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.

Non-paywall link

  • SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • ChexMax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      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)

    • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • TonyOstrich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        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?

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        “I just want so much land such that if everyone wanted the same amount, there wouldn’t be enough land in the world.”

        • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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.

    • SuperSaiyanSwag@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

            • Madison420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              No no, not you. I meant no offense.

              I mean the fact that there’s people who work remote and would rather move but have a great deal and can’t give that up. Combine that with the fact that lenders don’t look favorably on remote work especially when the property is rural and it helps to stall the market.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

      • Evotech@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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

    • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’d happily live in a shed if it was large enough to fit the usual amenities. Basically, give me 200sqft and half the cost in rent and watch as I live with almost nothing and be happy. Computer, bed on the floor, small standing shower, and we’re like 80% of the way there.