate real wealth, rather than simply encouraging the illusion of wealth formed when one buys an expensive house by taking on an unmanageable amount of debt. In the current climate, the government could stimulate the economy by investing in infrastructure -- schools to re-educate displaced workers, highways to link suburban or rural labor to business centers, and other programs that encourage employment rather than giving consumers one-time tax credits that simply spur further excessive spending and further indebtedness. In contrast with helping citizens to buy expensive property, strengthening America's economic foundation is not only an appropriate function for government, but arguably its most basic task.

Instead of reassessing its priorities in the wake of the current crisis, however, the government is now trying to keep home prices artificially high by offering risky programs to prevent homes from selling on the open market, such as expanding the Federal Housing Administration's purchase of low-down payment and risky mortgages and urging the "modification" of existing mortgages. These efforts primarily benefit realtors and lenders by allowing them to recast mortgages and receive a few more payments from the 40 percent of borrowers who will re-default anyway. Instead of modifying their loan terms, many troubled borrowers would be better served by simply sending their house keys back to their lenders and signing over the title to the home, thereby freeing up cash to rent or buy a more affordable house while avoiding a bankruptcy or foreclosure. In fact, most lenders would be better off, too, since they could avoid the expense of foreclosing on a property that is falling in value and that the borrower is no longer maintaining. Unfortunately, a "keep the borrowers in their homes" mentality in Washington, which is emotionally attractive to borrowers and economically attractive to lending lobbyists, has prevented policymakers from embracing this option.

Those who support government intervention maintain that falling home prices are a danger. But a danger to whom? Falling prices would allow new buyers to purchase homes they could genuinely afford, and existing borrowers who are able to make payments would continue to build equity in their homes. People would also have less incentive to frequently flip from one home to another, and thus they would deepen and lengthen their ties and obligations to their communities. Falling prices might even allow a return to the increasingly rare single-income household, thus allowing one parent to tend to the needs of the family's children. Besides which, in our drive to spur home ownership, we have stigmatized renting. Renting has real economic value -- especially for that portion of the workforce that needs to remain mobile in order to find employment -- yet investment in rental properties has been minimal for decades.

For the past decade, Americans have increasingly relied on the appreciation of their homes, rather than the returns of their labors, to support themselves, creating an unsustainable and destabilizing economic mirage. Home ownership will -- and should -- remain a goal, but only if it brings with it the long-term commitment that a mortgage traditionally implied. Home ownership is a social good as long as it allows buyers to build equity -- an investment not only in their house but in their community -- but a home without equity is really just a rental with debt.

[ubrew12]

Article: "In the current climate, the government could stimulate the economy by investing in infrastructure -- schools to re-educate displaced workers, highways to link suburban or rural labor to business centers, and other programs that encourage employment..."

What part of the $10 trillion Reagan/Bush debt do you NOT understand?

[ddaryl1]

the American way of life has become a sham... 2 incomes are necessary, and home prices have risen well above both incomes for way too many.

then we have the Social Security debacle. Why should I or any other person have to wait until we''re 70 to collect social security. I think 40+ years in the work place shoul dbe more then enough for us... and we should get our fully earned benefits the day we turn 60.

The sad thing is i don''t see any portion of this country changing, we are at the mercy of big business, wall street, and GREED. It is no longer "We The People" it is now "We The Corporations" or "We The Wealthy"

Make no mistake about it... I have not a patriotic bone in my body. America turns my stomach, and yet none of us seem to be able to a *** thing to make a difference. We are manipulated regulalry, and all of the rewards goto the fat cats. Why we struggle with our dual income lives working 50 hours a week and not getting much closer to a financial retirement.

I''m bitter, and full of vile hate for what I see happening, and it is consuming me...

[joyous88]

right on!

after 12 years of republicon greed pretending to be the american dream, and

30 years of reaganomics ruinging our economy,

what did you expect?

want some more of this?? vote for McBushCain

[tejasdemo]

Now that is an excellent article and completely true.

[oldone60]

...the American way of life has become a sham... I have not a patriotic bone in my body. America turns my stomach...I''''m bitter, and full of vile hate for what I see happening, and it is consuming me...
Posted by ddaryl1 at 03:53 PM : May 02, 2008
------------------------------------
right on! after 12 years of republicon greed pretending to be the american dream, and 30 years of reaganomics ruinging our economy, what did you expect...
Posted by joyous88 at 04:01 PM : May 02, 2008
------------------------------------

Political Philosophy, Liberal
An ideology steeped in a proud tradition of ineffectual whining.
The Onion Political Glossary
---------------------------------------

The Onion has it right.

[rjs1955]

Almost profound, and completely old-fashioned common sense...which is unfortunately today also almost profound. Mr. Rosner, will you run for President, please?

[irliberal]

Posted by oldone60 at 04:33 PM

Careful. You''re whining again.

[gkc99]

"the government should have focused more on supporting wage growth. "


The government can''t support wage growth! The billionaires who bought and paid for the Clintons and the Bushes wouldn''t like it! They like low-paid peasants, and when the local peasantry starts getting uppity, they import coolie labor. That''s why Billy and Hilly were such big supporters of the H1B visa program and the Bushits could care less about border enforcement, although he''s a "lawn order" guy--for the peasants anyway.

[element51]

Simplemind2....Many people dream of owning their home but the simple truth is that you can never own your home. Even after the mortgage is paid in full you still do not own your house. How can that be, you ask. Simple. It belongs to the state. As long as you are required to pay property tax it is not yours. And it is getting harder for the elderly who are on fixed incomes to pay those taxes. We paid the mortgage on our home off several years ago but we still have to pay over 250.00 per month in taxes. As the federal government imposes unfunded mandates on the states, the counties in turn raise property taxes. We have seen, over the years, our taxes go up each year and even though the increases are not huge it adds up over a period of time. The amounts vary from state to state but many senior citizens reach a point where they just can''t pay any more. Once that happens the state is there quickly to take possession of THEIR property. And there is NO negotiation!

[element51]

oldone60.....From Webster''s Dictionary Deluxe Edition

LIBERAL...Characterized by generosity or lavishness in giving; abundant; ample; inclining toward opinions or policies that favor progress or reform, such as religion or politics.

[scorpio59er]

"as the federal government steps in to artificially support...over-indebted borrowers in unaffordable homes" -- which they''ll NEVER be able to sell for what they owe, which means they''ll eventually be lost to foreclosure anyway, which means this whole government bailout scheme is worthless!

[nonayabiness]

There is no sub-prime crisis.

Businesses should not be bailed out at taxpayer expense for making bad decisions for the sake of putting another buck in the pockets of their CEOs.

The CEOs and other ''fluff'' should pay back their alaries and other bonuses and such to refund the companies for their poor management skills and keep people in their homes so their companies can continue.

[nonayabiness]

Renting is more favorable than home ownership today. This fact is really sad.

[skyk-2009]

An ideology steeped in a proud tradition of ineffectual whining.
The Onion Political Glossary
------------------------------
---------

The Onion has it right.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by oldone60 at 04:33 PM : May 02, 2008
+ report abuse

You know folks as we look back over our history there are TWO facts that can not be denied. If there is a problem that needs addressing, LIBERALS are always the ones to address that problem. The other fact? Conservatives will NEVER see the problem and ALWAYS complain about the solution in the future.

[magoo2u1]

"The CEOs and other ''''fluff'''' should pay back their alaries and other bonuses and such to refund the companies for their poor management skills and keep people in their homes so their companies can continue."

Why would they do that? They''e going to get their money from YOU through the politicians YOU voted for or allowed in by not voting and they will save their companies and show a big fat profit and get their bonus and more. They''ll run you off the road in your submini campact car getting 68 miles per gallon as they rush by at 90 mph in their stretch Hummer with hot tub enroute to the airport to fly their Lear jet to Bermuda for lunch. Get real, those people never suffer for their crimes.

[brianbwb-2009]

"The New Republic: Home Ownership Is Only A Social Good When It Helps Buyers Build Equity"

The Old Brian: Home Ownership Is Good When It Provides Shelter, And A Stable Environment For Those Who Live In It.


Who ARE these idiots who consistently ignore any humanistic considerations?

Are you guys from the Borg collective?

[downsteamjim]

Imagine if loans were only given in amounts that the borrower could afford to repay. Some lenders need to be bankrupt.

[wl7bzh]

It ain''t fair-If I do it, it''s called counterfeiting and I would go to prison.

The Government does it-calls it deficit spending-and some politicians get elected to another term in office.

[wl7bzh]

It ain''t fair-If I do it, it''s called counterfeiting and I would go to prison.

The Government does it-calls it deficit spending-and some politicians get elected to another term in office.

[ljarvi1]

What a slick piece of disinformation. "The government" hasn''t done a damned thing except hop into bed with the bankers who manipulate assets so as to engineer these devastating economic bubbles to enable them to steal and enslave.

Parasitism and vampirism has destroyed the host, as well as created a culture full of aspiring sociopaths and narcissists. The political, economic and cultural spectacle that is resulting promises to be quite a show.

[ljarvi1]

What a slick piece of disinformation. "The government" hasn''t done a damned thing except hop into bed with the bankers who manipulate assets so as to engineer these devastating economic bubbles to enable them to steal and enslave.

Parasitism and vampirism has destroyed the host, as well as created a culture full of aspiring sociopaths and narcissists. The political, economic and cultural spectacle that is resulting promises to be quite a show.

[ljarvi1]

What a slick piece of disinformation. "The government" hasn''t done a damned thing except hop into bed with the bankers who manipulate assets so as to engineer these devastating economic bubbles to enable them to steal and enslave.

Parasitism and vampirism has destroyed the host, as well as created a culture full of aspiring sociopaths and narcissists. The political, economic and cultural spectacle that results from the banker''s con game is turning out to be quite a show.

[joyous88]

ljarvi1

right on!

This republicon scam has lasted too long.

The american dream? In reality it consists of you

spending your entire life paying some corporation

just to survive

[ljarvi1]

What a slick piece of disinformation. "The government" hasn''t done a damned thing except hop into bed with the bankers who manipulate assets so as to engineer these devastating economic bubbles to enable them to steal and enslave.

Parasitism and vampirism have destroyed the host, as well as created a culture full of aspiring sociopaths and narcissists. The political, economic and cultural spectacle that results from the banker''s con game is turning out to be quite a show.

[ljarvi1]

What a slick piece of disinformation. "The government" hasn''t done a damned thing except hop into bed with the bankers who manipulate assets so as to engineer these devastating economic bubbles to enable them to steal and enslave.

Parasitism and vampirism have destroyed the host, as well as created a culture full of aspiring sociopaths and narcissists. The political, economic and cultural spectacle that results from the banker''s con game is turning out to be quite a show.

[slkrueger]

At a time when the political arena is vying for our attention, shouldn''t we be directing our attention to the %u201Conly%u201D solution for mankind''s problems, God''s kingdom? You know... the one that we''ve all prayed for to come (Mt.6:9,10). But, you might ask %u201CWhat is the Kingdom? How can it help us?%u201D The Bible gives evidence that it is a real government that will last forever. It will put an end to all human governments (Daniel 2:44) It will end wars, sickness, food shortages, housing problems and even death itself. It will return the earth to it''s original paradise condition. God''s government has a ruler chosen by God himself...his Son, Jesus. God''s heavenly government is already ruling in heaven and is poised to establish it''s rule over the whole earth. Isn''t this a beautiful thing to look forward to?

[slkrueger]

At a time when the political arena is vying for our attention, shouldn''t we be directing our attention to the %u201Conly%u201D solution for mankind''s problems, God''s kingdom? You know... the one that we''ve all prayed for to come (Mt.6:9,10). But, you might ask %u201CWhat is the Kingdom? How can it help us?%u201D The Bible gives evidence that it is a real government that will last forever. It will put an end to all human governments (Daniel 2:44) It will end wars, sickness, food shortages, housing problems and even death itself. It will return the earth to it''s original paradise condition. God''s government has a ruler chosen by God himself...his Son, Jesus. God''s heavenly government is already ruling in heaven and is poised to establish it''s rule over the whole earth. Isn''t this a beautiful thing to look forward to?

[eggy1620]

I%u2019m looking forward to the bottom dropping out of the college market just like the housing market. Will be just in time for my kids to enroll and get the same education at two thirds the cost.