"build, baby, build" would have been an *outstanding* slogan. It would have driven attention to the problem -- which is a major issue for voters -- and its solution. Perhaps offsetting the cost of eggs.
Being the global reserve currency brings immense advantages: lower borrowing costs, persistent demand for sovereign debt, and unparalleled financial influence. But reserve status is not a birthright. It comes with stringent, often overlooked requirements. In a world where the safety-liquidity-return hierarchy governs global capital flows, breaching the “safety” pillar would be the most dangerous move of all.
In 1973 Q2 "median home sales price" was 4.5 times the "average weekly earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers" annualized. (from the Fed's FRED graph pages)
In 2024 Q4 it was 7.8 times annual income for same, about 82% of all full-time workers.
The real problem is low wages.
Wages in 1972 were (inflation adjusted) slightly higher in 1972 than 2024. The economy per capita growth has been about 150%. Wages grew by 0%.
Don't you remember Fed Chief Marriner Eccles statement about the Great Depression, a great sucking machine --"a giant suction pump had by 1929–1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. ..."
The RealTime Inequality web page shows that since 1976 the lower-earning 90% (adults and households) have lost about 15% of wealth distribution, dropping from 62% to 47% of all income, about $3.4 trillion per year, which is also about $30,000 per household less income.
I forgot -- the graph you show is somewhat misleading.
The population (number of households) in 1972 was 66 million, and starts were 2400.
In 2024 the population was 132 million with 1400 starts. Therefore, the starts per million in 1972 were 36/million, and in 2024 it is 10/million.
If we tripled the current rate we'd be equal to 1972. Wow!
Low wages is the problem. RAND Corporation published Income Trends between 1975 and 2018, and the RealTime Inequality.org site shows these trends in vivid graphs.
Final comment: Instead of today's median home sales price of $419,200, if we had the ratio of employee income to home price of 1972, then today's home price would be $240,000. That is to say, homes did cost 4.47 times annual worker income in 1972, and that would be $240,000 today. Not $419,000. And we'd have triple-plus the production. Times have changed. MAGA makes sense.
About 40% (39.8%) of Americans cannot pay for monthly expenses for more than one month "if they lost their main source of income", says the report "Making Ends Meet" from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, December 2023, page 18.
To quote: "In January 2023, 39.8 percent of households could cover expenses for a month or less, up slightly from 37.3 percent in January 2022. From Figure 3, it appears that most of this increase is a shift from being able to cover expenses for “about two months” and “three to six months” to “about one month.”
Only 27.1% can cover expenses for more than six months. Yet, the "average" household income in U.S. is around $180,000, the "average" savings per household is around $1.2 million. Does this make sense? Obviously, inequality has taken over quality of life and thrashed it.
On Low Income Housing Tax Credit need for reform. I've followed Atlanta's affordable housing challenge quite closely for over a decade, having served on the city's economic development board. The other day a high-quality market-rate apartment complex in a popular Atlanta location sold for $220k unit. Yet the City has a couple of projects seeking federal subsidy with budgets of $640 and $670k/ unit. (Good luck with that in the current era. It's not clear that Atlanta would ever have obtained LIHTC for these deals.) Atlanta's other two affordable projects in the works are budgeted at way above the $220k mark. Competitive bidding processes and market reality checks are essential to get rid of crony deals and padded contracts and to make federal subsidy house far more families.
Of course the immediate and deadly serious threat is of Trump / DOGE slashing housing vouchers. That would leave vast numbers of poor families with no roofs over their heads. Since empathy is in short supply, maybe the financial class would realize that rent-subsidized apartments will default on their mortgages if vouchers are cut. Some owners appear to be running scams, with crazy-high valuations on HUD-subsidized properties that are unfit to be lived in - i.e., zero market value, infinite loan to value. The Forest Cove scandal in Atlanta is apparently not a one-off.
"build, baby, build" would have been an *outstanding* slogan. It would have driven attention to the problem -- which is a major issue for voters -- and its solution. Perhaps offsetting the cost of eggs.
Being the global reserve currency brings immense advantages: lower borrowing costs, persistent demand for sovereign debt, and unparalleled financial influence. But reserve status is not a birthright. It comes with stringent, often overlooked requirements. In a world where the safety-liquidity-return hierarchy governs global capital flows, breaching the “safety” pillar would be the most dangerous move of all.
https://open.substack.com/pub/marketszoon/p/dollar-privilege?r=58uzcq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
In 1973 Q2 "median home sales price" was 4.5 times the "average weekly earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers" annualized. (from the Fed's FRED graph pages)
In 2024 Q4 it was 7.8 times annual income for same, about 82% of all full-time workers.
The real problem is low wages.
Wages in 1972 were (inflation adjusted) slightly higher in 1972 than 2024. The economy per capita growth has been about 150%. Wages grew by 0%.
Don't you remember Fed Chief Marriner Eccles statement about the Great Depression, a great sucking machine --"a giant suction pump had by 1929–1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. ..."
The RealTime Inequality web page shows that since 1976 the lower-earning 90% (adults and households) have lost about 15% of wealth distribution, dropping from 62% to 47% of all income, about $3.4 trillion per year, which is also about $30,000 per household less income.
I forgot -- the graph you show is somewhat misleading.
The population (number of households) in 1972 was 66 million, and starts were 2400.
In 2024 the population was 132 million with 1400 starts. Therefore, the starts per million in 1972 were 36/million, and in 2024 it is 10/million.
If we tripled the current rate we'd be equal to 1972. Wow!
Low wages is the problem. RAND Corporation published Income Trends between 1975 and 2018, and the RealTime Inequality.org site shows these trends in vivid graphs.
My blog: http://benL88.blogspot.com
Final comment: Instead of today's median home sales price of $419,200, if we had the ratio of employee income to home price of 1972, then today's home price would be $240,000. That is to say, homes did cost 4.47 times annual worker income in 1972, and that would be $240,000 today. Not $419,000. And we'd have triple-plus the production. Times have changed. MAGA makes sense.
About 40% (39.8%) of Americans cannot pay for monthly expenses for more than one month "if they lost their main source of income", says the report "Making Ends Meet" from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, December 2023, page 18.
To quote: "In January 2023, 39.8 percent of households could cover expenses for a month or less, up slightly from 37.3 percent in January 2022. From Figure 3, it appears that most of this increase is a shift from being able to cover expenses for “about two months” and “three to six months” to “about one month.”
Only 27.1% can cover expenses for more than six months. Yet, the "average" household income in U.S. is around $180,000, the "average" savings per household is around $1.2 million. Does this make sense? Obviously, inequality has taken over quality of life and thrashed it.
A little OT, but instead of saying "illegally detained", why not say kidnapped?
On Low Income Housing Tax Credit need for reform. I've followed Atlanta's affordable housing challenge quite closely for over a decade, having served on the city's economic development board. The other day a high-quality market-rate apartment complex in a popular Atlanta location sold for $220k unit. Yet the City has a couple of projects seeking federal subsidy with budgets of $640 and $670k/ unit. (Good luck with that in the current era. It's not clear that Atlanta would ever have obtained LIHTC for these deals.) Atlanta's other two affordable projects in the works are budgeted at way above the $220k mark. Competitive bidding processes and market reality checks are essential to get rid of crony deals and padded contracts and to make federal subsidy house far more families.
Of course the immediate and deadly serious threat is of Trump / DOGE slashing housing vouchers. That would leave vast numbers of poor families with no roofs over their heads. Since empathy is in short supply, maybe the financial class would realize that rent-subsidized apartments will default on their mortgages if vouchers are cut. Some owners appear to be running scams, with crazy-high valuations on HUD-subsidized properties that are unfit to be lived in - i.e., zero market value, infinite loan to value. The Forest Cove scandal in Atlanta is apparently not a one-off.
$1 billion and I can't remember Kamala's slogan.