[Marxism] (no subject)

[dwalters@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

I appreciate Louis' post on housing on this list. It's an issue not often
discussed at this level (the personal) and is usually left as an abstraction
(as in "houseing for all"). The post could be the start of an
interesting
discussion.

Construction, with home realestate a major part thereof, is the largest
industry in the US today. It employes more people than any other industry but
agriculture and food processing.

About half the US working class owns their own homes...the other half either is
trying to get into home ownershp or wishes they did. How does this effect class
consiousness? Does it unite or divide working class?

I live in the SF Bay Area...one the top three *hottest* realestate markets in
the US (the other being Louis' Manhatten and Boston). It's also an area where
there is a very large degree of home ownership, despite the exorbant prices. I
moved into my home about 13 years ago. AT that time we paid a little over $200k

for the house, now it's worth over $600k. The house we bought is a 1300 square
foot, post-WWII GI house south of San Francisco. It's the kind of house, in the

exact same neighborhood that inspired the song "Little Boxes on the Hillside"
was written about (Daly City/Pacifica). It's small, not built well, and is of a
cookie-cutter design. New homes like this sell for over $700k in the Bay Area.

So...why the home ownership levels at such a high rate? Workers who previously
rented, union members (regardless of color), immigrants, etc are driven to buy
houses in the outlying areas of the Bay Area. I work with several workers who
commute from Stockton to San Francisco...A round trip of 150 miles or so.
People move to newer housing developments further and further away to get homes

that are around 100 to 150 thousand dollars "cheaper". Families often
go into a deal with relatives, thus bringing in uncles and cousins into the
household...all to own a piece of property and get the tax-write off that goes
with it. Usually owning a home means paying *less* than rent.

If I were to take Louis' appartment that he pays $2100/month a for, and buy an
appartment or house for a million (his figure), my montly payment would be
about $3500/month or less depending on the type of loan. But, because of the
tax write off, I'd probably be paying around $2000/month at the end of the
year, plus building equity in the property I know own (and thus providign a
usable pool of money for more loans to buy more property if so inclined). It's
this philosophy that has driven the last 20 years of realestate boom in
California, and other places.

One effect of the open and 'fair housing' movement in the 1960s that broke down
racial barriers is that the suburbs are becoming increasinly black and latino.
When Black or Latino workers get better paying union jobs, they usually more
out of the Black community into integrated housing developments far away from
San Francisco or Oakland.

Housing developments in California are terrible. What do I mean? Unlike the
older homes in the Midwest of the US or the East, the car oriented California
culture places emphisis on the Car. The Car is center to everything (obviously
the most important tool for anyone commuting). Most new houses are built
as 'snout' houses...the garage, for the Car, in  the front the house, with the
entry to the house to the side, tucked away from the side walk. If anyone can
find a house with a stoop or a porch on it, let me know, I'm in the market!
It's a totally atomizing experience to see all these cookie-cutter houses with
no one walking on the street. Some developments don't even have sidewalks...one

is *not* supposed to walk around...drive yes, walk no.

Thousands of square miles of prime, lush, farm land east and north of San
Francisco has been coverted to thes massive housing developments.
And, "everyone" wants them.

Some want to move in as explained above. Others want to speculate. The housing
market in California is driven, in large part, by speculation. With massive
amounts of capital floating around, interest rates are still low, money is
practically given away. Zero-cost loans are available everywhere in the US now,

with *products* like zero-interest, zero-point loans available...some include
options to pay *less* than zero-interest, with part of the interest payment
put-off until refinancing. A worker in Oakland, nearing retirement, can sell
their house for 600 or 700 hundred thousand dollars, but down a down payment on
*several* of the newer homes further out in California's Central Valley, rent
them out for a year, sell them and make a 100K easily on each unit they buy.
This is actually *quite common*. This is all part and parcel of the California
Real Estate Bubble.

As more and more workers start watching realestate values, how does this
influence their class-consiousness, such as it is? Union members more often
than non-union members are likely to own a home among working class folks. How
much does this 'buy-in' effect politics?

David Walters

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism