The U.S. Housing Crisis (2025): NIMBY, Immigration, Singles Economy
Excess regulations (NIMBY), illegal Biden-era immigration (packing in SFHs like sardines), and lower marriage rates have led to housing demand outpacing supply
I keep seeing debates on social media (e.g. X) about how people are voting for left-wing toward socialism because housing is unaffordable. (This is NOT the reason for the leftward shift… the leftward shift is mostly explained by aggregate genetic/racial demographics); most other excuses are intellectual rabbit hole copes that have marginal impact.
And FYI — even if people vote “Red” or “right-wing”… the stances of both parties are so far detached from the frontier ethos (minimal/zero safety net, low taxes, small gov, low regulations, etc.) — that they are mostly irrelevant… all paths lead to variations of socialism; right-wing is currently the “closest to” the OG frontier ethos… but that’s not really saying much (if “0” is frontier ethos… both are about 50-60% away from that toward socialism).
Many also think that (A) unaffordable housing & housing shortages are CAUSING (B) low marriage & birth rates… UNLIKELY. Why unlikely? In the past most people got married BEFORE buying homes… couples pooled resources to get a home… then they’d have children. Now there is a big % of people who don’t necessarily even want homes because they are single and/or don’t plan on having kids.
The low birth rates stem partly from interference of free market dynamics — artificially propping up females to the extent they are living easier lives (on avg.) than men: (1) special initiatives (grants, loans, women-only programs, etc.) for women only; (2) egalitarian/DEI defeat of pure merit (e.g. holistic selections for universities and/or jobs and requiring certain % female quotas — rather than just taking those with highest aptitude e.g. highest ACT/SAT scores & GMAs); (3) massive gov welfare state (disproportionately benefitting women). Not to mention favoritism in courts (women get more favorable rulings).
Pair this with: (A) technological changes in dating (online dating, dating app tech, etc.) — resulting in women getting unlimited casual dates and holding out for marriage due to Paradox of Choice and so many options — date until meet “Mr. Perfect”) and (B) female evolutionary advantages in avoiding loneliness (women are genetically superior at forming social bonds and relationships to prevent loneliness compared to men) — and here we are.
NONE OF THIS IS A COMPLAINT… IT’S A DIAGNOSIS OF REALITY TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND IN PART HOW WE ARRIVED HERE.
Women are on top of the food chain in the U.S. which has led them to looking down on men who have lower status than themselves (education, earnings, etc.) — they want at least parity but prefer superiority. And because they are on top, most men are below them in status (earnings, education, etc.).
Add on the social media and dating app dynamics (unlimited attention and on-demand dates or sex as desired) and better social networks — and many women are genuinely enjoying the single life (besties + dogs + special advantages in job market + gov benefits + unlimited date buffet = life is pretty good).
Even women of low social status can have a couple kids and get free housing, free food, free financial subsidies, free healthcare… you name it. In certain states they can live better than full-time workers as a result of the benefits they’re collecting.
Anyways… the point is that a bigger percentage of women are fine with living alone in apartments or buying up single-family homes. In 2024 single-women accounted for 20% of all homebuyers whereas single men accounted for 8%. Among first-time homebuyers specifically, single women accounted for 24% whereas single men accounted for 11%.
Men have been beaten down by anti-merit/manipulated academic/university markets (50% female mandates, special funds, etc.) and job markets (50% female mandates, equal pay for unequal ability, etc.).
Women are wired to date men with higher status (hypergamy): More educated, higher earnings, highly desired traits. This makes logical sense. Women want to reproduce with someone who will give them the best possible offspring. But now men are mostly lower status than them.
Dating apps, social media, casual sex: Dating apps give women unlimited options on demand — Paradox of Choice. Even non-dating apps (e.g. social media: IG, FB, TikTok, etc.) give them unlimited dating/sexual attention. They have unlimited choices and can hold out for Mr. Perfect (the guy fitting a book/Disney movie they watched). Many are having causal sex which interferes with pair bonding and decreases odds of future successful marriage and induces a disgust response in serious suitors.
So we end up with a big inefficiency in the housing market because fewer young people are getting married, pooling resources, and thus living together — downstream from modern market dynamics (market manipulation via gov & special initiatives for women AND free markets where females benefit).
Many young people are buying homes and living alone (women beating men here) AND settling for apartments because they don’t really have any hope for marriage and/or kids. Historically people married first THEN bought a home and had kids; today people aren’t marrying as much… so the subsequent home-buying and kids never happen.
Other obvious contributors to the housing market shortage include regulations (almost all regulations are bad and should be slashed) and immigrants (legal & illegal) pooling resources together (government benefits, tax free off-the-books earnings, etc.) to live in single-family homes (e.g. packing 10-20 in a home); much of the data on illegals driving up housing costs is obfuscated and you will be gaslit into oblivion by AIs and woke organizations suggesting “that’s not what the data show” (as if there are even reliable data)… can just use first-principles logical extrapolation here… or just drive around and observe for yourself in the real-world.
Those complaining about NIMBY have legitimate reasons to complain. Regulations are fucking retarded and we need to “build more.” But building more won’t solve anything if:
The government inserts low-income, mixed-income, “diverse” housing in good neighborhoods (high crime, thugs, gangs): Most people want to live around people of similar socioeconomic status as themselves — they have more in common in behavior, following laws, etc. NIMBY exists in part because people of high status and even middle class don’t want hordes of dysfunctional zombies entering their neighborhoods (weed smoke, homeless, blaring music, unkempt properties, etc.).
The government fails to strictly enforce laws and prevent dysfunction: Woke fuckers don’t lock up criminals or crack down on homelessness. They are also fine with accepting disheveled properties, legal drugs (e.g. weed and cigs everywhere), loud noises (loud pipes, music, etc.), and are fine with homeless loitering on sidewalks. NIMBY helps prevent this shit.
Nobody would have an issue with a new apartment being built in their area (within reason) if it were full of Japanese people who obey the laws, don’t make much noise, and are generally well-behaved (e.g. no “technically-legal” dysfunction).
Do you have any evidence to support this logic? Yes… I can observe reality. The woke retards simply fail to observe history and reality — and defer to theoretical egalitarian gate-kept research that fits their ideal world (no matter how illogical it is).
Can simply observe what happened in cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Memphis, and Chicago… normal people got the fuck out of there because they devolved into third-world gangland-esque warzones (“Chiraq” is a well-known nickname for Chicago based on the idea that it was a warzone akin to the war in Iraq… roughly the same number of people died between 2003-2012 in Chicago as troops in Iraq).
There remain many vacant homes in big cities… people just don’t want to live in dysfunction and decay. But this happened because we don’t harshly enforce the law (El Salvador, Singapore, etc.).
If we had the guts to just shoot gangs on site and keep all criminals locked up with a simple 3 violent crime strike rule, we’d be much safer. (And FYI… you should NOT fully trust the latest crime data. It’s partly correct, but there are many aspects people won’t think about. Read: “Is Crime Actually Dropping?”)
My diagnosis of the current U.S. housing crisis (demand > supply, affordability, complaints)
NIMBYism AND immigration are the top reasons for the current housing shortage and complaints… but decreased demand and more singles buying homes (especially single females) puts pressure on supply (i.e. homes that would’ve typically held a couple — male/female pairing — now are limited to just one person).
Logical NIMBYism: Downstream from failure to enforce laws, rampant homelessness, drug decriminalization/legalization, unreported crime, failure to harshly punish crime, and gov-subsidized housing units (low income, mixed income, etc.) being pushed in the name of diversity initiatives. We can all see what happened in Detroit… people just got the fuck out of there. Smart people don’t want to live near criminals or low-level dysfunction (constantly blasting music, loud pipes, petty theft, explosive anger, weed smoke, etc.).
Immigrants (illegal & legal): Pooling resources together better than natives. Many illegals are getting housing vouchers and benefits from state, local, and federal governments. How? You are an ignorant dipshit if you can’t think it through. Some use fake IDs, others just use their children or both. Many schemes involve legals owning or renting and illegals live with them and pay them with tax-free earnings from construction/farming. They pack into single-family homes like sardines.
Decreased demand, more singles buying, fewer kids: Downstream from low marriage rates & low fertility (which are downstream from (1) academic/job market distortion to elevate women beyond merit AND (2) natural free market on dating apps/social media skewing in favor of women). Lower desire to buy a single-family home if you are unmarried and/or don’t plan on having kids.
Excess Regulations: I HATE REGULATIONS. They always accumulate over time and should be axed as much as possible. But you don’t necessarily want to impose “YIMBY” in highly functional good neighborhoods… because then you just get the people angry who made these areas elite in the first place. Lowering barriers to building is fine but can’t let dysfunction creep in or these places will end up vacant and decaying like Detroit.
Entitlement mindset (good times & social media): The younger generation is a byproduct of “good times.” They do not realize that life was historically far more difficult in the U.S. than today. In the past more people saved and invested, pooled resources, worked like Alaskan sled dogs, lived on bare bones potatoes and meat, and made no excuses. These days people can’t get enough. Just complaints all the way down. Each new benefit you give raises the future bar — there’s no turning back; turn the benefits up from 4 to 5 and 5 becomes the new floor. People feel entitled to live wherever they want at a low cost (e.g. I deserve to live in NYC! I’ve lived here all my life! I demand rent control!). This is amplified by jealousy of “billionaires” in the media and constant scrolling on social media thinking everyone is earning $500k a month. Most will never grasp the concept “wealth inequality” is a GOOD THING in free market economies; the most innovative and/or competent are rewarded and reinvest into more innovation.
Idiocracy (gradual IQ decline): The IQ of the U.S. is declining as a result of dysgenic fertility and immigration. Hordes of 70-90 IQers from South America and Central America entered the U.S. under Biden (2020-2024) and they can’t grasp basic economics so: (1) they assume they are owed more things for free AND (2) can vote to get more free stuff (parasitic democracy); the media and left-wing continue telling them they’re being screwed over by a ruling class of billionaires like Elon Musk (which isn’t true but it’s easy to convince them).
Genetic wiring (dispositions): There are now fewer Whites downstream from brutal selections of the past than ever before in the U.S. The lower % of Whites coupled with a higher % of Hispanics means a slow drift to socialism. No nonwhite group on a national level has EVER voted majority right-wing; they vote for more socialism. Voting preferences are mostly genetic. Yes there are free market Hispanics… but the medians, averages, and distribution of inclinations (downstream from evolution) for Hispanics remain skewed towards collectivist/socialist impulses (share your wealth). (This stuff is heavily debated by retards but you can just observe California as a completed experiment to prove my point.)
Conspicuous consumption/gambling & inflation: The younger generations think it’s normal to buy $25 avocado toasts each morning with a giant latte of Starbucks. You’d be gobsmacked if you knew the extent of absurd spending and loans taken out by the younger gens. Some is related to lower impulse control downstream of genetics AND cellphones/TikTok. They’re gambling more (because gambling is available) and claiming they need to gamble to get ahead (they don’t… they just want to all be billionaires). Many are also smoking weed. Many don’t invest because they want to spend now and demand more from the gov if they are irresponsible… there’s no incentive for saving/smart spending/investing.
Ignoring that plenty of cheap homes exist: Many turn a blind eye to the fact that many homes exist — just not in locations they desire. Perhaps certain states or cities… or in rural areas. Or in dysfunctional parts of Detroit and Chicago. Obviously you don’t want to worry about getting mugged or carjacked each day.
RENT CONTROL WILL NOT HELP: In fact it just makes the problem worse long-term. Nobody wants to be a landlord in this dynamic… landlords no longer make a profit. They stop fixing shit. Properties deteriorate, etc. Many don’t understand this because they are entitled and lack the cognitive ability to understand downstream consequences.
BANNING BLACKROCK, BLACKSTONE, & PRIVATE EQUITY WILL NOT HELP: They own ~3% or less of all single-family homes across the U.S. This is conspiratorial TikTok brainrot drivel spammed by both ends of the horseshoe (woke right and woke left).
A Quick Debunk of the BlackRock and Private Equity Myth
A common low IQ misconception is that firms like BlackRock and other private equity entities are aggressively acquiring single-family homes, driving up prices and making ownership unattainable for average Americans.
This view, while appealing as a straightforward explanation, is NOT supported by the data and distracts from more significant issues. In reality, allowing these investors to participate in the market—particularly through renting—plays a constructive role in maintaining economic stability and housing options.
To start with the scale: As of 2025, institutional investors (those owning 1,000 or more properties) hold only about 0.5% to 3% of the nation’s single-family homes, a fraction that has remained stable or even declined in recent years.
BlackRock specifically does not purchase individual single-family homes for its own portfolio; instead, it invests in mortgage-backed securities and real estate funds that facilitate lending and development, indirectly supporting homebuyers by providing capital to banks and builders.
Private equity firms like Blackstone own even smaller shares—around 0.06% nationally—and their acquisitions have dropped sharply, with many becoming net sellers amid higher interest rates in 2024-2025. Overall, all investors (including small-scale ones) account for 20-30% of single-family rentals, but large institutions represent just 1-2% of the total market, concentrated in a handful of counties rather than dominating nationwide.
This limited footprint means institutional buyers are NOT the primary driver of price increases. If they were, we’d expect uniform spikes in areas of high ownership, but data shows prices correlate more strongly with local regulations, population growth, and supply shortages.
In fact, investor activity has stabilized distressed markets: Post-2008, they converted foreclosed properties into rentals, adding supply where homeownership rates fell and preventing further price collapses in less desirable areas. This has contributed trillions to overall housing wealth, supporting economic fluidity by offering rental options for those not ready to buy—such as amid low marriage rates or delayed family formation.
Renting out properties keeps the economy going by enhancing job mobility (renters can relocate more easily), reducing vacancies in challenging neighborhoods, and generating local tax revenue through property improvements and management.
In markets where investors hold 2-25% of rentals, they’ve helped maintain values and prevent steeper declines, particularly in suburban or recovering urban areas. Policies restricting them—such as caps on ownership or waiting periods for rentals—could backfire, leading to fewer rentals, higher rents, and reduced investment in maintenance or new construction. For instance, research indicates that limiting institutional activity might exacerbate shortages without addressing root causes like zoning barriers.
The data debunk the notion that BlackRock or private equity is “buying up all the homes”—their role is minor and often beneficial.
Ranked Factors Contributing to Housing Challenges in 2025
I HAD GROK REITERATE MY THOUGHTS IN A RANKED ORDER HIERARCHY AND REARTICULATE MY LOGIC.
Based on 2025 data, here’s a prioritized list of reasons for elevated prices, ordered by their estimated impact (e.g., regulations’ broad suppression of supply tops the list, followed by demand amplifiers like immigration).
These intertwine: for instance, low marriage and fertility rates increase singles needing units, while bigger homes and entitlement amplify costs.
National home prices rose modestly at 1.6-3% annually in 2025, but affordability remains strained due to a shortage of 3-7 million units, with turnover at a 30-year low (28 per 1,000 homes).
And many homes are affordable, just not in desired locations, highlighting how expectations play a role.
SPECIAL NOTE: The most underreported reason for high housing prices that isn’t “NIMBY” is immigration (legal and illegal). Many are completely OBLIVIOUS to the schemes that many immigrants run. You will NOT get reliable answers from any AI that depicts the extent of reality. Many legal Hispanic immigrant citizens house illegal immigrants (packing many into a small house) and the illegals work off the books (construction, farming, etc.) paying zero income taxes and thus have more money to contribute to the home… they also collect as many benefits as possible (via children and/or with fake IDs)… and legal immigrants do the same thing. It’s a resource extraction scheme from the gov and wealth transfer from law abiding productive Americans. They then buy up and/or rent many of the available single-family residences and now there’s a shortage. There are also many “legal immigrants” on “work visas” that run these types of schemes. It’s a collaborative effort between: (1) legal citizens, (2) illegals, (3) migrants with legal work visas, and (4) refugees/asylum seekers. The sanctuary cities and woke states make deportations nearly impossible.
Restrictive Regulations and NIMBYism (Dominant Supply Blocker: Accounts for 50-70% of Price Increases in Key Markets): Local zoning, environmental rules, and “not in my backyard” opposition severely limit new construction, creating artificial shortages. Reforms loosening restrictions have increased housing supply by 0.8% within 3-9 years, but NIMBY attitudes persist, blocking millions of needed units. This stems partly from valid concerns: many resist dense apartments in quiet areas due to unenforced crime and Democratic-led “equity” initiatives that mix subsidized low-income units into upscale neighborhoods, potentially importing issues like drugs or violence without safeguards. Both red and blue regions overregulate, deepening shortages and driving costs up. The only viable way to make this work is to eliminate government-forced equity programs that mandate mixing without accountability and actually enforce laws—many crimes are no longer prosecuted or punished, exacerbating fears and resistance to new builds. Regulations like these are fundamentally disrupting supply and should be banned to unlock development.
Immigration-Driven Demand (Legal & Illegal: Boost Prices 1-3% per 1% Population Increase): Immigrants, including undocumented, refugees, and legalized individuals, add $3.7 trillion to U.S. housing wealth but spike demand in hotspots. Data are obfuscated at federal, state, and local levels, masking the extent of overcrowding—illegals often pool untaxed income and benefits, affording more than rule-followers and outbidding others; this is likely far more widespread than reported, with no reliable metrics but evidence suggesting it’s worse than assumed in many cities. Legal immigrants, especially Hispanics and Indians, excel at multigenerational living (up to 31.7% of Latino households, 19.5-30.5% for Asians), pooling resources efficiently and pricing out those without similar dynamics. H-1B visas and chain migration add layers, bringing families and dominating industries without training native workers, leading to long-term outsourcing, poorer natives, and heightened housing competition. Overall, 1% immigration growth correlates with 1-3.3% price hikes, exacerbating mismatches.
Demographic Changes: Declining Marriage & Fertility (Creates 20-30% Demand Inefficiency): Low marriage (rates at historic lows, with only 49-50% of adults married) and fertility (1.6-1.79 births per woman) mean more singles and fewer families, requiring extra units for solos in larger homes. The median age for young adults (18-34) is part of the overall U.S. median of 39.1, and first-time buyers now hit 40—a record high—delaying purchases. Modernization, including dating dynamics and women prioritizing careers (aided by benefits, quotas, and initiatives for equal pay), leads to hypergamy—women holding out for higher-status partners—reducing pairings. Men disengage, women rely on networks and pets; result? Fewer kids, more singles renting or buying alone, but overall home demand may not surge as expected. Historically, people married before buying, so low marriage isn’t caused by housing—it’s the reverse. Many prefer renting due to economics or mate scarcity, with 30-40% of young adults choosing it.
Larger Homes & Shifted Expectations (Doubles Costs vs. Historical Norms) New homes averaged 2,146-2,404 sq ft in 2024-2025, down slightly from peaks but over double the 983-1,000 sq ft of 1950s starters. Older generations began in modest, “shitty” farm or small homes, not the upgraded spaces demanded today. Brainwashing via media fosters envy—expecting mansions affordably, or entitlements like loan forgiveness and price caps—ignoring market mechanics. Today’s youth, products of good times creating entitled mindsets despite advantages, dismiss “OK Boomer” critiques, but boomers are often correct: demands for fixed low prices or rent controls worsen shortages long-term, reflecting a lack of understanding of markets.
Mortgage Rates, Entitled Generation, Irresponsible Spending/Gambling (Adds 10-20% to Payments): Rates at 6.22% in November 2025 are normal historically (averaging 7.71% from 1971-2025, peaking at 16% in 1981), but complainers expect perpetual lows amid inflation. Irresponsible spending, gambling, and debt compound this, making affordability tougher without personal accountability; nobody wants responsibility, thinking rates should always be low regardless of economic conditions. Real disposable income is at historic highs (e.g., $18.10T in Aug 2025), giving households greater purchasing power than ever, yet saving rates are low at 4.6%, down from historical averages of 8.42%. Instead, spending on luxuries like dining out ($88/month on takeout), coffee, and high-end items persists amid inflation, while gambling revenue hits $51.14B (up 8.9%), and retail investors chase meme stocks/memecoins, with 75% losses in 2024 but participation rising (e.g., 30% of consumers betting in Q2 2025).
Abundant Supply in Undesirable Areas (High Vacancies: 10-20% in Problem Spots): Plenty of affordable homes exist—just not where desired. Detroit’s residential vacancy lingers at 20-25%, Chicago similar, due to crime, drugs, and demographic exodus. National rental vacancy is 7%, but dysfunction in these cities leaves units empty. Past generations relocated for opportunity; today’s entitlement demands prime locations subsidized.
Preference for Renting or Alternatives (Reduces Ownership Demand: ~30% Opt Out): With no mates or kids, many skip buying—women with support networks casually date, men withdraw—shifting to apartments or solo homes. Multigen households (18-25% of U.S. total) ease pressure but highlight inefficiencies.
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
Tariffs: Raised duties on softwood lumber and doubled steel/aluminum to 50%. NAHB tallies point to ~$8-11k added to a typical new home even before late-summer step-ups. (Effect on aggregate market is smaller because new builds are a minority of stock.)
Insurance, taxes, infrastructure limits: Higher wind, flood, wildfire premiums and local tax/fiscal constraints deter new supply in risk-prone metros and raise operating costs (Sunbelt & Coasts).
Ranked Highest IQ Fixes for Housing Affordability
You have to do this in a smart way.
Eliminating NIMBY is fine… but you’d better NOT fuck up good neighborhoods by building some ugly ass housing projects serving as a conduit for illegals, gangs, etc. to invade/infest high-functioning areas… or the result will be more vacancies (e.g. Detroit 2.0).
Keep subsidized housing away from high-human-capital areas and/or normal people. Deploy strict law enforcement. Even without “criminals” per se, a notable degree of dysfunction is introduced into high-functioning communities when you mandate “equity,” “DEI,” “diversity,” “low income housing,” and “mixed income housing” bullshit.
If you are getting free housing… you should NOT be able to force your weed smoke and subclinical criminality into healthy places. If you want to move out: work hard, save up, and stay out of trouble.
(FYI: It is 100% true that many people in government subsidized low or mixed income housing have better housing quality/builds than full-time workers in big cities; often brand new furnishings. And many people living there don’t work, smoke weed all day, and steal packages arriving at the front-door. Have witnessed first-hand.)
Deregulate Zoning, NIMBY Rules, and Excessive Regulations (Top Priority: Could Reduce Costs by 25-40% and Boost Supply by Millions of Units) Eliminating burdensome local regulations—such as restrictive zoning, environmental mandates, and permitting delays—is the most effective lever for increasing housing supply and lowering prices. Regulations add nearly 25% to single-family home costs and over 40% to multifamily developments, with inefficient land-use policies exacerbating shortages of 1.5-6.5 million units nationwide. Reforms like reducing minimum lot sizes, allowing accessory dwelling units, and imposing time limits on approvals could add 0.8% to supply within 3-9 years, potentially halving shelter costs (which drive 50%+ of recent inflation). This includes banning overreaching “equity” mandates that force subsidized mixing without safeguards, as they fuel NIMBY resistance amid lax crime enforcement—enforcing laws strictly would reduce fears of dysfunction, enabling more YIMBY-friendly builds. Rationale: Data show deregulation as the “single most effective policy” for supply growth, far outpacing subsidies, with studies estimating 10%+ price drops in deregulated markets. Under Trump-era policies, similar executive actions could streamline this federally.
Curb Immigration Surges & Overcrowding (Reduces Demand Pressure: 1-3.3% Price Drop per 1% Population Reduction): Controlling undocumented inflows, refugees, and chain migration—while reforming H-1B slightly to prioritize native training—addresses obfuscated data on overcrowding, where immigrants pool resources (e.g., multigen households at 18-31.7% for Latinos/Asians) to outbid others, adding $3.7 trillion to housing wealth but spiking prices in hotspots. A 1% immigration increase correlates with 1-3.3% price hikes; reversing this via deportations could ease demand, though short-term labor disruptions (immigrants: 30%+ of construction workforce) require offsets like skilled trades promotion. Rationale: Medium-run studies show immigration’s demand effects outweigh supply contributions in tight markets; curbing it stabilizes prices without subsidies, aligning with Trump proposals for 3%+ drops in frozen areas.
Promote Personal Financial Responsibility and Adaptive Behaviors (Boosts Homeownership by 10-20% via Higher Savings Rates) Despite record disposable income ($18.10T in 2025) and purchasing power, low savings (4.6% vs. historical 8.42%) due to frivolous spending (e.g., $88/month on takeout, $51B gambling revenue up 8.9%, meme stock losses) hinders down payments and affordability. Encouraging responsibility—e.g., cutting luxuries, understanding normal rates (6-7% historical average), and adapting like multigen living or relocating to vacant areas (10-25% in Detroit/Chicago)—could raise ownership rates, as financial stress from debt reduces them by 10-20%. Reject entitlement (e.g., no price caps/rent controls, which worsen shortages) and embrace starter homes (smaller than today’s 2,146-2,404 sq ft vs. 1950s’ 1,000 sq ft). Rationale: Studies link higher savings to reduced financial hardship and better ownership outcomes; this empowers individuals without policy overreach.
Foster Innovation in Construction and Financing (Cuts Costs by 30-50% via Prefab and Supply Chain Fixes): Shift to prefab/modular building (costs $58-85/sq ft vs. traditional $200+), pre-approved plans, and MEP pods to slash timelines (3 days assembly) and expenses ($40k/home savings), while fixing material chains (up 43% post-pandemic). Support skilled trades (shortage: 200k/month) and secondary markets for developer financing. Rationale: Innovations like those from Fornidos and Home Nation deliver subsidy-free affordability; deregulation enables scaling, with 33% cost drops in factory-built homes.
Reform Subsidies and Tax Credits with Strings Attached (Increases Efficiency: 10-20% More Units from Existing Funds): Consolidate programs like LIHTC (reform to direct deductions, end population caps) and vouchers (cash transfers for flexibility), tying federal aid to local deregulation. Preserve market roles (e.g., allow BlackRock/investors, owning 1-3% of homes, to stabilize rentals). Rationale: Current subsidies are inefficient ($0.42/dollar reaches construction); reforms could add units without new spending, though less impactful than supply boosts.
Address Demographic Shifts Through Cultural Encouragement (Modest 5-10% Demand Reduction Long-Term): Counter low marriage (49-50% adults) and fertility (1.6-1.79/woman) by promoting pairings and families, reducing singles in big homes; median young adult age (18-34 bracket in 39.1 overall median) delays buying to 40. End non-merit aids distorting dynamics (e.g., quotas leading to hypergamy). Rationale: Marriage preceded buying historically; boosting rates eases inefficiency, but policy levers are limited—more cultural than immediate fix.
These fixes, if implemented (e.g., via Trump policies like HUD cuts and deportations), could halve costs in hotspots, add 3%+ supply annually, and benefit responsible buyers, per 2025 projections. No silver bullet exists, but focusing here outperforms myths like blaming BlackRock and billionaires.
What Trump needs to focus on…
Trump can’t wave a magic wand and fix all current housing woes.
He is trying to cut as many regulations as possible… but states and localities interfere with what he can do by filing lawsuits or fighting his executive orders.
Trump is trying to prevent "forced diversity housing” in highly-functional parts of cities/states… but the left is predictably fighting this. That said, this is critical for acceptance of YIMBY or elimination of NIMBY.
Trump is trying to deport some illegals, but “Sanctuary Cities” and various ultra-woke states are blocking ICE from doing its job effectively… as a result deportation figures have been much lower than what the right-wing thinks they are.
ELIMINATE REGULATIONS: Trump is arguably the GOAT at eliminating regulations. (Overregulation is partly why the EU is in the gutter.) Not all regulations are bad… but most are. Most regulations related to housing and construction need to be eliminated.
ELIMINATE ALL FORCED HOUSING EQUITY/DEI BULLSHIT: Any laws or demands that certain neighborhoods be more “diverse” or “equitable” need to be axed immediately. All subsidized housing should be restricted to areas that the government picks to keep dysfunction away from high human capital areas. People can work their way out of low SES if they want… but normal people shouldn’t have to live near weed smoke, blaring music, litter, disheveled properties, etc.
NATIONAL GUARD IN BIG CITIES TO HUNT GANGS & CRIMINALS: Should be actively hunting gangs and criminals in cities to help poor people. Businesses won’t operate in poor areas because of the crime and dysfunction. If you really care about quality of life for poors… you should want as many gang members, drug dealers, and criminals locked up as possible. Robot policing, AI surveillance, bait cars, whatever it takes. Get the criminals in jail and keep them there. If that’s too extreme just arrest and ship to El Salvador.
DRUG CRACKDOWN: Sadly the U.S. is too brainrotted by woke illogical studies of “decriminalization” in South America. They can just observe reality to see what works well (yes you can win the “War on Drugs” if you actually try). Singapore stays winning it. Appetite to win is nonexistent. Trump is at least eliminating some of the cartel shipments from Venezuela. Fentanyl is still killing a lot of Americans.
Note: Yes this post was redundant… that’s because I wrote the first part as kind of brain vomit… then I had Grok concisely articulate my thoughts/ideas ranked… I tested Kimi K2… and although it had spunk and is a reasonably good AI… it is beyond woke and will not engage with controversial points (it’ll simply ignore and distort outputs to fit the socially woke narrative).
Note: A potential future issue of concern is if the woke ultra-left-wing Democrats get into power after Trump deregulates, slashes NIMBY, and builds more housing. Why? Building is easier now but they can use the new builds to inject a bunch of “DEI housing” in highly-functional locales (based on egalitarian woke bullshit science claiming it improves outcomes for everyone); you just get dysfunction, crime, and flight of the competent.
Trump’s Verified Tactics for Housing & Potential Effects (2025)
The Trump’s admin has hit the ground running post-inauguration, drawing from Project 2025 blueprints (penned by ex-HUD boss Ben Carson) to dismantle Obama/Biden-era fair housing overreach.
There is still a lot of difficulty Trump will have in “woke” left-wing states/cities… they love: (1) a lot of fucking regulations, (2) equity/DEI/diversity horseshit, (3) rent controls (fucks everything up long-term), (4) soft on crime (activist judges letting people out to murder again), (5) homeless encampments (that they only clean up when Xi visits from China).
Trump will try withhold funds if they don’t comply with his mandates, executive orders, etc. The problem is the wokes love court battles against Trump and cities/states fight hard to defend woke retardation.
Crackdown on crime? Fascist. Crackdown on drugs? Fascist. Preventing Venezuela cartels from shipping fentanyl to the U.S.? Fascist violation of international law. (These wokes are so far gone mentally it’s legitimately sad.)
1) AFFH Repeal / Fair-Housing Rollback
What changed: In March 2025, HUD replaced Biden’s 2021 “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” rules with a minimal “certify-and-comply” standard (interim final rule). Lawsuits continue.
Mechanism: Ends federal pressure on suburbs to mix subsidized housing into higher-income areas. This restores local autonomy and lowers resistance to market-rate building in stable suburbs that had opposed projects out of fear of forced low-income siting.
Effect: Encourages self-sorting by income and behavior, which can stabilize home values and reduce outward flight. Over time, wealthier households stay put instead of relocating to farther exurbs.
Magnitude: Up to 10–20% stabilization effect in at-risk suburbs that were losing families. (Odds of sticking through 2029: ~70%.)
2) HUD Budget “Chainsaw” (~-44% proposed cut)
What changed: FY 2026 proposal cuts HUD’s discretionary programs—vouchers, public housing, and CDBG/HOME—by ≈44%. Final appropriations are TBD.
Mechanism: Reduces subsidies that artificially sustain low-income tenants in expensive metros. Over time, this shifts lower-income households toward lower-cost regions and multifamily housing, while higher-income zones maintain consistency and lower crime.
Effect: In the short term, some displacement from high-cost cores. Long term: greater socioeconomic clustering, fewer incentive distortions, and more efficient use of public dollars. Productive regions retain capital and skilled residents instead of experiencing “middle-class flight.”Odds of partial enactment: ~50%. Durability: one-year at a time; reversible but politically hard to restore to prior levels quickly.
3) Deregulation Blitz / NEPA Streamlining / Federal Land Use
What changed: CEQ rescinded the 2024 NEPA rules; agencies now operate under simplified, faster review standards. Interior and HUD created a task force to release suitable federal land for private and mixed-use housing.
Mechanism: Shortens project timelines by months or years where federal approval was a bottleneck, cuts legal delays, and improves cost predictability.
Effect: Enables faster construction and reduces regulatory overhead, especially for multifamily near infrastructure corridors. The benefit compounds if states copy the model.
Magnitude: Adds roughly 0.5–1% housing-stock growth by 2029 in deregulation-friendly states.
Odds to 2029: ~80%. Durability post-2029: ~40%.
4) FHA Multifamily MIP Cut to 0.25% (effective Oct 2025)
What changed: HUD cut insurance premiums on FHA-insured multifamily loans from ≈ 60–80 bps to 25 bps.
Mechanism: Lowers financing costs, improving project feasibility and investor returns. Particularly helpful for workforce and mid-market apartments.
Effect: Promotes construction of affordable market-rate rentals—the kind lower-income movers can occupy voluntarily, without being forced into wealthier areas.
Magnitude: Could lift new multifamily starts by 5–10% annually once the pipeline matures (2026–2028).
Odds to 2029: ~90% (already finalized). Durability post-2029: High.
5) H.R. 1 (“One Big Beautiful Bill”) – LIHTC Expansion + Opportunity Zones Permanence
What changed: Law enacted July 2025. Permanently raises Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) allocations +12%, lowers the 4% bond test to 25%, and makes Opportunity Zones permanent.
Mechanism: Redirects capital into subsidized and middle-income rental construction in designated zones—mostly lower-value or redevelopment areas.
Effect: Channels development away from already-functioning neighborhoods, reducing pressure on high-SES areas while providing supply for those displaced by HUD cuts.
Magnitude: Adds tens of thousands of units over 2026–2029; localized rent moderation in targeted zones.
Odds to 2029: ~85%. Durability: High (statutory).
6) Public-Safety Crackdown (EO July 24 2025)
What changed: Federal-local coordination to enforce anti-crime and anti-encampment laws; National Guard deployments in some cities.
Mechanism: Restores order in previously unsafe urban cores, improving livability and investment confidence.
Effect: Reduces “flight” from cities and first-ring suburbs. Makes dense living palatable again, allowing higher utilization of existing housing stock.
Magnitude: Areas with meaningful crime drops could see 5–15% higher occupancy and value retention by 2028.
Odds to 2029: ~65% (coordination stable; court fights over grant conditions ongoing).
7) FHFA Direction (Director Bill Pulte)
What changed: New FHFA head with a deregulatory, pro-ownership stance.
Mechanism: Eases GSE underwriting (lower LLPAs, flexible products).
Effect: Marginally expands access to credit for middle-income buyers, helping them stay in desirable areas rather than renting or relocating.Magnitude: Modest (≈ 1–2% more qualified borrowers).
Odds to 2029: ~75%. Durability post-2029: Medium (new admin could replace director).
8) Immigration “Hammer” (Enforcement & H-1B Tightening)
What changed: Increased deportations, stricter H-1B rules, and fewer humanitarian inflows.
Mechanism: (1) Demand: Reduces population growth in high-inflow metros → mild downward rent pressure. (2) Labor: Cuts some construction labor supply, but incentivizes automation, training, and higher domestic wages.
Effect: Over time, fewer illegal overcrowding units; more predictable housing demand; slower rent inflation in gateway metros.
Magnitude: Net 1-3% price relief per 1% population decline from immigration slowdown (empirical range).
Odds to 2029: ~60%. Durability: ~35–40%.
9) HUD & Voucher Reform → More Predictable Markets
(This overlaps with #2 but outcome-focused)
Mechanism: As voucher reach shrinks and time-limits appear, poor renters cluster where costs are sustainable instead of being artificially placed in high-value zones.
Effect: Higher socioeconomic homogeneity in productive areas → less friction, lower insurance risk, less capital flight. Meanwhile, apartment markets in mid-tier regions expand to absorb displaced demand.
Magnitude: Difficult to quantify, but could reduce out-migration from key metros 5–10% and stabilize suburban valuations.
Durability: Depends on yearly appropriations; conceptually durable if results improve visibly.
10) Tariffs (10% Baseline + Higher Steel/Aluminum/Lumber Duties) — The major cost headwind
What changed: April 2025 EO added a 10% baseline tariff on most imports; separate actions raised Section 232 metal tariffs to 50% and softwood-lumber duties above 25%.
Mechanism: Raises construction costs (rebar, framing, appliances).
Effect: Short-term negative: +2–4% build-cost inflation, especially for entry-level homes. Long-term rationale: pressure for domestic supply chain & wage growth.
Odds to 2029: ~70%. Durability post-2029: ~40–50% (easily rolled back).
OVERALL EFFECTS:
Trump’s 2025 housing framework aims to let neighborhoods self-organize instead of enforcing top-down “equity.”
Wealthier and middle-class areas stay cohesive and safe, which reduces the destructive flight patterns seen in places like Detroit or Chicago.
Meanwhile, deregulation and financing reforms expand total supply where it’s economically viable.
The only major near-term drag is tariffs, which raise build costs but could fade if domestic production ramps.
Overall, expect stability rather than collapse, modest affordability gains, and sharper regional divergence—productive areas solidify, dysfunctional ones depopulate naturally.
What Democrats may try to change if they regain levers of power…
Open borders (more immigration): Democrats claim they don’t allow “open borders” and that they follow immigration laws but we know (based on what transpired under Biden) that they don’t and cannot be trusted. Biden had completely open borders. The Democrats will turn the immigration spigot back on full blast. (THE EFFECT WILL BE ANOTHER SUPPLY CRUNCH.)
Re‑regulate fair housing: Reinstate a 2015/2023‑style AFFH (data‑heavy plans, siting expectations). Effect: More leverage over location of subsidized units; friction rises in some suburbs; distribution shifts, not a national supply surge. (NOT WHAT ANYONE SHOULD WANT… JUST FUCKS UP SAFE COMMUNITIES.)
Expand vouchers/tenant protections: More federal $$ and stronger tenant protections (e.g., Good Cause‑like rules) → immediate relief for covered renters; lower new‑build feasibility at the margin where controls are strict, so long‑run supply weaker unless paired with zoning reform. (NYC is the live case: Good Cause already in effect; rent‑freeze proposals are active.) (RESULTS IN LESS MAINTENANCE/LOWER QUALITY, FEWER NEW BUILDS, LOWER SUPPLY.)
Dial down tariffs: Faster path to input cost relief (lumber/steel) → quicker starts for entry‑level product.
NEPA & climate mandates: Longer reviews, higher soft costs on federally-touched projects. Slower delivery in blue states. (MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO EFFICIENTLY BUILD HOUSING WITH THE WOKE DUMBASS REGULATION.)
Public/social housing push: Dems are already pushing for “housing as a right” and they think everyone should be given a single-family home in great condition in the perfect location. (NEWSFLASH: POOR ALREADY GET FREE HOUSING. WILL CROWD OUT PRIVATE AND MID-MARKET AND MAKE EVERYTHING MORE EXPENSIVE.)
Net if Democrats flip in 2028: The combined package (more forced siting, tighter tenant controls, longer reviews, higher inflows) suppresses new supply and concentrates demand into the shrinking free segment, pushing rents up, starts down, and maintenance down—worse overall than Trump’s path, which (despite tariff headwinds) aims to remove equity mandates, streamline process, and expand MF supply via FHA/LIHTC, yielding modest affordability gains rather than a tightening spiral.
How this likely plays out under Trump (2025-2029): Timeline & Scenarios
When will we notice changes? The housing market adjusts slowly; financing and permitting cycles mean policy effects take 12–36 months to surface.
2025 to Mid-2026
Tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber raise construction costs 2–4%, delaying some projects and trimming entry-level housing supply.
Labor tightness persists as immigration slows, keeping build times long.
AFFH repeal reduces siting conflicts in suburbs but doesn’t yet boost supply.Mortgage rates near 6.2% lower payments slightly, but sellers capture much of the gain.
Result: Demand stays stable while supply stagnates—prices hold, rents stay firm.
Mid-2026 to 2027
FHA’s 0.25% multifamily MIP and LIHTC bond-rule changes start producing closings and groundbreakings, mainly for rental units.
NEPA streamlining shortens some approvals.
Result: First visible supply lift in multifamily; rents start cooling where those units cluster, though single-family housing remains constrained.
2027–2028
Multifamily deliveries peak from 2026 starts. Vacancy edges higher and rent growth slows.
Red and Sunbelt states cooperating on permitting see strong building; blue states with rent freezes or “Good Cause” laws see capital leave and starts fall.
Result: Affordability improves modestly nationwide but diverges sharply by region.
2029
The new multifamily stock is fully visible. National affordability up roughly 3–6% vs 2024, driven by added rentals and steadier mortgage payments rather than falling prices.
Pro-build states clearly better; rent-control states face sluggish supply and rising “free-market” rents.
Scenario Outlooks (2025-2029)
Base Case (~55%) — Offsets & Stalemates: Tariffs persist, labor tight, rates 6–6.3%, immigration subdued. Prices +0–2% / yr; rents +2–3%; starts 1.35–1.5 M; affordability +3–6%. Federal finance gains offset by cost and labor drags.
Upside (~20%) — Supply Scales: Tariff carve-outs, targeted trade visas, by-right reforms, safer cities. Prices −1 to +1%; rents +1.5–2.5%; starts 1.55–1.7 M; affordability +6–10%. When supply expands faster than demand, rate relief stops inflating prices.
Downside (~25%) — Cost Bind & Policy Fights: Tariffs broaden, labor tightens, courts slow implementation, blue-state rent caps spread. Prices +2–4%; rents +3–4%; starts 1.2–1.3 M; affordability flat to +2%. Cost-push inflation and regulatory friction swamp federal reforms.
Under Trump’s approach, demand stays steady and controlled immigration keeps pressure moderate. Supply slowly improves through 2028 as FHA and LIHTC incentives feed a multifamily wave. Tariffs remain the main short-term drag.
By decade’s end, expect modest national affordability gains, flat real home prices, and a sharper divide: pro-build states improve, heavy-regulation states stagnate.
States complying vs. resisting Trump’s housing policies (Expectations)
This is a bipartisan issue… but Democrats are so anti-Trump and so brainwashed with wokeness that they often fight back against reasonable ways to improve housing supply/costs.
If you are a Democrat you should be against things like forced DEI housing, accepting crime & dysfunction, and anything that imposes regulations to prevent building (e.g. “climate compliant” buildings etc.).
States/metros that help (YIMBY‑ish, process reforms, neutral tax posture): Faster approvals + take‑up of FHA/LIHTC + targeted use of federal land → more multifamily supply 2027–2029; rents decelerate; home prices flatter in real terms.
States/metros that resist (broad rent control / “Good Cause” expansions / heavy litigation): Near‑term tenant relief; but weaker pro formas and higher regulatory risk → fewer starts and more rapid capital pullback. NYC is a live case: Good Cause Eviction is already law; rent‑freeze proposals are prominent political planks for 2025–2026. Net: less new supply, tighter vacancy, and long‑run higher market rents for non‑regulated units.
Bottom Line on Housing Supply vs. Demand in the U.S. (2025)
Expect more populism in the mainstream… both parties will just do something aligned with socialism/communism to fix complaints (but they won’t call it this… they’ll obfuscate the perception).
Why? Because they don’t have a choice. We live in a parasitic democracy wherein a majority (~60-80%) are lifetime net negative taxpayers at the local, state, and federal levels — yet they hold the majority of voting power.
How do you think they’ll vote? More handouts.
The horseshoe ends of the woke right (deportations, tariffs, no foreigners of any kind, “tariff stimulus checks", etc.) AND the woke left (“housing is a right”) are converging… they’ll each have a slightly different process/framing to appease their voter bases, respectively.
Ultimately the government will make it far easier for people to buy housing (via special credits/handouts) or they’ll just give people free housing… it’s all slowly coming down the pipeline (FYI poor people already get free housing in the U.S. but now it’s a big issue for middle class because supply has dwindled/thinned).
Normal people should hope that the right-wing has success because the left-wing policies are more likely to: allow infinite immigrants, be soft on crime, legalize crimes, force socio-economic mixing (DEI/equity housing) in more places, etc. based on illogical woke research.
Housing likely is NOT as big of an issue as everyone thinks (the media keeps pushing it and this reinforces its popularity as an issue). Everyone now feels entitled to a large single-family home despite low rates of marriage and kids.
“PEOPLE NEED HOUSING!” (This does NOT mean everyone *needs* to or should feel entitled to live in a single-family home at a low cost in a desirable location.)
In the past people worked hard to buy what they could afford and didn’t have a sense of entitlement that they should be allowed to live in NYC or LA or wherever they desire at the expense of the productive (gov subsidies, etc.).
I suspect NIMBY laws have been maintained in part as a sort of protectionist mechanism against community destruction/decay downstream from left-wing forced “mixed” and “equitable” and “DEI” communities, lax law enforcement, and legalization of drugs — straining productive residents who prefer socio-economic homogeneity and predictable behavioral norms.
Low-level dysfunction such as: blaring music, weed smoke, criminality, homelessness, Pitbulls, etc. are not things middle, upper-middle-class, or upper class enjoy. They want proper levels of noise, no weed smoke, no Pitbulls, and reasonable social etiquette (not worrying about someone breaking and entering while they’re at the grocery store) — forcing them to accept more dysfunction is not a winning way to achieve YIMBY.
So eliminating NIMBY is good but you MUST NOT MANDATE socio-economic diversity… let the free market sort things out (people want to live around others similar to them in status).
A combination of YIMBYism, deportations (of some illegals), and preventing more illegals — could dramatically improve the current housing situation.
Trump can’t do this on his own… need big changes in STATE & LOCAL REGULATION (zoning, permitting, impact fees, laws)… if states and localities don’t change, we can’t build more housing.
IF YOU CARE ABOUT HOUSING SUPPLY, YOU SHOULD VOTE REPUBLICAN. (OTHERWISE: IMMIGRATION FLOODGATES + MORE REGULATIONS + GOVERNMENT HOUSING PROJECTS = SUPPLY CRUNCH).
TLDR: HOUSING CRISIS FIX (2025)
YIMBY & Deregulation: Cut all regulations (restrictive zoning, environmental red tape, bullshit permitting) interfering with building at federal, state, and city/local levels.
Organic Socioeconomic Clustering + Law Enforcement: Zero forced socioeconomic mixing (low income, mixed income, DEI/equity housing) and strict law enforcement everywhere (makes houses in “hoods” and gang areas livable again if you just eliminate the criminal entities).
Stop Illegal Immigration: Need to stop all illegal immigration (opening the borders like Biden did will force more of a supply crunch).