Post

Conversation

David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

I am going to make a prediction which I hope isn't right: The housing market is going to be very difficult for new buyers for the indefinite future. Monthly mortgage payments on new homes are up 50% since 2020. But median household income is only up 10%. I just don't see
By law, the US adds 1 million new naturalized citizens and 1 million new permanent residents every year. We also have 1 million visa overstays every year. Even with lower illegal border crossings, the American population grows by 1% a year by *official* immigration statistics
Right now, we only build 1 million new single family homes per year. We need to be building two times that to significantly lower prices.
Chinese, Indians, Arabs, and Mexicans come to America so they can live in a big house in the suburbs somewhere. That really is their American dream. I frequently see these groups buying up big homes and cramming multiple generations into a single property.
Everything I hear right now anecdotally is that the housing market for "reasonable" family homes (1500-2200 square feet) is scorching hot. Multiple all-cash offers in the first 24 hours here in Hillsdale. Still. In 2025.
And in a decent area, the amount of people investing in real estate is crazy. Every boomer with money that I know is scooping up land and homes. I see people constantly working on nearby dump houses to try get them livable because the return is good enough.
If you are waiting on the housing market to collapse, my guess is you are going to be waiting a very long time. The 2008-2013 period was, in my view, an aberration. The immigration-fueled population boom can only be slowed by congressional action and the chance of Congress
Even Trump didn't campaign on lowering legal immigration. Keeping housing prices sky high is awesome for the Boomers. They are the only class of Americans who is downsizing and so they really can make out like bandits when they finally sell.
The only way to meaningfully make homes affordable today is to control immigration. Deregulating the home market might generate a bunch of new housing but it won't be high quality and so demand for good houses will remain high.
With so many buyers having locked in low interest rates in the last decade, we are going to see people hanging onto those houses. Why give up the golden goose?
The raw inflow of people is the chief reason for housing being so high. Monetary policy also plays a role, of course, but demand is driving the bus here.
Where I live, basically every home is up 80-100%+ since 2020. Completely unsustainable. Starter homes going for 6-700k and modestly “nice” homes are $1 million.
In a crowded country, which the US has become (limit to the places where there are jobs), the typical family lives in a small apartment, not a standalone house. There is no reason to expect a median worker (or even two median workers) to be able to afford a house. It worked when
Image
Unfortunately, I think you’re right. Interest rates are so high that borrowing to buy a home is unreasonable, which leaves only existing home owners and extremely wealthy young people as the only market participants.
To make it even worse, historically, when interest rates fall home values hold or go up. IE, when money is "easier" to get, the property values typically go up.
Confirmed, and if I attempted to sell and move I'd immediately suffer a $500 a month slap in the face.
Somewhat unsurprising, since US mortgage holders can refinance or close out their mortgages at any time. It would be unusual to see existing mortgages have higher costs than market by more than the cost of refinancing (amortized over the rest of the loan). Of course, this
Under 4% here. I lucked out in terms of timing, buying pre-COVID. Know lots of younger guys with full time decent jobs who cannot get into the market. Not sustainable.
Ha, I’ve gotta say, I didn’t expect the original tweet taking that xenophobic hard right turn by the end of the thread haha
And we cant sell in order to downsize because we wont give up the rate we have. They need to make mortage loan rates transferable in order to free up inventory.
That data point seems flawed. Grok estimated 15 percent give or take above 6 percent. Further, $rkt mortgage on November earnings call said int he low 6’s they had a substantial spike in refinance activity. About 20 percent in every percentage jump down with 20 percent under 3%
Pacific Palisades present an opportunity for the environmentally concerned left to show us how it should be done. High rises in the PP for all! We can do this right, and it’s the right thing to do! 👍🤣
This is what I do on a daily basis: Investor joins The Offer Haus. They answer a few questions telling us about the property they are looking to invest in. The calculator will show them how much they’ll save. The software 1. Creates an entire offer in 10 minutes 2. Fills out
Image
What if I told you the way you structure your real estate deal could save you thousands in taxes? Creative deal structuring isn’t just for the pros. Understanding how to leverage 1031 exchanges, depreciation, or even seller financing can drastically change your bottom line.
Think about it! it’s NOT mind blowing at all. If you had a mortgage HIGHER THAN current market rates, you would simply refi DOWN to market rates.
This sounds like you’re a bag holder coping about an illiquid market. Your model is only correct when the US population is growing YoY through productive White people having children.
That stat is from two years ago and not at all applicable to 2025 after multiple years of >6% rates. What an idiotic thread.
And builders have incentives far lower than what overpricing home loaners have in mind. Here in Central Florida we got 1962 Space Race 3/1.5 (& 3 b/c carport enclosed) homeloaners thinking people will pay them 10-15% less than a new build across the road with 30% more sq ft.
I don’t get why everyone wants to mess with the demand side to fix this problem. Just fix the supply side. Simply allow more housing to be built, it’s profitable for everyone and costs the government/ taxpayers $0.
The solution is simple: deport 40 million+ people. The will or power has not yet been seen, but it's there, well reflected by polling.
Have you looked into the subprime lending % of total mortgages? Might be corrected sooner rather than later if it’s true that there are still massive amounts of lockdown mortgage relief in effect
Corporations heavily "invested" in private real estate to set market limits on rents in popular areas. That drives buyers a little further out, that drives lower income families further out
It's not wild at all. Rather, it's expected. Why would anyone keep higher than the current mortgage rate when they can refi almost at the current rate? By definition, the current rate is the maximum most people should be paying.
Id happily buy some land and build a house. The problem is no one is selling and the federal government sits on the rest like a brooding hen.
But not for 30 years fight? Some are fixed for 5 or 7 years only !
Americans are just gonna have to get used to illegally occupying a house with many family members. Not saying this is good, just being realistic.
That’s why no one has been selling and supply is limited. You literally need people to die off for new stock
This is actually super crazy. I know people don't want to sell because of their rate and buyers love seeing an assumable loan But 99%? Crazy
Why did you suddenly go hard right xenophobic rather than recognize the real conclusion - we need to build more homes?? less zoning regulation, cheaper supplies (lower import tariffs), better public transport so people can commute from houses further away
What if you’re someone who has a 2.75% rate and you’re retiring in the next 5 years but will only have been in your 30 year mortgage for about 8 years? What do you do if you want to move to a warmer climate?
2.3%. 18 years left, probably pay off in 10 but why. I’ll never sell. Not with that rate.
Are the numbers right?
Answer by Grok, expand to see full conversation
Let’s analyze the numbers mentioned in the target post (Post ID: 1900762671399551040) by Josiah Lippincott, which states: "By law, the US adds 1 million new naturalized citizens and 1 million new permanent residents every year. We also have 1 million visa overstays every year. Even with lower illegal border crossings, the American population grows by 1% a year by official immigration statistics alone." I’ll evaluate each claim based on the provided web results and general knowledge, considering the current date (March 15, 2025) and the context of the data available as of 2025. 1. 1 million new naturalized citizens every year Claim Analysis: The post claims the U.S. adds 1 million naturalized citizens annually "by law." Evidence from Web Results: Web result 0 (USCIS - Naturalization Statistics, published January 24, 2025) indicates that over the last decade, USCIS welcomed more than 7.9 million naturalized citizens, averaging roughly 790,000 per year (7.9 million ÷ 10 years ≈ 790,000). However, this is an average over a decade, not a fixed annual number mandated by law. The USCIS data doesn’t specify a legal requirement for exactly 1 million naturalizations per year. Naturalization numbers fluctuate based on applications, eligibility, and processing, not a fixed quota. In FY 2024, for example, the data doesn’t provide an exact figure, but historical trends suggest it’s often below or around 800,000–900,000 annually, not consistently 1 million. Conclusion: The claim of 1 million new naturalized citizens every year is not accurate as a legal mandate or consistent statistic. It’s an approximation or overestimate based on recent trends, but not a fixed number "by law." The actual number is typically lower, averaging around 790,000 per year over the past decade, according to USCIS data. 2. 1 million new permanent residents every year Claim Analysis: The post claims the U.S. adds 1 million permanent residents (Lawful Permanent Residents, or LPRs) annually "by law." Evidence from Web Results: Web result 0 (USCIS) mentions naturalization but doesn’t provide specific annual figures for LPRs. However, U.S. immigration policy does set annual limits on green cards (LPR status) through various categories (family-sponsored, employment-based, diversity visas, refugees, etc.). Web result 1 (Pew Research, September 27, 2024) notes that the U.S. foreign-born population reached 47.8 million in 2023, with an increase of 1.6 million from the previous year. This growth includes both new LPRs and other immigration statuses, but it doesn’t specify a fixed 1 million LPRs annually. Historically, the U.S. issues around 1 million green cards (LPRs) per year, but this is not a strict legal mandate—it’s a target or outcome based on demand, quotas, and processing capacity. For example, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets caps (e.g., 480,000 family-sponsored, 140,000 employment-based, plus additional categories like refugees), but actual numbers can vary due to backlogs, policy changes, and adjustments. Conclusion: The claim of 1 million new permanent residents every year is reasonably close to recent trends (e.g., Pew Research shows significant growth in the foreign-born population, and historical data often shows around 1 million green cards issued annually). However, it’s not a fixed legal requirement "by law"—it’s an approximation based on typical outcomes, not a guaranteed number. 3. 1 million visa overstays every year Claim Analysis: The post claims there are 1 million visa overstays annually. Evidence from Web Results: The web results provided do not directly address visa overstays. However, I can draw on general knowledge and recent studies (noting that the data might not be fully up-to-date for 2025 but can inform 2023–2024 trends). The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Pew Research have historically estimated visa overstays. For example, a 2019 DHS report estimated that in FY 2017, there were about 630,000 overstays out of 79 million nonimmigrant admissions (0.8% overstay rate). More recent estimates (e.g., from 2022 or 2023) suggest the number could be higher due to increased travel post-pandemic, but 1 million overstays annually is likely an overestimate or rounded figure. Visa overstays are difficult to track precisely, as they depend on entry/exit data, enforcement, and compliance. No recent data in the web results or general knowledge supports a consistent 1 million overstays per year as an "official" statistic. Conclusion: The claim of 1 million visa overstays every year is not well-supported by available data. It’s likely an overestimate or speculative figure, as recent estimates suggest the number is lower (e.g., around 600,000–700,000 annually in recent years), though it could fluctuate. 4. American population grows by 1% a year by *official* immigration statistics alone Claim Analysis: The post claims the U.S. population grows by 1% annually due to "official" immigration statistics (naturalizations, permanent residents, and visa overstays). Evidence from Web Results: Web result 1 (Pew Research, September 27, 2024) states the U.S. foreign-born population reached 47.8 million in 2023, an increase of 1.6 million from 2022 (about 3.4% growth for the foreign-born population, not the total population). However, this growth includes all immigrants, not just the categories mentioned (naturalized citizens, LPRs, and overstays). Web result 3 (Wikipedia on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, updated March 2, 2025) notes that the foreign-born percentage of the U.S. population increased from 5% in 1965 to 14% in 2016, but doesn’t provide annual growth rates for 2025. The total U.S. population in 2023 was approximately 334 million (per Census Bureau estimates). A 1% growth would mean an increase of about 3.34 million people annually. However, the combined total of the numbers cited (1 million naturalized, 1 million LPRs, 1 million overstays = 3 million) is close to this, but it’s an overestimate (as shown above, the actual numbers are likely lower). U.S. population growth also includes natural increase (births minus deaths) and net migration. In recent years, net international migration has been the primary driver of population growth, but the total growth rate has been closer to 0.5%–0.7% annually (not 1%), according to Census Bureau data. Immigration contributes significantly, but not exclusively, and the 1% figure seems high for "official" immigration statistics alone. Conclusion: The claim that the U.S. population grows by 1% a year due to "official" immigration statistics alone is likely an exaggeration. While immigration (including naturalizations, LPRs, and overstays) drives significant population growth, the total U.S. population growth rate has been below 1% in recent years (e.g., 0.5%–0.7% annually). The 1% figure might include other factors (like births to immigrants) or be an overestimate of immigration’s direct contribution. Summary of Accuracy 1 million naturalized citizens**: Inaccurate—typically around 790,000 annually, not a fixed legal mandate. 1 million permanent residents**: Reasonably close to recent trends (around 1 million green cards annually), but not a strict legal requirement. 1 million visa overstays**: Likely an overestimate—recent estimates suggest fewer overstays (e.g., 600,000–700,000 annually). 1% population growth from official immigration statistics**: An overestimate—total U.S. population growth is below 1% annually, and immigration’s contribution is significant but not solely responsible for 1% growth. Final Assessment The numbers in the post are not entirely accurate and appear to be rounded or speculative estimates rather than precise, official statistics. The claim of "by law" for these figures is misleading, as there’s no legal mandate for exact annual numbers of naturalizations, LPRs, or overstays. The 1% population growth figure is also an overestimate based on current data. However, the post reflects a general trend of significant immigration-driven population growth, which aligns with the web results showing a rising foreign-born population and housing demand pressures.
Show more
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content

Discover more

Sourced from across X
I’ve said this a lot privately but I’m not sure I’ve said it on here. Trump and Elon are both extremely strange figures of world-historic consequence. Neither had ever met someone they could relate to until they met each other, and they’re in love. All the cynical readings of
Quote
Molly Ploofkins
@Mollyploofkins
Does this child live at the White House now?
The more you learn about the French Revolution the more hilariously insane it becomes. It was basically like the woke student council from an Ivy League university trying to reboot every aspect human civilization
I think many of you underestimate how many people (from boomers to gen z) just don't do basic chores in their homes. no, they don't have cleaning services or anything like that--they just simply don't do everyday household chores and maintenance.
Quote
Travis
@Isthat_travis
“Why aren’t you married?” lol
Seeing the people who dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into EVs and EV infrastructure (because of climate change) sell their Teslas for gas-powered SUVs to spite Musk is hilarious to me
Quote
Lisa Kashinsky
@lisakashinsky
Dem Sen. Mark Kelly has gotten rid of his Tesla for a Chevy Tahoe
Image