Another step closer to revolt. There's only so much pressure the general public will be able to handle. History has taught us when there is a massive unbalance in "haves" and "have nots" things don't play out in ways where we just "sit down and discuss what's going on."
Nah history has taught us mortgages can go way higher. Your part of the online crowd constantly trying to say the next French revolution is coming (been hearing that refrain since the 00s). Also when you buy a house - if you didnt factor in mortgage rates changing thats 95% on you. 6 % isnt even that high. Mortgage is too high offload and move elsewhere. People need to take some responsibility for their purchases.
It’s high when home prices have grown substantially since the last time mortgages were 7%.
Also, it’s not really a “haha, you suck at planning” so much as a new generation is hit with much higher home prices when they are entering buying time of their life.
Mortgages have been 4% for the last 20 years or so, so an entire generation has had 4% mainly due to government subsidization. And now the government can’t or won’t do that any more. If the next generation can’t buy homes because prices and rates are too high, that’s not good for social stability.
I don’t think it’s the French Revolution, but I do think there will be “why are we not paying for social programs when we have mortgage interest rate deductions for people with $750k mortgages [0]. That was palatable when the middle class had mortgages. But people who are stuck perpetually renting will likely vote to stop that.
Also people in most other countries economically comparable to the U.S. have variable rate or 5 year fixed rate mortgages. The U.S. government backstops most 30 year fixed rate mortgages. The banks don't wouldn't offer 30 rates so low, given the interest rate risk.
Yeah, my first mortgage on my house in the late 90s was, I believe, 6 or 7% and that wasn't even considered especially high. (I eventually refinanced for a bit under 5% or something like that.)
Interest rates these days aren't so low you can almost ignore them (e.g. you probably don't want to keep a lot of money in literal cash) but they're not late 70s/80s often double-digits either.
Is that what History taught us? I thought it taught us that humanity could go for literally centuries with a minuscule group of elites owning everything and the rest of the population owning nothing more than their clothes.
Exactly. When people barely survive, they don't have the energy or time to revolt.
Revolutions often historically start from disillusioned middle classes who have the time and energy, desire to have things (political power, economic means, etc.) and means of organising, and/or students. When they have some and don't have to worry about the next meal on the table, but want more.
There are definitely big swathes of the US population which has some political and economic power, yet are severely disenfranchised and ignored politically, and squeezed financially on all sides. Add in severe partisanship and general mistrust, agressive propaganda, and yes, you do have favourable conditions for a revolution. Not in any way guaranteed of course.
The US public seems to have the capacity to absorb an incredible amount of misery while just acting up at tame things like elections. There are occasional protests and riots, but really quite few - and they dissipate quickly.
Hell, we had 30 years of hollowed-out de-industrialization in the Rust Belt, with hardly a peep on the "revolt" front. There's been slow electoral changes, however.
You've seen the stuff that says the vast majority (~80%) of the US can't meet basic army fitness standards, right? You think these people are capable of revolt?
