I've been casually job hunting for a couple months since rounds of layoffs started at my company.
I've applied to umpteen places and haven't had a single callback. In my twenty+ years working as a dev, this is the worst I've seen it since about 2005.
Recently went on the market after my employer of 16 years went to shit. Got lucky with a hybrid gig that is really WFH 98% of the time after 120 applications and 26 interviews spread out over 15 companies. It was a roller coaster that I do not recommend.
I’m in the same boat. I’ve been employed since 2019, got laid off 3 weeks ago. I’ve applied to over 70 jobs and not a single has replied other than to reject me. This is brutal.
The thing that seemed to work best for me was reaching out to dev shops in my area and starting a conversation even if they didn't have a position posted. Go to meetups and talk to people, join their discord, etc... and job fairs, as lame as they seem, produced contacts for me that are still reaching out "just in case" even though I found a position eventually.
What's old is new again. Get those soft skills warmed up and go out and shake hands.
Job fairs are super underrated. When my spouse and I were a bit in flux years back for where we were going to live long-term, we ended up living in the city where we met which is very much not a tech hub - only a few big companies that hire engineers - despite spouse applying to various places in SF, Denver, and Seattle.
He landed the local job first by going to a career fair that I randomly discovered on Twitter. Affected the whole trajectory of our life.
I completely agree with you. All the best jobs I've had have come from personal relationships.
Took me over a year to find new employment. Hell, at one point I was getting rejected from low/no-skill positions. Y’know the same ones that had been bitching and whining not too long ago about “no one wants to work”.
In the end, I was saved solely by the grace a nepo-referral. for a job I was arguably less qualified for than all the ones that had been rejecting me.
I'm sorry to hear that. I have close friends who are brilliant (and seniors) but spent 6-8 months finding a new job. Plan accordingly.
There are no jobs. I've done this for two years now. Bunch of bullshit job ads or referrals to jobs that turn out never got approved internally. Tech hiring is gone, especially in non-direct-engineering roles such as Product, Design, Project/Program Mgmt etc
Good luck. Reddit job hunting(?) sub has it pegged at ~400 applications, IIRC
I'd caution from reading too much into numbers like this. 400 applications is borderline spamming, putting quantity over quality, which employers would notice.
It can be far fewer if you have a focus/specialty and specific industries that you target.
No doubt though, it's a slog right now. My recent process was around 10 applications - which became 3 interviews - and the last 2 were offers, one that came via a recruiter. Even this is a marked increase in difficulty vs 4 years ago.
Being deliberate hasn't helped me. Hell, I've learned quite a bit about this one company. In my last interview, I asked a question that surprised the interviewers. It was about something they had yet to start work on which came up in another interview for a different position which I had already been rejected for. They still rejected me. At this point, I'm guessing I'm black-balled.
I've been there, but just because you did things the "right" way and got rejected from one company doesn't mean you should throw away what worked. After all, they did interview you for a second role after the first one.
That said, especially in a tough labor market, finding a job is like dating, and the vibes matter a lot. While you control your side of the vibe, you don't control the other side. Technical people especially often don't want to think about the interpersonal factors, but they are a real part of the process.
I have sent out 1200 applications with a roughly 15% response rate. Of those 15%, ~85% were instant rejections.
It would be difficult for employers to notice since they are also spamming job postings en masse
It is definitely a MAD arms race. Bad actors on both sides force everyone to aggressively spam/filter
And after auto-rejecting one hundred people because of faulty filters they say "Why are there no good candidates?".
The economy isn't doing bad, it's just not there and everyone is still pretending.
It is difficult to balance the competing priorities of "home ownership is widely affordable" and "home prices must always go up".
When the balance is not broadly possible, our system seems to favor "home prices must always go up", at least in the short term.
Mostly the priorities are not competing. You can and should build more homes but the end goal is to improve utility of land which can further drive prices up thus helping both cases.
You can first build more homes - prices go down and more people come into the city and prices start going back up because of increased economic activity.
> You can and should build more homes
Yes. The entry point to ownership lies within a state of affordability.
> but the end goal is to improve utility of land
For who? If it's anyone other than typical wage earners, this goal competes with home ownership by pressuring ownership costs upward and away from affordability.
For context, home purchases are mostly (if not fully) impossible for typical wage earners.
For the city or country. Home ownership is not impossible, I know you meant it as hyperbole.
We shouldn’t mind if home ownership becomes costly if more economic activity results out of it. More economic activity means more money in the hands of wage earners (just that proportionally more money is spent on housing which is okay).
> Home ownership is not impossible, I know you meant it as hyperbole.
I did not. 25% of US households make under $40/yr.
(based on 2022 data that 25% of all US households make ~$35k/yr or less. +10% for minorities.)
There are many places in the US where you can buy a house for less than 50k.
If you want prices to drop in popular areas then we have to make it easy for people to actually build houses and increase supply in popular areas. Of course giving homeowners a say about whether housing is allowed to be built near them, of course they are going to vote against it because they have an incentive to keep prices high.
I think it’s natural for homeowners to be resistant to new builds in the same way office workers hated the move to cubicles.
I was in the Midwest recently and it was wild to see a block of high density houses in the middle of farmland. Houses that look exactly the same, shoved onto tiny lots with little gap between them, and surrounded by miles of corn.
These are obviously attractive to developers as they are maximized profit vehicles, but the downsides to everyone else are enormous.
In my opinion, we need to build housing above stores, so communities can actually work. Build a town, not a subdivision. What’s the point of a $50k home if you have to spend two hours a day driving to make it work?
They were probably 50 mi or so away from a large city, which is within "commuting" distance.
> Build a town, not a subdivision.
I would really love to see a billionaire tackle this. There's loads of empty, or nearly empty, space in this country. Heck, take over a town if you really want! Sink a few million dollars into kickstarting small-scale urbanism.
I'm not usually much of a billionaire-hater, but today's lot for the most part seems to be uninspired, when it comes to projects like this.
First institute a land value tax. If you have a regular property tax you are going to get speculators, and then eventually vacant lots
This is part of the housing supply mystery. It's not very profitable to build housing when you are punished for building upwards and making good use of the land
Some states are biasing property taxes more toward land value to get some trade off. The problem with a pure land value tax is that you can be forced to sell your home ir redevelop (if you can afford it) if your land value appreciates over time (this should happen eventually, but will happen perusals too quickly with an LVT). Also, services (schools) rendered with property tax money scale as more people live there, and if you go for pure land value, you wind up with some whacky rates to support schools.
I'm a big proponent of LVT, and even bigger of gradually replacing most taxes with LVT, but the great thing about being a billionaire is you can just buy up a whole town and develop it as you see fit and not have to worry about speculators engaging in rent-seeking behavior.
I don’t think you’ll ever see a billionaire tackle this. To become a billionaire, you have to have a complete lack of empathy.
This is why the only solution we see are maximized profit vehicles. The qualities that would make someone want to create a lovely place to live exclude them from making billions of dollars in the first place.
Did you both not see the project that is trying to do exactly this in Solana County CA and has had immense criticism at it, far more than positive coverage...
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Looks like it's stuck in the typical hell of environment impact reviews and local politicians seeing how many sinecures they can obtain through the project. I wish the project well and will follow up on it.
Do the homes selling for less than 50k have a job market to supports owning a home at that price?
And do they a) qualify for normal mortgage products b) need another $50-100k dumped into them immediately to be habitable.
Yes they do, there are many normal houses which can be bought for very cheap just spend some time on Zillow looking at areas outside of major metro areas.
You could very easily live in a big city and work a job to save up 50k or a down payment for a 50k mortgage and then buy one of these cheap houses to live in. But most people don’t want to do that. They want nice weather and fun things to do, access to a good job market, and good schools. But the reason why those houses are 50k is just because of simple supply and demand. There is very little demand to live in Louisiana or West Virginia and tons of demand to live in the Bay Area or Seattle. If you increase supply, eventually prices will fall and accessibility will increase.
c) Have a shit ton of back taxes owed.
I agree with all of that, but I think there is additional nuance. I would love if the path were as simple as:
(1) Make housing easier to build.
(2) Receive sufficient housing supply.
Even if you make it easier to build houses, there is a market for the capital that housing developers access. Currently, that market also assumes that prices will go up (or at least not go down). Thus, once we go far enough past the point where existing prices are higher than the return on new housing, even all of our dream reforms may not lead to a flood of new housing starts.
I want to be clear: loosening zoning, reforming regulations, and so forth, are all still worth doing. It is better than nothing. But if the result is a shock of supply, the financing for new homes from the biggest players will dry up. That doesn't make a solution impossible, but it does complicate it.
And add to that an unsupportable tax burden to disincentivize large firms buying up hundreds or thousands of homes and then renting them.
That does indeed seem to be a problem but there's a flip side. If you can't afford to buy a thing, then renting it is actually preferable. Rental is normally fine, unless there is a virtual monopoly on housing that forces people to rent and manipulates prices. In the absence of a monopoly, the rental price is just the time value of the place plus a reasonable service fee decided by a free market.
There's a cute little shipping container
https://www.propertyunder50k.com/list_view.php?show_set_aler...
[dead]
Why get out of a 3-4% loan just to get into a 7-8% loan?
I think if you believed 7-8% loans were normal, you might be more likely to bite the bullet and make your move.
But if you believe 3-4% is normal, then you’re probably waiting for rates to return to “normal.”
I think it’s a side effect of years of low interest rates… people are conditioned now to believe low is normal, and they want to hang on until we get back to that.
I was hoping rates would stay “high” for a while which I thought would soften the housing market so I could buy, but that doesn’t seem to have happened. Instead of prices dropping, inventory just dried up.
Shows how silly I am for thinking I could time the market.
It's the other way around. If you think 3% is normal, you buy now and refinance while people think that the house is unaffordable. Remember that lower interest rates make home prices go even higher!
If you think it will stay at 7%, that 3% loan you already have is a treasure to keep using for a decade or two.
I would have agreed, but in reality, higher rates haven’t improved affordability.
Instead, high rates plus economic uncertainty has reduced supply significantly because no one wants to sell.
Maybe lower rates will make prices even more unaffordable, which would make this a low period by comparison, but if you look at home price to income numbers, they’re still near record highs.
Maybe it means: if you think the line is always going up and to the right, today is the best day to buy, but that’s a weird way for me to think of a house, which I still kind of see as a consumable good rather than an investment vehicle.
At 2.25% I'm not sure it will ever make financial sense for me to move. Upsides and downsides to that.
Yep, it's insane that people think 3% loans will magically fix the housing market. It's beyond delusional that they refuse to accept it accelerate home price increases and bidding wars.
Real estate market will soften as the economy comes off the rails [1]. 6-12 months from now should have more motivated sellers depending on market (foreclosures in Clark County Las Vegas market are up 32% year over year June 2025, for example [2]). Short sales and foreclosure auctions are also options. If you still want to buy down the road, be in the strongest financial position possible to get financing and make an offer when the market conditions turn more buyer favorable. Seller concessions can be used to buy down the mortgage rate, if that’s useful information.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/14/us-housing-markets-falling-p...
Put in other words, in any market, there are bids and there are offers. Prices don't move until one side gets in a rush. A seller's market (like in 2021) is one where buyers are in a rush and will lift the offer. A buyer's market (like during GFC) is one where sellers are in a rush and will hit the bid.
The pressure on buyers, at least in the past couple of decades, is that the increase in the supply of housing has not been at all commensurate with the increase in population. That, combined with a great increase in the money supply, makes for tremendous upward pressure on real estate prices.
Sellers generally aren't in a rush except in times of economic crises, especially paired with a period of overleveraging running up to it; i.e. the GFC. Economic softening appears to be in the works at the moment, so buyers should get a little reprieve soon, but since there isn't the same overleveraged buyers all rushing for the exits like in 2008, a similar crash is unlikely.
The housing market won't soften until we build a shit ton of houses which will never happen until there are a lot of very angry people willing it into existence.
I don’t think we’re ever going to build houses again at the rate we did before the 2008 GFC. A substantial portion of people who work in construction are undocumented (and will be targeted for deportation by this admin for the remains of their term), zoning remains a challenge, cost of materials continues to inflate. How many years would it take to get back up to speed? 5? 10? What does the economy look like then? Will enough young folks go into the necessary trades to meet the demand for this labor? We might keep building along at the anemic pace of today, but I argue we’ll never build again at the rate we did pre GFC.
https://eyeonhousing.org/2020/01/a-decade-of-home-building-t...
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/its-the-land-stupid-how-t...
We don't build slow because the cost of labor or raw materials have gone up. In fact productivity and efficiency has gone up across the board in the past century. We build slower because there is a will to build slower. We let local people kill high speed rail, high voltage DC, and, above all, housing. You know how we built rails in the 1800s and highways in the 1900s? We didn't give a shit when someone said "no". That's what's changed.
Supply and demand for labor will work itself out- prices will go up, companies will invest in efficiency, etc. People just need time to figure out the details, and the legal right to do the job.
How does supply/demand work itself out when an exogenous force is rapidly contracting the supply?
Humans take time to be produced.
Can people wait multiple decades for this to sort out? People without housing they can afford need it immediately.
There are going to be losers in this. No avoiding it.
Indeed, that's my thesis, I appreciate you making it crystal clear. The pipeline has failed, and if there is a will to fix it, it will take time. Until it's sorted, year after year, there will be folks who go without affordable housing. There are, as you said, going to be losers from this policy failure.
There are lots of businesses eager to build houses. The trouble is overwhelmingly that we can't afford it. Angry people won't get it done unless they take up construction or manufacturing as a career in huge numbers, or else rob or enslave people who can build houses.
What we have is a general shortfall of prosperity. Housing is affected by money supply in an outsized way. Prices are at least partly going up because our economy is stagnant, and wages are going down in real terms as credit continues expanding to keep the wheels from coming off.
How do you reconcile this opinion when only a day ago you were arguing that reduced demand for clild care would not cause a reduction in cost?
Reduction in childcare cost in my linked comment, not real estate. Unsure how you made such a connection. From that comment:
> It doesn't make sense if you need both incomes to survive. It just pushes the total fertility rate down faster when prospective parents realize they cannot afford childcare nor one parent to remain at home.
In the context of this thread, there are not enough houses for demand, that is why they are expensive, but if an administration beats on the economy hard enough, causing job destruction and increased unemployment, those who cannot continue to afford to service their mortgages will be forced to sell. This would contribute to real estate price softening. Child care costs will never come down (as I assert in my other comment) because the government refuses to subsidize it and there are labor shortages, with childcare providers unable to find staff for the childcare wages on offer. Labor shortages will persist well into the future due to prime working age population compression due to structural demographics. Citations for this are in my comment you linked to, but I can provide as many as you would like.
7% is close to normal, historically. But not for the past couple of decades, so people forgot.
You're missing the median income to home price ratio is at an all-time high: https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-inco...
So, while interest rates are at historical 'norms', affordability is not.
I ask sincerely. Is there a way out of that problem other than raising wages and inflation?
Build more houses (or housing, if you prefer).
I expressly waited for interest rates to jump before we bought ours. Buying couldn't have been easier because of that.
I know that 3% interest rates are never coming back and that’s exactly why I’ll probably never move again.
If you could get a lower price on the higher interest loan, you could pay it off early and save a lot of money. If you have a very high price with low interest, paying it off early has much less impact on the amount paid.
It's basically illegal to build dense homes in most cities. And despite what people say, the vacancy rate is at historic lows so its not just "people are keeping them empty"
Its a disgrace that people deny the supply crunch we are in
Devil's advocate, I don't think we should keep building more housing insofar as it encourages population growth (which it does). Like highways, there will always be barely enough, no matter how many lanes/houses we build.
But population growth is the overwhelming factor in all of our sustainability issues.
So in response to the rapidly rising prices, we should not build any housing because it doesn't matter? Surely there is still a positive benefit since there must be less than one person wanting to move in per new unit otherwise they would have already moved in?
Housing as an investment creates all kinds of terribly misaligned political incentives for local democracies. A land value tax would've helped by shifting people's nest egg from the value of their homes to their accumulated savings from income.
As it is, NIMBYism is likely the biggest driver of rising costs of living, rising homelessness, rising municipal debt, and generational class divides.
I wonder what you'd think about this video from Gary's Economics about the housing crisis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4
It feels to me like a good faith counterargument to the YIMBY build more housing line of thought, so might be an interesting perspective
In a way this is the ultimate goal of conservatism in its literal sense to conserve. The rich want have their place in society safely entrenched at the top, with no risk of people rising from below to displace them. Those at the bottom should stay locked in there and work and toil because that is the natural order of things.
Oh cool you've nominally gone after the rich and then pointed at the middle class again. I'm sure this will make you and your ideas popular.
According to the election and the polls, this is exactly what Americans want.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/americans-vi...
> 41% of Americans say the government should provide more assistance to people in need
> 30% say it's providing about the right amount
> 27% say it should provide less
41-57? If there are issues in America, it's because Americans want it that way.
Mobility is not just about assisting the those in need, its also about having opportunities for advancement.
If you're trapped in a job because of its health coverage, that's restricting mobility. People can' take the risk on changing jobs/locations or even something like starting their own businesses because of the would lose coverage and don't have the wealth to self-pay.
If you're working so many hours just to cover essentials like rent you just too exhausted to look for better work or take courses for a new profession.
If costs and prices rise way faster than your wages, then you start losing ground and do so at an ever increasing rate while those at the top who live on investments and passive income benefit because the value of their assets rise faster.
If opportunities for high paying jobs dry up because, for example, AI replaces those jobs.
If fees and interest on student debt keeps you locked down forever.
If all best and highest paying jobs just go to family members of the already rich through systemic nepotism.
The list goes on. I'm not which of these the American public voted for.
- people trapped in poorly paying jobs and/or jobs with terrible conditions by blocking or dismantling unions.
- locking people out of high paying jobs via network effects. Like nepotism in hollywood or firms only hiring from certain universities which you can only get into
> Mobility is not just about assisting the those in need, its also about having opportunities for advancement.
I think it's really hard to do one without improving the other. They're inextricably linked. I only like to focus on the first one because it's easier and the ROI is higher.
Lack of universal healthcare is the single greatest hurdle to job mobility and entrepreneurship in America in my opinion.
Almost no one under 40 cares. In fact for most of us we'll net a profit (not expected, straight up in most cases including one or two events) just self insuring.
WSJ seems to block the normal archives, but absent a gift link, this twitter referral seems to work:
With an appropriate amount of x: https://xcancel.com/lindsaywise/status/1956170542601421040
There aren’t enough homes or jobs. What do?
As far as I can tell, the problem isn't so much a lack of jobs or a lack of homes but rather that they aren't in the same place. In small town America, the problem isn't a lack of housing stock, it's that it is hard to afford it with few good paying jobs. In big city America, the problem isn't lack of jobs, it's that it is hard to find a job which pays enough for you to afford the limited housing stock.
I think this is a large reason behind the polarization in America today. We aren't all facing the same aspect of this imbalance.
I was hoping that the work-from-home movement was going to help with this, but RTO seems to be in full swing. So, I think our best bet would be to stop incentivizing the concentration of job creation. Absent a fix, we will have to wait a few decades for the imbalance to even out.
Always hated how every startup sets up office in downtown San Francisco or similarly absurd cost of living area…
Could pay people well but half as much and have nice office in Colorado mountains, Vermont, or somewhere else beautiful…
Of course, startups rarely seem interested in saving money…
It's a little unfair to blame startups, they largely just set up shop where the capital is. Most VCs required startups to be headquartered near by for easier management/communication. The tech scene in SV had such exceptionalism that it quite literally viewed any startup not in SV as an inevitable failure. Even YC mandated startups be in SV.
Not sure why you are down voted. This is a requirement for many of the VCs in the valley. You have to be both US-based and “nearby”.
Most of the real estate "in the mountains" here in Colorado is basically SF prices, with a whole extra set of challenges. Even the front range I think has even worse home price to median income than a lot of the other places people think about when bitching about housing affordability.
> In big city America, the problem isn't lack of jobs, it's that it is hard to find a job which pays enough for you to afford the limited housing stock.
Maybe the more fundamental problem is that in big city America, it's easy for existing homeowners to band together to forbid any further housing stock from being built.
See Silicon Valley: amazing concentration of high-paying jobs, laughably low population density.
I had also hoped WFH would solve that problem. For sure it alleviated it for the time it lasted - at least some people moved to more affordable locations. Unfortunately, for some reason many CEOs decided to take a step back.
We're heading further into a reality where there just aren't enough jobs. All the money has been hoovered into the stock market. There's just not enough floating around to pay people, it's all going into LLM electricity or graphics cards.
We should be living in a time of ease, where the whole planet is sustained with all of us only working a few hours a week. Instead most people are fighting for scraps barely able to afford rent.
It won't continue like this forever. The line doesn't always go up.
Wouldn't it be nice if individuals decided at the start of their career how much money was "enough" for them, and made a pledge to retire once they hit that number. Then society can give them an "I won!" hat or gold card or something, and the next guy can take the role. In this way all enterprises become an engine pulling new hires off the street, and emitting independently wealthy people to go and enjoy their lives.
But instead we have a tiny minority of people who control more and more capital. This has well-known and terrible consequences for society from almost every angle. What I don't understand is why the .1% don't want to step aside and let someone else have a turn. It's funny that our bodies have stomachs, so we know when we've eaten "enough". But money doesn't get stored in the body.
You'd have to have some guarantee that the government would never alter the amount of inflation they create for that to be reasonable
No one can guarantee that but if you place your dollars into assets, those assets will inflate.
Except when they don't, like Japan's stock market from 1989-2024.
Japan has had relatively low inflation until recently.
The drive to become that wealthy and powerful does not turn off. It’s a similar failure mode as a meth addict stripping a substation for copper. Neither persona can help themselves.
> It's funny that our bodies have stomachs, so we know when we've eaten "enough".
Humorously on topic, GLP-1s patch the reward center in your brain and say “enough is enough.” If only there was a similar protocol for wealth and power.
I think there's a strong case for having maximum wealth above which you'll just get a 100% tax.
All the billionaires are equal parts clearly miserable people, and also terrifying and psychopathic. I assume they didn't start out that way, but there's also probably a personality that just has a need to run up the score.
I think if capitalism had a kill screen, that you get to and then you have to go do something else for a while, both the billionaires and the rest of us would all be happier and healthier.
Money doesn't sit in the stock market. Value, sure, but the money goes right back into the economy.
Money only goes to the company to get reinvested when the company sells shares, so at IPO time, when an insider sells, when more shares are issued, etc...
Otherwise, it's one asset holder selling to another asset holder, usually at ever increasing prices. So yes, a lot of money is simply sitting in the stock market.
Now, some does come back in the form of share buybacks and dividends. That being said, the average dividend yield is significantly less than the long-run average (it's less than 2 percent right now, long term average is above 3%).
When I buy a stock the seller gets the money. The money doesn't "go in to the stock market".
Question really comes to what does the seller do with that money? Buy some other stock? Buy some other asset. What fraction they actually spend to buy goods and services?
Tentative book title: The Line Stops.
If you buy a stock from a new share sale, that goes to the company as capital. The company then spends the money.
The unenployment rate is quite low. There are complaints you can make about the economy but the model of money you laid out is completely wrong.
EDIT: I wrote this in a rush intending to refer to general market entry. In a broad sense, what I ended up writing is incorrect. To preserve the accuracy of the comment history I will not remove my mistake.
>All the money has been hoovered into the stock market.
I think you might misunderstand what the stock market is. Or perhaps you misunderstand what what stocks are? When you purchase stock, it doesn't get locked in a vault, with your name written next to it, and the number of shares it got you on that day. That money goes to the company, and they use that to finance their operations (and ideally, further growth). That financing may go directly to salaries, or even if it goes to services, those services are paid to someone who pays salaries.
If your claim is instead that "all" of that money, or some meaningful majority of that money, is going to electricity and AI silicon, I would invite you to do some basic math on the companies involved.
This is not how stocks work at all outside of stock offerings…
Yes, I was intending to discuss stock offerings. They are just another form of financing. One of many.
I incorrectly explained what I meant, and broadly speaking, what I wrote is incorrect.
However, I stand by my statement that "all" of the money is not going to electricity or AI silicon.
>>That money goes to the company
When you purchase stock, your money goes to the seller of that stock. That's what makes a "market". The stock market isn't a bunch of companies selling their stock to the public.
[dead]
Make it legal to build homes
Build jails and send in the troops ...duh
Reduce the population through mass deportation.
Homes are unaffordable to most. Even if you sell your house for a million dollar where will You move to?
As far jobs are concerned the job market is completely fucked up. Their is oversupply and there are no wage increase.
It does not take a genius to understand why there is no mobility.
Because you've all treated housing as a financial instrument,
instead of what it should be: safety for your family.
The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent, and in a world where every home is priced this way it’s not like you could go to an alternative housing market.
Of course you can, digital nomads have been geoarbitraging for a long time.
Truly upsetting that what was a joke is now my best plan: van, river.
Absolutely zero interest in sharing walls with people again... or participating in building the next Company City. Bidding against colleagues is enough to make the bosses laugh.
So, behave like a dragon. Hoard coins and, eventually/occasionally, fly. Maybe burn some stuff.
I look at it as an expense. If you can sell and make a few bucks, great. But I doubt any new buyers will make out.
I expect in the not to distant future, the only way someone will get to own a house is to inherent one.
> I expect in the not to distant future, the only way someone will get to own a house is to inherent one.
Only if the current insanity around zoning and regulation persists. In many real estate markets, it's literally illegal to increase the supply of housing; in others, price controls make it unappealing to invest in increasing the supply of housing.
I don't know what kind of toxicity is unique to the Anglophone world that exacerbates this problem, but at some point we just need to rip off the band-aid, tell existing homeowners to cry more, and just build, build, build. There's no inherent reason why the price of houses should so far exceed income in this vast country.
>just build, build, build. There's no inherent reason why the price of houses should so far exceed income in this vast country
You are right, but there is always a but :)
Seems right now the "good jobs" are only being create around a few mega cities. DC, NY, SF and a few others. DC stalled a bit I think due to DOGE. In a lot of those areas NIMBH is big. So if you build like crazy in many "fly over" states, where is is plenty of land, at best the builders will not make a profit. But probably the houses will stay empty.
As with everything else, politicians will not make the hard decisions due to fear.
I use to be against term-limits, but the last 25 years proved me wrong :(
[dead]
The job market is scary. I can afford a better house right now but am scared shitless I won’t be able to keep my income up. So we stay in our small old house for now, maybe forever.
Yes - looking around at the volume of people on the job market after years of layoffs, it is a very humbling experience thinking that if I do end up unemployed, I will have a hard time orchestrating my personal soft landing.
> Even if you sell your house for a million dollar where will You move to?
Literally anywhere in the "bottom" 99% of the country by real estate costs?
median home price was 410k in 2025Q2 [1] so it may take most/all the net gains to purchase a median house.
Complaining because you can "only" afford to buy a median house without needing a mortgage has to be one of the more shockingly out of touch things I've heard on this very out of touch site.
General median home price is a metric but of a limited value. There are a lot of homes in remote areas and they don't cost much. The only downside is that they cost so little because they are in remote areas without jobs. One can buy such house only to retire.
Very closely tracks the money supply[0].
And what would you do there? Are there enough jobs in those areas?
Nobody is switching jobs because if you move you likely have to switch two jobs rather than just one.
Improving mobility means that you have to make a single earner household a viable pathway again. That means bring house prices down and subsidizing childcare.
Which would cost a bunch of billionaires a couple of pennies. So it will never happen.
The problem with building more homes and bringing down the cost of housing isn't a couple billionaires as much as a massive geriatric class of NIMBY homeowners.
I'm surprised you were downvoted because it is a huge difference with previous generation. Its also a reason people move to big cities because its easy to get a variety of jobs for each partner.
Unprecedented mobility allowed unprecedented competition. The core of the problem is that when there's a job posting or a house for sale, you're competing not only with people in your local area, but also with people from all over the world. For example, in my city HALF of home sales are to foreigners. The effect is that top x% keeps amassing wealth, while the rest suffers from brain drain and depopulation. Literally same problem as Tinder - it promised men to date all over the world, in effect it made them compete with other men from all over the world, and nobody's getting dates.
The problem will fix itself when moving to a big city completely stops being a viable option, and average Joe will be forced to live in bumfuck nowhere. Once enough Joes stay in bumfuck nowhere, they'll eventually build a working small-scale local economy.
Just a single data point against this. I got interviews with 4 companies out of 30 or so I applied to. Cleared all the onsites. Think FAANG, famous hedge fund, popular data analytics platform, and defense. 4 different industries. Job market's not the best, but it's also not that bad if you have 5 YOE+. Offers were good, ~$50-100K over my current pay.
So many people are using AI during the interviews to cheat, as long as you don't use AI and are good at leetcode, probably not that hard to snag an offer. I also interview people at a FAANG, and #1 reason to reject people these days is AI use. If you don't use AI and can leetcode and system design, you're pretty solid and will stand out from other half-baked candidates.
Was this very recent? The job markets for software engineers has been horrid, at least from mid 2022 to mid 2025. Maybe it’s changed now?
Anecdotally, I know a few engineers with 10+ YOE in NYC, Seattle, and California, all with actual FAANG or FAANG adjacent work experience, who couldn’t find jobs. One of whom even took a minimum wage job, and another who nearly did the same as well.
Maybe the tax code change is kicking off an industry revival?
My friend that left cruise got a 2.3x pay bump (post-ipo) moving to Figma in Feb 2025. He also had interviews at Meta and other FANGA (where he used to work).
If tier3 companies are paying $540k-$1.5m for staff in 2025, then I assume the market is turned around.
Let me guess, you went to an elite university and you worked in Big Tech? I think you should be proud of your success, but it's not indicative of the larger American economy or the tech industry in general. There are reports that new grads in CS have higher unemployment than philosophy majors. Something is structurally unsound, even if the kernel of the industry composed of people like yourself is sound.
There is a very simple solution to AI cheating and I'm not sure why it hasn't made a comeback - fly candidates in for in-person interviews (which btw, if people remember, was the norm before COVID).
I'm finding it really hard to detect who is using AI and who isn't for leetcode questions. I'm not even sure its a big deal because as soon as they start they get all the AI tools anyway. I try to talk more about their work experience now.
> interview […] AI use
Can you elaborate? People don’t do well in the interview and say they could do it if they had AI with them? Or…?
Edit: Sorry, I missed “using AI during the interviews to cheat”.
Not the OP, but I interviewed a candidate for a remote position. He was kind of halting in his responses, until he suddenly wasn't. Borderline erudite, and I recognized some LLM speech patterns. I told my manager I thought he was using an LLM, but we hired him anyway.
After a few months on the job, he hadn't done any meaningful work. His responses to support tickets were clearly written by an LLM and offered only the most generic (and therefore unhelpful) support. He was eventually let go, and deservedly so.
For every candidate who gets accused of using an LLM and is actually using one, there are five candidates who get accused but are not actually using any LLM.
There is no substitute for an on-site round.
Where though? The only people I see moving around live in Seattle, SF, and NYC where there are tons of open positions