Homes

This morning the Wall Street Journal had a very pious, holier-than-thou article by some financial genius about the problem with Americans having homes without enough equity in them, and the foreclosure and loss to the banks of that lucrative market. The person writing this said that probably people should not be allowed to buy homes they can't afford. The 30 year fixed mortgages are a bad idea because Europe has a much more stable society with shorter mortgage loans. When I think of Europe, I think of families who have lived in towns for hundreds of years, holding on to the family farm, and only having 1 or 2 children, so that they can keep that property. What made me angry, in thinking about this the rest of the day, is how the families I know are struggling to be able to raise children. No longer can people afford even 4 children-- we are down to 2 or maximum 3. College is too expensive, dental work is too expensive. In our area, the gang warfare is rising, as the children of low-income field laborers hit the ceiling after high school, and can't go on to get that diploma which might afford them the WAGES to get a home. Many young people are renting, and the rental neighborhoods are where the crack, meth and cocaine is being bought and sold. Single moms abound. Most of the single moms I know are single because the men were unfaithful or alcoholic, or on drugs. A few are because the woman was unstable or addicted or unfaithful-- but mostly it happens because the women couldn't carry the burden of the family alone, and they couldn't afford to let the man soak up what was needed for having a home and food for the children. Men who are willing to get married, have a 30 year marriage and a 30 year mortgage, and raise kids who can get to college if they apply themselves, are the most precious commodity in our society. I see so few. I know some, from my college years. But around me are so many women who are like birds with broken wings, trying to fly, trying to feed the chicks. And now I know some young men, who also are good fellows, who deserve to make enough so that they can get married and afford a home for their families. It is all tied to the structure of wages and benefits. If the goal of these financiers is to have cheap labor, which always seems to me to be their main goal, they are winning. They have pushed back against the potential for wage increases and benefits, and all the ways which one might be able to use to make a 30 year mortgage possible.
What the article didn't address is the speculators, who are not interested in living in the homes they purchased-- they were just trying to make extra money. This reminds me of the plague of locusts in the Bible. Why was the banking industry allowed to de-regulate, so that those locusts could get those loans-- without any evidence that they were planning to stay in the community and live there, bring up a family there, be contributing members of society there?? Why weren't those questions asked by those brilliant financiers? Most of the young people I know are hitting 30 before they can afford the downpayment on a home, get married or get pregnant. Most of the women are anxious, because even with a husband and a good salary, they need two incomes for that home to be purchased. But what banking morons think that bringing up a child in a rented home is more secure, more stable, more good for the mental and physical health of the child or family? Why would it be better for society? No, it is only so they can have access to cheap labor. Labor which is not paid SUSTAINABLE rates.
God bless the men who are good husbands and fathers, and are working to pay those 30 year mortgages. And may someone inform the bankers about it.