All Forum Posts by: V.G Jason

A common misconception in San Diego is that out-of-state investing is more accessible. But if you're renting here and spend $40K to buy a $200K property out-of-state with 20–25% down, you're missing a huge opportunity.

That same $40K could go toward a $750K–$1M duplex locally using an FHA 3.5% or 5% down conventional owner-occupied loan. You live in one unit, rent the other, and start building wealth at home.

In most cases, house hacking in San Diego will outperform buying a cheap rental elsewhere. So yeah, if someone is skipping that to chase OOS for their first property while paying rent here is a silly goose 🐣

You're missing the point. The DTI, the property reserves, the actual mortgage payment create a significantly higher sunk cost profile that the average BPer cannot tolerate.

I've already agreed with you that dollar per dollar then SD is excellent. You're looking past or not reading my actual points and keep repeating you're same stuff.

I second this ^. The barrier to entry is much higher than the initial $40k down payment, assuming you could even cash flow positively with that little down in such an expensive market with current interest rates, let alone the entire PITI payment and cash reserves needed.

In the spirit of healthy debate, if anyone disagrees with me, I challenge you to find a duplex in San Diego that cash flows positively at least $1/month with 5% down. (And don't forget taxes, insurance, and PMI).

Forget cash flow, find one that can support the DTI requirements for an individual that makes as much as the average household in SD. And has below average car/student loan payments. Say combined $800/mo. You won't even get approved for a loan at 3.5% down at market interest rates with that DTI profile.

1 Vote

San Diego, California

Quote from @Twana Rasoul:

@V.G Jason

That same $40K could go toward a $750K–$1M duplex locally using an FHA 3.5% or 5% down conventional owner-occupied loan. You live in one unit, rent the other, and start building wealth at home.

2 Votes

San Diego, California

Quote from @Twana Rasoul:

@V.G Jason @Henry Lazerow Thanks for chiming in..

Without going too deep into the weeds, I want to offer a perspective that I think gets overlooked here on BP, especially by those in high-cost areas like Southern California.

A lot of newer investors in San Diego (and similar coastal markets) get told they have to invest out of state in cheaper markets and only focus on cash flow. That advice might make sense for some, but it often ignores the real opportunity local buyers have right here, especially with owner-occupied financing.

Let’s say someone spends $30K–$40K to buy a $150K–$200K property out of state, putting down 20–25%. Meanwhile, they're still renting in San Diego.

But that same $30K–$40K could be used as a 3.5%–5% down payment on a $750K–$1M duplex right here in San Diego using an FHA or other owner-occupied loan. By house hacking, living in one unit and renting out the other, they not only reduce their cost of living, but also build wealth through appreciation, principal paydown, and better loan terms.

No matter how you slice it, in this scenario the San Diego duplex buyer ends up far wealthier over time than the person who puts the same capital into an out-of-state rental while paying high rent locally.

One common misconception I see, among both new investors, is the belief that higher cap rate markets are automatically “better.” What’s often missed is that high cap rate markets tend to have much lower historical appreciation, and in many cases, they experience flat or even negative long-term growth. When appreciation doesn’t keep up with inflation, you’re actually losing value over time, even if the cash flow looks solid on paper.

High cap rates often exist because those markets have to offer something to offset the higher risk of minimal appreciation, or even long-term stagnation.

This isn’t to say that out-of-state investing doesn’t work. It can work and some on here do really well with it. But if you live in a high-cost market, you owe it to yourself to run the numbers locally first, especially with house hacking as your entry point.

I get your stance on SD vs the MidW. And I'm not here to argue that, I'm a preacher of quality over quantity. A dollar in SD versus a dollar in almost any asset class, SD will win.

Where we disagree is the barrier of entry and the ability to not only survive but thrive in San Diego is indisputably harder than almost any place in America. For that, the average BPer likely has to pass.

The average BPer borrows down payment money for a Cleveland investment property. It's just a different stratosphere to manage San Diego for them.

0 Votes

San Diego, California

Quote from @Ken M.:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Ken M.:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Ken M.:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @James Hamling:

@Steve K. I liquidated my entire crypto portfolio in January and I have 0-regrets, and 0-intentions of jumping back in any time soon, if ever.

It was always a speculative investment, investing on sentiment and a trend. Not once did I ever consider or view it as anything of any intrinsic or utilitarian value. Not once ever.

I was in crypto for years, flipping and trading. Again, gleefully out. And profitably too.

I consider myself rather informed on it. Nowhere near the 1% because honestly there all cult members high on hopeum and drunk on the kool-aid.

When I am paying for groceries and fuel with crypto, maybe. Until then, it's a shiny toy that's getting kinda old. No thanks.

The new shiny toy is ai.

Just bought my daughter-in-law a car strictly with bitcoin. This is with one of the most prestigious dealerships in Texas. And got her son a full sports outfit with crypto from a professional NBA franchise(same owners for the dealership & franchise).

People can disbelieve Bitcoin, etc., bottom line is emerging markets are usually correlated with higher population growth and desperate needs for infrastructure. With that comes a ray of hope for attaching to assets; bitcoin right now is the only tangible medium for that. Other forms of assets come with such steeper barrier entries coupled with devaluation of their current currency, it's very hard to resist this proof. Won't go deep and long in this, as I am not a fanatic but absolutely see the use case for it against currency. The US should view it as a threat to the dollar(and rightfully so), but to do that you need to get in front of it and not ban/eliminate it. It seems Trump's cabinet views it similarly in today's world.

apologies niece not daughter in law....getting old.

In just the last 5 days BTC has ranged in value from a high of $94,380.26 too a low of $81,157.32.

BTC is the very definition of volatile.

No business can humanly exist selling say a loaf of bread on Monday at one value, and come Friday when they go to reorder items to produce more bread, 10% of the sale $ they took in has evaporated into thin air.

And that's just in 5 days. Real moves.

The only reason 85% of people were on the BTC and crypto "train" was because it was going UP in value. Just like NFT's. Just like Tulips had long before.

Now it's rhetoric and assorted other hype to keep the hopeium alive. Because all who have leveraged into it know the fade is running out of runway.

As people get tired of it, don't see parabolic growth and profits, the shine is wearing off and people will sell and move on to what is current, shiny and with prospects of parabolic growth and profits ie ai.

As people sell BTC value goes down. Because it's value is based on NOTHING, literally. It's based on people holding and buying it.

So as it flatlines as it is, sentiment of it coming down grows as it is, selling takes hold and as it sells value drops reinforcing the downward movement and decisions to sell. And a downward spiral begins.

AMC & GME was little different. People chasing rainbows of massive profits. Than bag holders holding out on hopeium. But as time passes more and more wake up to the reality that the rainbows are long gone and 100% annual returns are fantasy but 50% losses are real.

It's the Gold Rush mentality. or better said, a Pump-n-dump. BTC and crypto is just one with some longer track to it than others given the criminal utility of it all. Great if your an international arms smuggler, not so great for a 50-something Jane/John Doe.

It was fun while it lasted, I'm over it now and onto playing ai. Selling Put's, taking leaps, selling calls, making $ 4-ways on market movements.

And continuing to do Real Estate, good-ole-reliable.

Why waste time on a literal gamble of BTC when it's at bizonkers high prices?

It's called buy low n sell high, not buy high and pray for inhuman additional astronomical highs.

Government promised...... Yeah well they been promising me peace on earth, clean water, clear skies, low tax's and all the other oh-so-good for long as I can remember.

Words hype and hopes.

I operate on facts, math and certainty.

That's very appropriate vol for BTC; VTI and QQQ were 3.5-4% negative in 5d and range quite strong too. Comparatively, that vol for BTC is quite normal. We've seen way bigger vol swings for BTC so not sure that's the point I'd make against it.

BTC vol will tighten once there's more adoption. That's proven given the fact we had significantly more drawdowns and significantly more often when less were invested. Just to give you a vol comparison in the last 10 years Nvidia has had 2 50% drawdowns. There's risk to everything. Given 10 years ago BTC was a fraction of what it's worth now percentage based draw downs are a bit misled given absolute value differential.

BTC adoption has gone institutional, prior it was emerging markets and little retail. It's hard to call it pump & dump now.

BTC's biggest argument is it's a threat to the USD, and a savior for emerging markets. For that reason, BTC will continue to yield up to the right but also correct more harshly than any other asset class. Like I said in a previous post, this correction and perhaps recession that will take place will be quite devastating for BTC, but long-term BTC holders or maximalists will yield the most advantageous.

.
Oops.

"Recent and significant crypto hacks include the Bybit exchange hack on February 21, 2025, where nearly $1.5 billion worth of ether (ETH) was stolen, and a North Korean hack in March 2025 that stole $1.5 billion in cryptocurrency, making it the largest crypto hack on record according to the FBI.65

North Korean hackers have been increasingly active in the crypto space, stealing approximately $660.5 million across 20 incidents in 2023 and $1.34 billion across 47 incidents in 2024, marking a 102.88% rise in value stolen."

I was waiting for this type of response.

Show me you don't understand anything at all any more clear, Ken.

Bybit didn't hack "Ethereum". They hacked SAFE Wallet. Bybit was too cheap to purchase extra security (measures)--left UI systems as is & not enhanced. So again, it's user error and storage.

In laymen terms, this is like a scammer sending you a text to log in to confirm your AMEX details. You do, and they get access to steal funds. No other security measures. Did your USD get hacked? Or did AMEX get hacked? And are you the vulnerability or is USD?

Unfortunately, retorts like yours show that compete lack of knowledge & understanding.

It doesn't matter who stole the money, it's stolen, gone, missing, kapupt. Interesting that you gloss over that.

Let's try this another way because you have reading comprehension issues.

No **** the money is gone. The question is why? User error & storage, like I've mentioned several times. If my AMEX got compromised is it the USD's fault?

Money is gone, explain that.

The answer is no, it's my fault and my lack/AMEX lack of security protocols. This isn't rocket science, I am sure you're capable of understanding this.

And before you harp on AMEX, given your lack of understanding this is globally an issue with all providers. Zelle, venmo, paypal more domestically, that money isn't coming back. So again, underlying question is my USD at fault? Or is it me and the provider at fault?

I guess you don't understand banking, but that's your problem, not mine.
if someone hacks my bank account and steals my money, the bank takes the loss, not me. The bank makes me whole. If not, the regulators shut them down.

If my crypto gets hacked, it doesn't matter who hacks it, it's gone. There is no one to make me whole and crypto won't be shut down. Totally different. There is no one to turn to if crypto goes bad. And it goes bad plenty.

Didn't realize there was a post here that illustrates this beautifully, and gives you some food for thought. Again the underlying asset is not a scam, it's always usually the user, lender, some associated party or the infrastructure. Not the asset.

Like I said in a previous post.

Banks do not refund scams, they refund fraud.

Big difference.

He wired money over to a scammer allegedly, and likely via BOA. It's on the user-- not BOA's fault, not USD's fault.

I know how banking works. The money is gone, where is BOA making them whole? Who does he turn to? IF you get the money back, consider yourself fortunate much like ByBit users getting their ETH back.

2 Votes

Denver, Colorado

Quote from @Peter W.:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Peter W.:

Quote from @Dan H.:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Dan H.:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Dan H.:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Dan H.:

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

Quote from @Dan H.:

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

Quote from @Carolyn Fuller:

Quote from @Lauren Kormylo:

I don't have international guests. But this absolutely will affect international travel. I have family and friends in Canada who regularly visit the US, and they've cancelled all trips for the foreseeable future, they are hopping mad. I don't know how much this will affect guests from other countries, but it is bound to. I hope since your guests come mainly for the school there, you'll be spared a lot of it.

Unfortunately, this administration is at war with universities and scientific research and I rely heavily on Harvard & MIT which are taking major hits. They have already frozen hiring and I suspect that means there will be fewer visiting scholars. That certainly feels like what is happening, given the fact that our MTR inquires are way down and we haven't leased the full calendar year.

There are 4 legs of our retirement income and 3 of them are under threat (Stock Market, Rental Income, Social Security).

I agree that we really don't know what will happen with Social Security but Musk has certainly been rattling his chainsaw.

We know what is happening to the stock market but some people think it is short term pain and others fear a recession. I'm a lot less sanguine than @Bruce Woodruff but I also am in wait and see mode.

And I know for a fact that my rental income is taking a major hit. It now just depends upon how large a hit. So far, I know we will be down by at least by $6000 this year.

Sigh...

Actually, to be accurate, it is the Universities that have chosen their path and are finally getting called on their S**t.
And the Stock Market and Social Security are not under any threat. Once the economy settles down from the tariffs and all of these fraud and waste exposures, we (the US) will be rolling again. Just be patient. you will be fine, and I wish you the best!

I hope you’re right but I question the basis of your belief. Trump is associated with more bankruptcies than any other individual that I am aware of (at least 6). His initial “released” tax return shows he lost more money that year than any other US tax payer.

the S&P 500 has lost ~$5.25 trillion in 3 weeks which is the worst since the Covid decline.

what is occurring with DOGE is people with no domain knowledge are looking for fraud and determining who loses their job. They are doing this without regard to the legality or costs. My analogy is if your banker came to your job site to inspect the quality of work. The banker may be intelligent, but he has no domain knowledge.

as the saying goes, I am expecting a bumpy ride. I am fortunate to be financially diversified.

time will tell, but I do not share your confidence and my basis is based on trump’s financial track record.

Best of luck to everyone

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm sure that you realize that your views are a product of your filters. Most/many successful business people have had bankruptcies (Ray Kroc comes to mind). As someone who grew up outside of DC with parents/neighbors.friends who worked in that mess, it was obvious to anyone even back then that, let's say 'half' the people working there were incompetent, lazy or crooked.

It will take a while and will have some unpleasant periods, but nonetheless it must be done. I fail to see how anyonne cannot agree that we need to cut at least some waste and fraud.

One of the FB groups that I frequent is a hiking group. It amazes me how many of these folks are screaming because there are some NAtional PArk Rangers that got fired. Now they can't have a guided hike, they have to go by themselves (for a while). They just scream about the cuts and seem to have zero clue as to what is going on with our country and the deficit. (Note, someone with some sense finally postedthe actual numbers - 1000 Park Rangers have been fired from over 400 Parks....do the math..that's 2.5 rangers per park. You;re telling me that we cano't get by with that reduction? This is just one example out of many.

Everybody suck it up and stay happy and positive!

>you're certainly entitled to your opinion,

Nothing I posted is opinion. Trump is associated with at least 6 bankruptcies, the first tax return to go public showed he had the most negative income in the US, THE S&P is down ~$5.25 trillion in last 3 weeks, and DOGE is comprised of employees with no domain experience. Which of these do you believe to be opinion?

>Most/many successful business people have had bankruptcies (Ray Kroc comes to mind).

I would like to see your source that many/most business people are associated with a bankruptcy. Bonus if you can find anyone other than Trump associated with 6 bankruptcies. I agree people are associated with bankruptcies but believe it is a small percent. I believe it is a much smaller percentage that is associated with multiple. I believe you are in rare company to be associated with at least 6 bankruptcies.

>It should be clear to anyone that we need to do some serious trimming of the Gov't fat.

I believe the debt was too high and it had to be addressed. I also believe in separation of powers. Congress has the power of the purse. The proper way for this to occur is congress decides on the budgets to trim or the taxes to be increased. The departments with domain expertise decides how to best meet their budget still providing the service the public needs.

Congress is abdicating its responsibility and letting the executive branch do this craziness. The cuts are not about saving money. If it was the oversite that generates money would not have been among the first let go. In addition they would have calculated in the costs of the layoffs and legal battles. Layoffs of people with employment contracts that state they can be let go for performance reasons and stating virtually all of them are being let go for performance regardless of their employee reviews is clearly not in line with the employees contracts. These will be costly reductions.

It is about dismantling the government.

>- 1000 Park Rangers have been fired from over 400 Parks....do the math..that's 2.5 rangers per park. You;re telling me that we cano't get by with that reduction?

I am not sure the source of your numbers. Can you post the source! Have you been to a national park in the last couple weeks? I go out a lot (most years I camp more than 30 days and some years I camp more than 60 days). Grand Canyon wait time recently to enter the park was 1.5 hours. I heard the number of employees for manning the gates at south entrance but forget the exact numbers. This weekend I was at Red Rock Canyon. It has been on a quota for a while so the wait was not bad but slightly poor (2 gates were open). I feel rangers in NPs work. I felt the wait line to talk to rangers in NP/NM visitor centers was already too long. I will say that at a remote forest ranger station I encountered 2 employees that I thought were dead weight (story is too long to post), but that has been the exception rather than the rule. It is my belief the back country rangers were already too few.

To bring this back to RE, there are government leased buildings (I did not actually count the number but ~10 leases) in the San Diego area that the government wants to break the lease and not pay their obligation (similar to what X did) . The issue is X fighting to break their contracts in a legal system just has the ramification to not trust X to abide by their contracts. If the government cannot be counted on to honor their contracts the ramifications is large as it creates distrust. What confidence is there that fed bonds will be paid? What about other fed debt? What about other fed contracts being honored? I am not associated in any way with any of the building the government is trying to break their lease But as an RE investor prior to now, I would have paid a premium for a building with a lease to fed government high quality tenant. Similarly, previously, a fed government tenant would get my best terms due to what previously had been a highly reliable tenant. They basically have squandered that benefit.

We seem to disagree on how things are getting done. We both hope everything works out, but I think it will not. I think we are in for a rough ride. Time will tell.

Won't get into doge and Trump bankruptcies. Will state the S&P and tariff impacts are a function of Bessent, not Trump. This is all Bessent.

Bessent is a tough figure to bet against.

It's definitely a choppy ride, but anyone voting for Trump knew that if they voted for policies and not religious fandom.

The strategies the previous administration did far more long term harm than these policies will do in short term harm. It's actually unwinding those.

Glad Bessent is putting in these policies, just my opinion.

Anyone against tariffs and a market correction, or besides that. Answer this question.

If we could go back 35 years to 1990, and I told you, you have two options which do you choose?

1) That TV will cost you 1/10 today's price in 35 years. But at the cost of your average populated city being decimated and your major metros being overpopulated. And saturation for that causes enormous student loan debt, your kids having to live by renting only in these metro areas, and your house(likely aimed to paid that off) have appreciated less than inflation. And the dollar has gotten weaker.

2) Your TV will cost you 50% of today's price but your average city population increased at a similar rate to years past. College is more affordable with significantly less debt necessary, your kids found jobs in their home city and can afford a home. The major metros did not become industry monopolies & the dollar is stronger.

Keeping current trade structure and outsourcing work keeps #1 going.

Re structuring fair trade & creating job sources internally supplies #2.

We keep pursuing everything at the lowest price, but at what cost? It's not been worth it.

Side note. #1 destroys birth rate, #2 is a huge tailwind for family formation.

Your #2 seems to imply the population growth rate has accelerated and that housing affordability is at an all time low which are both false.

before the recent rate hikes, housing affordability was lower than a mass majority of the last 50 years With the recent rate hikes, homes were still less affordable in the 1980s

your mindset is different than mine I see a plethora of opportunities More opportunities than I have time or capacity to use. My 22 year old son has already accumulated more wealth than most people will obtain in their life.

I have seen detailed instructions by Henry Clark to create and profit from self storage Jay Hinrichs on timber deeds, land acquisitions, development, lending, etc Many other posts. There are a lot of post that you follow the instructions and leverage the education provided to opportunity. It is not without work. I see immigrants to millionaires in a decade. My first protege was a janitor that had smarts, good people skills, and a desire to succeed. He has promised to surpass me which I think would have been great but he has backed off recently; he wants to enjoy what he has earned versus I enjoy the pursuit of wealth. In ~20 years he has gone from janitor to 8 digit net worth.

I wish everyone who works hard and smart to achieve financial independence.

My #2 is stating that we'll see more family formation and thus higher birth rate. Anywhere you look, we see birth rate struggling. Housing affordability is at an all time low, rivaling early mid 1980s. That's a fact.

My point is at the rate we were going, we are going to cause more long term division & separation which in the end causes collapse. It's inevitable.

#1 is what we've been doing. #2 is what tariffs/trade war, short term austerity, jobs back to America will produce over 35 years.

I don't think it's a mindset "differential".

I'm not saying there is a lack of opportunity, I'm saying the pursuit of the absolute lowest cost has ended up with more concentration of wealth, dollar devaluation, depleted diversification of jobs & living markets, and a lack of family formation/birth rates. Those aren't a mindset thing, those are facts.

Bessent's policies are aiming to unwind those troubles. So the s&p going down, trade wars, those are the necessary evils to unwind. Bloating the equities market is short term gain, long term pain, like the previous administration did. Total damage.

Your son at 22 is doing fantastic, he's the outlier. A 80 year high of population of that Gen Z demographic is living at home or with another family member. While I agree opportunity may be ripe, you discount the barrier to entry is higher than ever and the sunk cost of living is at the all time worst. Those aren't mindsets, those are facts.

You need to look around and see how these young kids are developing and moving. There's a societal shift in the last 30-35 years that's directly related to the demise of the development of the next generation and ultimately America's future.

It's started with seeking the lowest cost, and ultimately instant gratification. It's going to be America's demise. That's my opinion, but I'm supporting it with the facts above.

Housing affordability is not as bad as the 1980s. In addition, I was hearing about how unoffordable housing was before the rates increased when housing affordability was lower than most of the last 50 years.

The young kids I deal with are killing it. Virtually all of them have worked for me. My son and his good start. His best friend has been accepted into virtually every veterinary school he has applied to. Another young ex employee is working nuclear for the navy. Another that worked for me just graduated with physical engineering bs degree. One just received MS from Ivy League. The difference between these and other young people is they see opportunity and pursue it. I expect my son to be millionaire before 30 years old.

Gen z are still fairly young. Not sure the source of your 80 year worse, but the younger gen z are not yet teenagers and living at home is expected. I saw recent data that showed millennials are doing a better job at saving than baby boomers achieved.

you see troubles where I see a lot of opportunities. I agree things are not perfect, but they never have been and never will be.

Time will tell if this administration’s policies have a net benefit or make things worse. While I am more optimistic about the current state, you are far more optimistic of these changes than I am. We both seem to agree so far it has made things worse.

You're looking at your little bubble of your sons & friends.

This isn't debatable stuff about Gen Z, not teenagers, and housing affordability. This is known stuff.

A 2023 survey from Harris Poll for Bloomberg found that about 45% of people ages 18 to 29 lived at home with their families, an 80 year high. From 2021 to 2023, more than 60% of Generation Z and millennials said they moved back home, the poll reported.

Roughly 1 in 3 adults ages 18 to 34 in the U.S. are living with at least one of their parents.
More than half of Gen Z adults say they don’t make enough money to live the life they want due to the high cost of living, according to a 2024 survey from Bank of America.
More than a third, 36%, of Americans said in a 2022 survey that more young adults living with their parents is bad for society.

Approximately 1 in 3 U.S. adults ages 18 to 34 live in their parents’ home, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

Gen Z is stuck and fearful. The sunk cost of living has gotten extremely high relative.

I am not sure what you're looking at for affordability, but it's as bad. And even then what does that matter, it's regressed. Regression is a terrible thing outright. And its a function of a lot of things, but affordability is one.

I think since your son & friends have had success, you have a very narrow view. Go look at the general public. It's not sunshine & roses.

Milennials and Gen Zers have three options: save, doom spend, or invest. Of course they'll save better than boomers, boomers priority was paying off their 10% interest loan on their house. Back then the goal was to have your house paid off, post recession the goal was to get into equities with low interest rates fueling it. That's right when millennials graduated. That's a natural course of action.

With that said, no I didn't say the administration is doing damage. I'm saying the previous one did, this is just showing now. Bloated equities, bloated inflation, everything was off. We need to pop the balloon. It formed on the previous administration time.

I agree with you that the last couple of years housing is less affordable than since the late 1980s. My issue is that I was hearing how unaffordable houses have been from the youngest generation for a decade when in reality most of the last decade had houses more affordable than virtually any time in the last 50 years. The affordability is not constant. It goes up and down. From 2012 to 2022, houses were historically very affordable. Young people bemoaned that the affordability was not as low as it was in 2013/2014 without recognizing it was more affordable than most other generations had encountered.

gen z is 12 year old to 28 year olds. They are young and last couple of years home affordability is poor. It will not stay poor. Patience, the low affordability is basically less than 3 years and it was immediately proceeded by incredible home affordability.

here is a chart on recent wealth generation by age demographivpc

It shows since the pandemic the highest wealth growth was by millennials, then gen x, then baby boomers. Millennials are on track to be the wealthiest US generation ever.

i think gen z often are impatient, want things handed to them on a silver platter, and believe they have it so much worse than previous generations (when the reality is housing has only had poor affordability for a couple of years). Most of this generation with this belief are on an unmotivated, easy path. The kids I am closest to from gen z are doing great. They are motivated and hustling. Many of them have worked for me (many of those I provided RDPD: what rich teach their children that the poor do not). I see the same thing at the RE conventions I go to. The MTR summit last year had many young people hustling and some already achieving significant success. These rockstar kids poke fun of their generation that expect great things to fall into their lap.

your post makes it seem like houses have been historically unaffordable for many years (versus just 2 years). That generation Z is approaching middle age without having had an opportunity at affordable housing (when it was historically affordable in 2022).

we see the same data, but you think gen z has no opportunity. I think gen z has and will have great opportunity if they work hard and smart with patience. Question for you, what is stopping a gen z person from moving to a LCOL Midwest city and house hacking a duplex with a FHA loan? What is a cheap duplex in these low cost markets? $150k maybe. Out of pocket about the same as a modest used car. Most of the PITI paid by the tenant.

As indicated I see a lot of opportunity for those willing to do what it requires. I see young people succeeding. I see post on this forum with detailed steps to financial success. I have posted numerous times on sophisticated value adds. Anyone can research and run with these suggestions. Others have done the same. I have seen a thread where Henry Clark provide step by step instructions for someone that for some reason thought it best not to follow the domain experts detailed advice (why?). I seldom spell out in that detail how to make a million, but with taking the idea and researching the path is there.

different mindsets, different expectations, different willingness to do what is required, etc.

best wishes

Quote:

we see the same data, but you think gen z has no opportunity. I think gen z has and will have great opportunity if they work hard and smart with patience. Question for you, what is stopping a gen z person from moving to a LCOL Midwest city and house hacking a duplex with a FHA loan? What is a cheap duplex in these low cost markets? $150k maybe. Out of pocket about the same as a modest used car. Most of the PITI paid by the tenant.

I'll take this one: economic opportunity or more specifically career opportunities. The heart of most industries doesn't lie in the midwest. Aersopace is LA, Finance is NY and Miami, Defense and Gov is D.C., Biomedical is Boston, software is SF. The HCOL areas are all engines of economic (and therefore career) growth. Unless you are in automotive (which seems to be the exception), there is a significant opportunity cost to not living in these hubs, especially if you are ambitious. I live in Rochester, NY there are only a handful of employers in my area (space), so the major opportunity is to get promoted internally and the pay is significantly depressed (wages are about 2/3 of what they pay in Denver and LA with less raises significantly less than inflation). I am starting my own business, when/if I start hiring, there won't be as much talent and I will have to travel (fly out of town) to do in person sales. If real estate is your goal, nothing, but if you primarily make money elsewhere and investing in real estate is the secondary consideration moving to the midwest is likely a poor choice.

With that said, Dan, I'm with you the kids will be alright, there is more opportunity now than there has been in previous generations. One just has to be bold enough to grab it. (It might not be in real estate currently though, what worked for the previous generation rarely works as well for the next one).

I agree with you and Dan on opportunities, but also state the barrier to entry is higher. I don't think that's refutable.

I'd pose the same two question scenario to you, too and @Jay Hinrichs

@Jay Hinrichs

If we could go back 35 years to 1990, and I told you, you have two options which do you choose?

In reverse order, I am with you and James that globalization and the deindustrialization of America has been a bad (for the US). I am in favor of what I believe Trump is attempting to do with the economy (namely reducing government spending and increasing tariffs in order to reduce government debt and reshore manufacturing despite the high probability of also creating a recession).

You are clearly wiser and know more than I, but I just don't know that the barrier to entry being higher is true. I think it is certainly true in many industries (like real estate). Maybe if you compare it to the 2010s it is but even then I am not totally convinced. My wife just got the first sale from her business (selling products to child life specialists in hospitals) and got the business off the ground for under 10k. It's not a huge business, but I suspect she'll grow it to 20k in profit/year over the next 3-4 years working maybe 10 hours a month on it while growing and almost zero for repeat customers (she thinks the opportunity is bigger than I do and closer to 40k/year). I am attempting to build a different business on The other thing is the number of investors is significantly higher than it was 30 years ago and the money comes on much more favorable terms. The proliferation of the internet and various services that come with it have made starting consumer facing businesses significantly less labor and capital intensive. You can also buy a small internet business for ~2.5x its profits, and there are investors who will loan you money to do so, many of these businesses can be run part time.

Household debt is about 25% more relative to GDP today than 35 years ago.

Income hasn't raised proportionally and inflation has risen significantly higher. Just those factors tell you the barrier to entry is higher.

I am not saying impossible, I'm just saying higher.

I'm omitting regulatory controls for entrepreneurs which is significantly harder than 35 years ago.