Is Housing Still the American Dream?
"No man who owns his own house and lot can be a Communist. He has too much to do."
— William Levitt, developer of Levittown, the first mass-produced American suburb
Google searches for "can I afford a home" are at their highest level in nearly two decades. While a Google search on its own isn't proof of anything, millions of queries might be a proxy for the national vibe. Right now, the vibe is that millions of people are calling into question whether they still have a shot at home ownership. The vibe happens to line up with the actual data.
Apparently and unfortunately, the answer to this query for many is “nope.” Existing home sales are sitting near their lowest February level since 2009.
At the same time, home prices haven't collapsed. Typically when demand disappears, prices follow. That's not happening this time around.
Since 2022, the monthly cost to buy a house with a new mortgage has pulled dramatically away from both the cost to rent and the cost carried by existing owners on their current mortgages. As of late 2025, a new buyer's mortgage payment runs about $2,610 a month on average, versus roughly $1,985 for rent and $1,934 for mortgages paid by existing home owners.
Nick Gerli, CEO of real estate data platform Reventure App, calls this the "payment gap." It's the difference between renting and owning, and it doesn't just discourage buyers. It discourages sellers too, since anyone who already owns has little reason to trade in their mortgage for a more expensive one.
In other words, buyers can't justify the transition from renting to owning when it costs $600+ more per month for an equivalent home. Existing owners with low mortgage rates have little incentive to trade them in for today's higher rates.
The result is a market where almost nobody can afford to move.
How Bad Is It, Actually?
For most of the postwar era, the rule of thumb was a home cost about three times a household's annual income. Today, nationally, that ratio is closer to five- or six-times annual household income. Home prices rose roughly 47% between early 2020 and 2023 alone, while incomes climbed at nowhere near that pace.
In dollar terms, the income needed to afford the typical home, assuming a 20% down payment and spending no more than 30% of monthly income on the payment, has more than doubled in a decade, from about $43,700 in early 2016 to a peak of $98,900 in mid-2025, before easing to around $93,000 by early 2026.
Looking at price alone understates the problem, as most people don't buy a house with cash. They make a monthly payment. A $400,000 home financed for 30 years at 7% has a monthly mortgage payment nearly 50% higher than the same home financed at 3% annual interest. Rates alone can cause major changes in the monthly cost of home ownership, with no change in home prices.
A family earning the national median income, roughly $106,800, now needs about 32% of that income just to cover the mortgage on a median-priced new home, before taxes, insurance, or maintenance. In 2002, about 56% of American families could afford a modestly priced home in their state. Today, an NAHB estimate puts that share at roughly one in four.
I sat down for a podcast discussion with Barry Habib, CEO of MBS Highway to get his perspective. His take: some of those folks Googling “can I afford a house?” might be able to after all, but there’s a lot of misconception. From Barry:
"The National Association of Realtors did a study and found... that 45% of first-time homebuyers were under the impression that they needed 20% down. Almost half. So they may not even be looking for a home, because they think it's out of reach." The real number, he says, is closer to 3.5% to 5% down.
Barry also pointed out that the share of first-time buyers closing on homes hit 33% and 35% over the past two months, up from a range that had been running 27-30%. Granted, he admits, it may reflect a February rate dip working through the pipeline and could fade now that rates are rising again. But for two months running, more first-time buyers closed on a home.
Why Existing Homes Aren't Coming to Market
Most outstanding mortgages, by some estimates 80% or more, are fixed at rates below 6%, with many below 4%. My last mortgage was at 2.875%. I hated to see it go. A homeowner with a mortgage around 3% will see their rate double if they move. For many, that’s enough to keep them from moving.
That may be changing. As of late 2025, the share of mortgages at 6%+ (21.2%) has overtaken the share below 3%, for the first time since before the pandemic. Roughly 5-6 million Americans take out a new mortgage every year regardless of the rate environment, and each year that happens, the pool of ultra-low-rate holders shrinks. As a result, the lock-in effect is fading.
Just Make Smaller Houses
A few weeks ago an astute reader pointed out that the "starter home" of decades past was roughly 900-1,200 square feet. Today's newly constructed houses are much larger. He suggested buyer tastes are driving up the size, and therefore the cost, of starter homes. Based on our research, the reasons have more to do with home builder economics than buyer preferences.
Here’s Barry again:
"People say... that the consumer doesn't want [a smaller starter home]. Well, they might want it. They might be okay with it. But it isn't the consumer here, it's the actual developer or the builder: the margin on building that smaller home is not as attractive. So they're going to go where the margin is."
Land, permitting, and regulatory costs are largely fixed regardless of house size, so a small home's margin is thin to nonexistent while a bigger home spreads those costs over more square feet. NAHB estimates permitting-related requirements and fees alone add roughly $38,000, about 7.6%, to the cost of an average new home.
Builders are a part of the supply story. Existing sellers are the other, and they're starting to get motivated. Here's what seller motivation looks like across the country.
Nationally, about 39% of active listings have had at least one price cut, more across the Sun Belt. Parcl's Motivated Seller Index, which scores seller urgency on a 0-to-10 scale, currently sits at 5.19 nationally, squarely in what the index calls "motivated" territory rather than "stubborn" or "neutral." Sellers are adjusting to a market that no longer bids up every listing automatically.
Having moved in the past two years after “winning” a bidding war, I see this cool down as a good thing.
Where This Leaves Us
Every one of these statistics has the biggest impact on one group: first-time buyers. They are entering a market that looks nothing like the one their parents or grandparents faced at the same age. The country isn't short on land or the ability to build. It's short on homes affordable to build, and short on existing homes willing to change hands at an affordable price.
Those of us with gray hair know, the market doesn't move in one direction forever. I once suffered a paper draw down of 25% and had to wait almost 20 years for my home to regain its original value. I’m not predicting that type of adjustment today, at least, not nationally. What we are starting to see in most markets is fewer owners staying locked into their old mortgage rate instead of selling. Asking prices are being adjusted. And for the first time in a while, more first-time buyers are closing. These could be early signs the imbalance is correcting.
That still leaves the harder question. Homeownership in the US has been the primary path to building net worth. It was the main reward for showing up and working hard. It’s the thing Levitt believed made a man too busy building a life to tear one down.
If an entire generation feels that path is no long available to them, the ramification could be severe. Since the end of WWII, housing has been akin to a “right” in that a house was achievable for anyone who worked for it. If today’s younger generations are being asked to work like we worked, but are denied the opportunity to build wealth and security through home ownership, what will their answer be?
Some people are already answering that question. One example comes from The Rational Optimist Society, which recently highlighted a company called Cuby Technologies, a company rebuilding the factory process behind ordinary, site-built houses. Using their "mobile micro-factories," they say they can build homes in roughly 45 to 60 days from foundation to finish, with a stated goal of getting that under 30 days. Their one documented US build, in Michigan, came in 30% to 40% below local contractor quotes. It's still very early, but if the model holds up at scale, it's the kind of disruption that could put home ownership within reach for more families.
Regardless, my feeling is we need to build more houses in the US, at a lower cost. Lowering permitting costs and obstacles is part of it. So is the same kind of disruption that built Levittown in the first place, standardized, modular construction, mass production, whatever the modern equivalent turns out to be. It worked once. There's no reason it can't work again.
Let me know what you think — reply to this note or drop a comment.
Thanks for reading.
My Latest Podcast - with Barry Habib
Click the screenshot above to watch the podcast on YouTube.
Click here to download a computer generated transcript.
Ed D’Agostino
Partner & COO
Ed D’Agostino
Publisher & COO
If you prefer to listen to Global Macro Update, you can do so here:
Get Ahead of Big Market Trends—with Global Macro Update
Today’s most successful investors share one thing in common: They spot major trends early and move quickly to take advantage of them.
Twice a week, Ed D’Agostino—our publisher and COO—shares macro insights and analysis, along with exclusive interviews with leading economic, geopolitical, and investment experts to help you get ahead of major trends and market shifts.
By opting in you are also consenting to receive Mauldin Economics' marketing emails.
You can opt-out from these at any time. Privacy Policy
You are governed by and for rentiers.
The other factor is capital gain taxes on selling a home,. Homes have appreciated a lot in the last twenty years. Older
Americans that have owned their home for a long time have significant gains in value. the $500,000 exemption is outdated. You dont want to sell your home, and pay hudnreds of thousands of dollars in cap gains, giving you less money to buy something smaller. Cap gain taxes on home sales should either be exempt, or the exemption increased to
a million or larger amount.
Seems to me that a significant portion of the home-owning public has started, and will be, cashing out over the next 10-15 years: Boomers. That should begin to flood the market with resales as this group either heads for downsizing, or more likely, a nursing home. That's probably why in typical retirement locals around the country, the motivation map suggests "fire sale." Nevertheless, this supply should contribute to an increasing inventory that will likely keep prices somewhat in check and maybe closer to affordable in many parts of the country.
Are people really going to accept these modular ready-built design homes? Seems like glorified trailer parks...gonna have to really sell these as a good way to start a life.
Seems to me you missed one big important factor.....all the companies that are buying up available houses 1000, yes, 1000 or more at a time and renting them out, while taking a write off for the house. Like so many things, once big outfits and investment houses decide to monetize something, it always goes up in price. This is being curtailed, but it is to me disgusting this goes on. Food, clothing, and housing are the three basic necessities in life, and allowing big corporations worth billions to be doing this is to me the biggest problem. And who knows how this "wraps around" to the home builders who also borrow money to build big projects perhaps later sold back to these same lenders or their preferred customers. The average homebuyer once again gets left behind. Look how mortgages have gone from being owned by the bank that lends the money to being sold for investment in as little as three days after it's signed. If the people who loan the money had to live with the loan there would be a whole different picture in financing a house. Now you never know who really owns your mortgage.
Living in central Florida and watching the developers from our coasts come and do what they have done to the coasts to our quiet and rural area, I say, make the builders pay for the additional infrastructure. Our streets are becoming increasingly congested, more traffic lights are being installed and the police/fire and other services are getting further and further behind. As with most government bodies, our commissioners believe that growth at any cost is good. Growth with infrastructure can be good but with growth comes additional real and intrinsic costs. Not profound but heartfelt.
This is a case of economic substitution. When prices become too high for the individual, he can 1) do nothing, 2) do without, 3) find an acceptable substitute. This is true whether the item being considered is a house, Lamborghini, or fishing pole. As an aside, I never had the privilege of applying for a single digit interest rate mortgage when purchasing our first home. They didn’t exist. We rented until home ownership became affordable.
The issue to be considered is what caused the market imbalance of money reflected by higher interest rates? Almost always it can be traced back to Fed mistakes, idiotic fiscal policy, and misguided regulation as all of these come with a cost. Raw material shortages generally are short term and don’t have a sustained impact on rates.
The global economy is quite efficient if left alone. It exists of approximately eight billion people buying and selling things every day as well as businesses of every ilk doing the same. Notice the lack of dot plots, political “crises”, feigned moral outrage, etc. All of these generally come with unnecessary costs
Anyone can go on Youtube and watch the Hawn brothers build a house in a day. It's not fancy, but it is shelter. The price of a lot, a few thousand in lumber, and you can improve it as more money becomes available.
Be cautious using industry generated statistics, like the NAHB estimate of $38,000 for permit relate costs and fees. Some such statistics may be valid but others are designed to push legislation favorable to the industry such as, in this case, eliminating various building codes. Every year the national association for structural engineers estimates that 1/3rd of all bridges are deficient and need, of course, the services of a structural engineer. Churchill supposedly said "The only statistics I trust are the ones I fabricate myself." Beware.
It's difficult to comprehend how young people will ever own a home IMO. I'm 84 and we own our home worth $400,000. It's been quite a path getting here. We purchased our first home in Colorado in 1975 for $35,000. I was framing houses then and actually built two spec homes and made approximately $30,000 on each. We then sold our home for $68,000 in 1981 and moved to Idaho where we built another new 3 bdr. 2 bath home for about $35,000 with no mortgage. Work was intermittent but we got along with no mortgage. Sold that home for about $49,000 net to us in 1986 and moved to WR Valley in Idaho. Bought a lot for $10,000 and added $32,000 cash and owned a home where we lived for 10 years. In 1996, we sold it for $65,000 and bought another lot for $31,000 and built a slightly bigger home where we finished raising our three children. Again, no mortgage. I did all the foundation, framing and electrical labor. Lived in it until 2013 when we sold for $235,000. It was about 1700 Sq. Ft. Moved south to Twin Falls, ID and bought a home (1450 sf) for $165,000 cash. Lived there for 3 years. Sold for $175,000 and moved to Boise region where we bought a new home,
3 car garage for $202,000. Lived there for 3 years and in 2019 sold it for $265,000 and moved back to Twin Falls where we bought another new home (1720 sq) for $235,000. We continue to live in it and as stated above, the assessor taxes it at $400,000. Our secret in getting here was not having a mortgage except on the first home in 1975 at 9.25 % interest. We had a belief that our kids needed a safe place that we would never be evicted from. We kept that promise even though cash was short at times. No regrets!