Authored by Majid Rafizadeh via Gatestone Institute,

When you go to vote in ten days, please keep in mind the many doctrines and policies that are not just preferred but required by those who identify with the ideologies of Islam.

Every election presents a choice between candidates, some of whom may be more supportive of your individual freedoms than others. There are many candidates whose primary loyalty is to the United States: they put America first, seek to improve it, and defend its core constitutional values: freedom of speech and of the press, equal justice under the law, the right to due process, separation of powers, an independent judiciary, the right to keep and bear arms, and the full range of the rights of individuals — not groups.

Those individuals whose identity is bound to an Islamist framework, however, are committed to implementing their version of Sharia law. Unfortunately, this seventh-century version of justice will not improve our country or the West; it will only move them backwards.

As someone who grew up in Iran and Syria and experienced these realities, I have seen firsthand people who identify with Islamist Sharia law. Islamists and jihadists do not treat Sharia as one policy preference among many. It is not just their identity; it is what they are committed to advancing as the sole identity for everyone.

Their entire sense of self, their purpose in this life, and their belief about the next life depend on implementing Sharia completely. It outweighs everything else. They will die for it. Changing this commitment would mean changing who they are. It is like expecting the Pope to denounce Jesus on Easter or a rabbi to enjoy a pork chop on Yom Kippur – only more – to the zillionth power. Nothing external – prosperity, compromise, or democratic norms – can override it.

As we were taught for years and saw with our own eyes, Islamist Sharia law stands in complete contradiction to American values in every major respect. The very reason that the United States grew and became a superpower in technology, the economy, and influence is that its founding values run directly in opposition to Islamist Sharia.

Look, for example, at countries taken over by Islamic ideology: Afghanistan, Turkey, Syria, Pakistan, and Iran are clear examples. Iran, for instance, possesses one of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves and should be wealthy. After the Shia Islamists seized power and imposed their version of Sharia, the economy became one of the worst performing for a resource-rich nation, and its citizens, ordinary people, like you, have paid the price.

Under Sharia, one cannot have it both ways. If someone truly believes in Islamic Sharia law, they must follow it point by point. One of the central points is the rejection of free speech. Just look at Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. One can be killed not only for criticizing Islam, Mohammed or Sharia, but even for the suspicion that you might have done so. The slighted questioning of the religion or the rulers who claim to implement Allah’s will makes you a blasphemer or an infidel, the punishment for which can be death.

In countries where Islamists have taken power, people are imprisoned, tortured, raped and executed for words or online posts. Asia Bibi spent eight years on death row for taking a few sips of water from a well, and, because she is Christian, of thereby having “contaminated” it. Supporting those people identified with this Sharia means supporting people who do not believe in freedom of speech or freedom of much else, especially individual rights.

There are few extenuating circumstances in Sharia. There is no freedom of conscience. If you are raped you are guilty of committing adultery and can be stoned to death – unless four males witnessed the incident! If you are gay, you must be thrown to your death from a high place. Apostasy – leaving Islam – is punishable by death. A person raised in that system is taught that conversion is not a private choice; it is a capital offense. Do you really want someone who genuinely believes that you should not be free to choose your own faith or your own actions and choices holding power over your city, your state, or your country – and seated on intelligence committees?

This same ideology holds that men are legally superior to women in inheritance, testimony, and nearly every legal domain. Women are regarded as inferior by doctrine and design. It is astonishing that some self-described, apparently masochistic feminists and women’s rights advocates still support policies that so openly abuse them.

The policy and priority of those committed to this worldview is not the equal rights, prosperity, health, or livelihood of the American people. Their priority and main policy is advancing and imposing their Islamist version of Sharia. That is what they believe earns rewards in this world and the next. Failure to pursue it makes them bad servants of Allah. They will promise free electricity, free everything, social benefits, and moderation – exactly as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and others did before consolidating power. Once in power, the rules change. This pattern is called taqiyya – dissimulation – the permission to conceal true intentions and present a milder face until the moment of strength arrives. It has happened in Afghanistan, Turkey, Syria, Pakistan and Iran, among other places. It has been repeated elsewhere. Americans would do well to recognize the pattern.

Wherever this ideology has taken control, countries that once had greater openness and potential have sped backward. The process starts gradually – gaining positions in education, government, building influence, and waiting. Then the enforcement comes: mandatory dress codes, suppression of dissent, and restrictions on faith and speech. Few in Iran expected the sudden total transformation that followed the advent of the ayatollahs. Once power was secured, new laws appeared virtually overnight.

Similar patterns have already become entrenched in the United Kingdom and parts of Europe Informal Sharia councils have proliferated, supposedly handling “just” personal and family matters – marriage, divorce, and inheritance according to Islamic principles – but heaven help anyone who might try to protest a ruling. These bodies lack all formal legal authority under national law and operate as voluntary or advisory forums, yet their growth – estimated in the dozens across Britain – has fueled parallel systems: unequal treatment of women in divorce and inheritance rulings, and pressures against free expression or freedom of action.

Broader Islamist networks, including those associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, have drawn attention in several European countries for violent societal pressure, parallel communities, and increasing political pressure at the ballot box that accompanies demographic proliferation. Only occasionally are there calls for countermeasures. They usually amount to nothing — both from fear by the leaders of violent opposition on the streets, as seen now in France and as far as South Korea, from fear of being abandoned at the altar of the ballot box.

Supporting candidates whose identity is bound to Islamist Sharia law risks sending the country backward – for you, your children, and your grandchildren. The examples around the world are clear: once these forces reach significant numbers or high levels of power, they show their true face. If you care about the values of the West, you would be better off voting instead for people whose loyalty is to this country, whose identity is not an imported Islamist ideology, and whose priority is the opportunity for a freer, more prosperous life and constitutional guarantees that send America forwards. Going backwards – fast – can happen here too.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge.

Authored by Gabrielle Temaat via The College Fix,

Nearly one in five freshmen at the University of California are flunking introductory math classes amid widespread calls from faculty to reinstate standardized testing requirements for admissions.

About 18 percent of students either withdrew or received a D or F grade during the 2025-26 school year. This share has nearly doubled from 2020-21, “the last year that the SAT and ACT were required for first-year admission,” according to EdSource.

Further, UC students averaged a GPA of 2.7 in introductory math classes in 2025-26. Students averaged a 3.18 in 2020-21.

However, “Failure rates vary widely across UC’s nine undergraduate campuses, skyrocketing at some while remaining mostly flat at others,” according to EdSource.

UC Merced showed the highest failure or withdrawal rate at 36 percent, while UC Santa Barbara recorded the lowest, at just 8.2 percent.

In response to the new data, a Republican state leader told The New York Post that “California can’t grade their way out of an education crisis.”

“Dropping the SAT and ACT has let far too many students arrive unprepared for even introductory math,” said Sonja Shaw, a candidate for California state superintendent of public instruction.

UC Davis math professor Joel Hass told The Post he was not surprised by the results, as the divide between prepared and unprepared students continues to grow.

“There is a wider range of interest and preparedness,” Hass said. “We still have a good number of highly qualified students, but also many who are unprepared for college. The preparedness gap between these groups is large.”

He added that the state is sending “students who might thrive by first going to the community colleges to UC campuses where they are unprepared for a serious academic environment.”

The new data comes as more than 3,000 California faculty have signed two letters demanding the reinstatement of standardized testing in admissions.

“Over the past five years, we have seen a widening divergence in mathematical preparation levels within the same classroom. This trend indicates that current admissions practices do not provide a sufficiently reliable check on mathematical readiness for STEM majors,” one letter reads.

Further demonstrating this crisis, a University of California Berkeley professor wrote in a recent op-ed that students don’t know how to work with elementary-level fractions, The College Fix previously reported.

“Office hours that should be spent discussing integrals instead become lessons on fractions and basic algebra you would expect students to learn in middle school,” Zvezdelina Stankova wrote in an article published by The San Francisco Standard.

Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

Western governments have put themselves in mortal danger.

They are actively doing things that are destroying their countries: (1) replacing their native citizens with unassimilable foreigners; (2) centralizing government power in unelected and unaccountable bureaucracies; (3) censoring and criminalizing public dissent; (4) offshoring industrial and manufacturing jobs; (5) exacerbating energy costs and general inflation by demonizing hydrocarbons and pushing “global warming” delusions; (6) increasing taxes, government spending, and public welfare in unsustainable ways; (7) demolishing their nations’ historical identities, traditions, beliefs, and common cultures; (8) providing foreigners with “free” homes, food, and educations, while accusing native citizens of being “racists,” “xenophobes,” and “white supremacists”; (9) discouraging healthy marriages and stable families; and (10) indoctrinating the youngest generations to believe that war, “climate change,” overpopulation, and economic collapse will prevent them from ever having happy, hopeful, purposeful futures.

Those are just ten ways that Western governments are hurting their citizens. There are many more. But a reasonable person should be able to read the above paragraph and understand that nations cannot survive under such a destructive barrage of harmful policies.

Western governments are waging wars against their own nations. The progress of these wars may look a little different in the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Germany, Australia, Canada, and the United States, but what happens in one country soon enough spreads to all the rest. It is as if Western leaders got together many years ago and agreed that their countries would drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid and take long dirt naps.

Perhaps they formed this suicide pact during an “elite” gathering of the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, or the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Perhaps they chanted, “Build back better,” in unison while voting to euthanize the West.

Adversarial political parties ostensibly compete for control of Western governments, but, in reality, the party system is kabuki theater wherein the same special interests own the politicians on both sides of the aisle. Until so-called “populist” parties emerged in the West, voters were given merely the illusion of choice.

After all, the Conservative Party held power in the United Kingdom for fourteen years, and despite repeated promises to do so, its leaders failed to secure Britain’s borders from foreign invasion or to extract the kingdom from regulatory enslavement to the European Union.

In the United States, President George W. Bush calls President Bill Clinton his “brother” and Hillary Clinton his “sister” and once described Michelle Obama as his “best friend.” Establishment Republicans such as lame-duck senators Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, and Thom Tillis spend more time attacking President Trump and the 95% of Republican voters who support his MAGA policies than they do warning Americans about the growing number of communists in the Democrat Party.

Western nations have political Establishments that pretend to fight in front of the public but largely conspire behind closed doors and agree about most everything. We know this to be true because we have witnessed how these political Establishments work together to prevent “outsider” political candidates from reaching higher office or holding power.

In Europe, the political Establishment enjoy enforcing so-called “cordons sanitaire,” or “firewalls” meant to hinder the leaders of “unacceptable” political movements from obtaining power. In the Netherlands, the political Establishment have blocked Geert Wilders from becoming prime minister because of his opposition to mass immigration, Islamic supremacy, and the European Union and despite the fact that the party he leads has significant public support. In France, the political Establishment have done the same thing to Jean-Marie Le Pen, his daughter Marine, and their National Rally because of the party’s pro-national-sovereignty and anti-immigration policies. In the United Kingdom, the political Establishment have blocked Brexit stalwart and Reform UK chief Nigel Farage from leadership roles in parliament. In Germany, the political Establishment have attempted to delegitimize the popular anti-immigration party, Alternative for Deutschland, by defaming its members as “domestic terrorists,” “Russian agents,” and anti-constitutional “national security threats.”

In the United States, Establishment Democrats and Republicans did everything they could to prevent President Trump’s election and then to remove him from office after he soundly defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016. The Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, actively campaigned against Trump in 2016. So-called “conservative” political pundits, such as Bill Kristol and George Will, repudiated Republican voters and supported Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Even though Republicans controlled Congress, former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan advanced the Clinton-Obama-Intelligence-Community operation to frame President Trump as a Russian spy. Senator Romney twice voted to remove Trump from office. Democrat prosecutors spent years trying to imprison Trump for life, and Establishment Republicans worked desperately to keep Trump from becoming the party’s presidential nominee once again in 2024. America’s political Establishment tried to remove Trump from ballots, bully him with investigations, and paint him as a “dictator” in an incitement campaign that encouraged would-be assassins to seek his death.

What have these widespread Establishment efforts across the West to undermine elections and silence public dissent accomplished? Western institutions – government agencies, universities, news media, banks, corporations, and NGOs – have never been more distrusted. That makes sense. Western institutions are hostile to Western citizens.

While ordinary Westerners are proud of their countries, Western institutions tell them that they should be ashamed of their ancestors and their nations’ histories. While ordinary Westerners wish to work, buy homes, and have families, Western institutions support mass immigration policies that replace Western workers, increase demand on housing, and make it much more difficult for Westerners to support and protect their families. When Western citizens object to the political Establishments’ open borders, Western news media demonize them as “racists” and “white supremacists.” When Western citizens organize around their national flags and march peacefully down city streets, the political Establishment demonize them as “fascists,” “right-wingers,” and “Nazis.” When Western citizens try to protect themselves from violent foreign nationals, Western law enforcement agencies condemn the Westerners and defend the violent foreigners.

The West’s political Establishments would rather allow foreigners to burn down churches, town halls, stores, schools, and private homes than take action to protect Western citizens from the deadly consequences of Establishment policies. The U.K. Establishment allowed Islamic supremacists to rape tens of thousands of British girls without any consequence. The French Establishment allowed Islamic supremacists to hunt police officers, loot stores, set buildings and vehicles ablaze, and terrorize French citizens without any consequence.

In Germany, 87% of suspects with open arrest warrants are foreigners. Despite all evidence to the contrary, London’s police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, says that it is critical to replace merit-based hiring with preferential treatment for black and Muslim applicants (and calls criticism of his “diversity” policies “toxic”). Western NGOs preposterously claim that capitalism and “climate change” should be blamed for Islam’s penchant for sex slavery and child marriages. In the U.K., 80% of jobs go to foreign immigrants. In the U.S., Democrat Senator Elissa Slotkin promises to politically prosecute President Trump’s supporters in order to “deter” them from opposing Establishment policies.

Even as Western governments attack Western citizens, however, they still expect those citizens to sacrifice their lives in a looming global war. The head of the British Army, General Sir Roland Walker, recently told soldiers: “Very soon, the political leaders of this country will start to have a frank conversation with the citizens of this country about just what is going on.” At that time, citizens “have got to consent to sacrifices to prioritize defense and security.”

Nearly half of military-aged Brits say there are “no circumstance” in which they would defend the United Kingdom. That’s no surprise. Why would Western citizens defend governments that abuse them? If the West already “belongs” to foreigners, what else is there to defend?

Western governments’ cascading failures are leading to their demise. Citizens owe them nothing.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge.

Authored by Milan Adams via Preppgroup,

At a glance

• Existing-home sales have run roughly a third below their pre-2020 level for three years, while the median price has repeatedly set records – a combination that ordinary market logic does not predict.

• A large majority of outstanding mortgages carry rates below 5 percent. Selling means trading a cheap loan for an expensive one, and the households with the strongest finances are the least willing to make that trade.

• The housing shortage is a permission problem as much as a land problem. Reforms that legalize construction take three to five years to produce occupied houses, which is longer than most political cycles.

• Insurance premiums, climate exposure and condominium assessments now shape the monthly cost of owning a home at least as much as the purchase price does – and they vary enormously from one ZIP code to the next.

Introduction

American housing has spent three years doing the strangest thing a market can do: nothing.

Not collapsing, not recovering, not clearing. Sales fell by roughly a third from their pandemic peak and then stayed there, year after year, while prices kept grinding upward and the number of homes changing hands in a twelve-month window dropped to a level last seen in the mid-1990s, when the country had some seventy million fewer people living in it. Read only the median price and you would conclude that little has happened. Try to buy or sell a house and you would know better.

The standard vocabulary fits badly here. Bubble implies something inflating toward a pop. Correction implies a direction of travel. Crash and recovery both assume motion. What exists instead is a standoff between two groups with almost no reason to trade with each other. Owners sit on loans at rates that no longer exist, on houses that keep gaining value, in neighborhoods where the monthly cost of staying put is fixed and known. Buyers look at the same properties and see payments several hundred dollars a month higher than what the current occupant pays for the same roof. Neither side is in trouble. Neither side has an incentive to move first.

What that produces is a stall rather than a crash. Transactions thin out, the handful of houses that do sell are the best of a very small pool, and the steady flow of comparable sales that tells everyone what a home is worth slows to a trickle. Appraisers begin valuing against data months out of date. Agents leave the business because there are no commissions. Lenders cut staff because there are no loans. Aggregated into a national median, all of it can look almost like business as usual, which is part of why the situation has lasted this long without anyone declaring it.

Four forces built it, and only one is the interest rate. Cheap mortgages issued during the pandemic trapped existing owners in place. Rates that rose four percentage points in about eighteen months made those loans unrepeatable. A decade and a half of underbuilding left too few houses for the households that already exist. And a set of costs unrelated to interest – insurance, property taxes, maintenance, condominium assessments – climbed fast enough to make ownership harder to hold, not merely harder to enter.

The distributional consequence is the part that matters most and gets discussed least. The country is being quietly sorted by when people bought. Everyone who closed before 2022 sits inside the standoff, insulated, often better off every month than they would be starting fresh. Everyone else stands outside it, paying the price in rent, in down-payment years, in moves not made. That sorting does not show up in any of the numbers the market reports about itself.

A market that has stopped is harder to restart than one that has fallen, because a crash creates buyers and a standoff creates only patience. What follows is an attempt to separate what is measurable from what is inferred, and to say plainly where the evidence is thin.

1. A market that stopped moving

Volume is the first thing to go, and the thing almost nobody watches.

Existing-home sales ran above five million a year for most of the decade before 2020, peaked near 6.5 million during the boom, then fell by about a third and stayed down. New listings in most metros have spent three years below their 2015-2019 averages. Homes now sit on the market longer than at any point since 2012, even as prices rise – a pairing that would have looked incoherent to anyone who learned this market in the 1990s.

Why transaction volume matters more than it sounds

A home sale is not one event; it is a small industry. Appraisers, inspectors, title officers, escrow clerks, loan processors, movers, painters, locksmiths and furniture salespeople all eat from it. When a third of the transactions disappear, a third of that work disappears with them, spread thinly across thousands of small firms with no way to hedge. Businesses built for a market that moves slowly but never stops are not built for one that stops.

Prices, meanwhile, have not followed volume down. In an ordinary slowdown, falling sales eventually drag prices, because sellers compete for a shrinking pool of buyers. Here, supply fell at roughly the same rate as demand, and the ratio between them barely budged. That is the mechanical explanation, and it is worth stating precisely: the number of homes for sale and the number of households shopping for them both contracted, so the balance of bargaining power never shifted far enough to force concessions on price.

Some markets have moved anyway. Austin, where a construction boom added enough units to move both prices and asking rents, is the clearest counterexample, and worth holding onto because it shows the standoff is not a law of nature. It is a consequence of specific local decisions about how much gets built.

📊 The missing transactions. Economists at Fannie Mae and the Federal Housing Finance Agency have separately estimated that the lock-in effect suppressed something on the order of one to one and a half million sales a year. Both figures are model-based estimates rather than counts, and both depend on an assumed “normal” turnover rate, so they should be read as magnitudes rather than precise numbers.

A million and a half household decisions deferred annually does not sound like much against a population of 340 million. It compounds, though. A job not taken because a family could not sell in time. A school district not changed. A business not started in a cheaper city. None of it appears in a price index, and all of it accumulates in the form of a country that moves less than it used to.

2. Most mortgaged owners are sitting on a loan nobody will ever repeat

The foundation was poured in about eighteen months, and it was poured deliberately.

In early 2021 the average thirty-year fixed mortgage rate touched 2.65 percent, the lowest reading in the nearly fifty-year history of the survey. By late 2023 it had passed 7.5 percent. Somewhere between six and seven in ten outstanding mortgages now carry a rate below 5 percent, with a large share below 4. Most of those loans were refinanced in a wave, often more than once, by households doing exactly what the financial press told them to do.

The arithmetic explains a great deal. A household that borrowed $400,000 at 3 percent pays roughly $1,686 a month in principal and interest. The same household buying the same house today at 6.5 percent pays about $2,528. That is roughly $840 more per month, or $10,000 a year, for three decades, on a house that has not changed in any respect. Spread across a household budget, the difference is the entire reason the market stopped.

What makes this cycle unusual is who is refusing to transact. In a normal market, the financially strongest households trade most freely, because they can absorb the friction. Here they trade least. The people with the best credit, the most equity and the least risk are the least willing to surrender a loan that will never be offered again – and a market in which the best-positioned owners decline to participate does not clear, however many buyers show up.

The difference between the math and the mood

There is a temptation to treat this as purely arithmetic, and a corresponding temptation to treat it as purely psychological. Neither is sufficient.

The arithmetic is real: replacing a 3 percent loan with a 6.5 percent loan costs money, every month, for thirty years. But the arithmetic alone does not explain why a household with a growing family, a new job three states away, or a marriage ending would stay put. Those households still move. What has disappeared is the discretionary move – the upgrade to a bigger house, the relocation for a modestly better salary, the trade into a nicer school district – the transactions that used to make the market liquid.

Add transaction costs and the picture sharpens further. Commissions, title insurance, appraisal fees, transfer taxes and moving expenses routinely run into five figures, and they are paid in cash at exactly the moment a household is already absorbing the rate increase. A paper gain of $150,000 in equity is not $150,000 of usable money unless the household sells, and selling means spending real cash to unlock it.

⚖️ Two readings of the same fact. One interpretation holds that owners are trapped by arithmetic and would list if rates fell to roughly 5 percent. The other holds that a large share of them were never going to move, and are using rates as a socially acceptable reason. Both are plausible; surveys about hypothetical moves have a poor record of predicting actual behavior, and the honest position is that the split is unknown.

A wealth effect runs alongside the rate effect and pushes the same way. Owners who bought before 2022 have watched equity grow by six figures without doing anything, and a large unrealized gain is itself an argument against selling. Why trade an appreciating asset for a more expensive version of the same thing financed at a higher rate? For a household content with where it lives, the answer is usually: not now.

3. Almost nothing is for sale, and nobody has a reason to list

High prices are supposed to summon sellers. In this cycle they have not, for a reason almost too obvious to state: the seller is also a buyer.

A homeowner listing in a strong market walks straight into the problem. The next house is expensive too, and the loan on it costs more than the loan being retired. So the seller nets a large gain and hands much of it directly back in the form of a bigger monthly payment, plus closing costs, plus the cost of making a new house habitable. For a household that likes where it lives, the trade is frequently a loss dressed up as a profit.

Active listings remain well below pre-pandemic norms across most of the Northeast, the Midwest and the West Coast. New construction has filled part of the gap, but mostly in the South and the exurbs, at prices first-time buyers struggle to reach. Roughly a third of listings have taken a price cut in recent months, which sounds like weakness until you notice that the cuts are small and the original asking prices were set high. A seller who prices optimistically and cuts twice is not under pressure. A seller who prices low and gets three offers in a weekend is in a different market entirely.

Months of supply – how long it would take to sell everything listed at the current pace – has hovered near four, against a long-run balanced figure closer to six. By that measure this remains a seller’s market, and on desirable houses it behaves like one: multiple offers, waived inspections, dropped contingencies. Yet buyers cannot really afford it, which produces the odd condition of a market that is tight and unaffordable at the same time, with the usual self-correcting mechanism refusing to engage.

Why the loop does not close

Tight supply should raise prices. Higher prices should thin the buyer pool. A thinner buyer pool should bring out more supply. The loop ought to resolve on its own.

It has not, for three years, and the reason is that the supply is not being held back by strategy or sentiment but by arithmetic. Sellers are not withholding houses to force prices up; they are declining to participate in a transaction that costs them money. That is a different kind of restraint from the one markets are built to correct.

Where the mechanism weakens is worth noting. Owners who must sell – because of a job, a death, a divorce, a medical need – sell regardless of rates, and they are the ones absorbing the cost. In markets with heavy in-migration, enough new households arrive to keep pressure on prices even as local owners sit still. In markets with flat or declining population, the same standoff produces visible weakness. The national aggregate averages these together and describes neither.

4. The first-time buyer is now forty

The entry point is where the standoff does its clearest damage, because the entry point is where a market renews itself.

The median first-time buyer is now forty years old, the oldest on record. In the early 1980s that buyer was twenty-nine. First-timers account for roughly a quarter of purchases, the lowest share since the survey began in 1981, and the median down payment has climbed past 10 percent of the purchase price, running considerably higher in expensive metros.

Three factors pushed the entry point out of reach, and only one is the mortgage rate. Price is the largest: the median existing home has spent the middle of the decade near or above $400,000, roughly double its level in 2012. The down payment is second, and it must be saved in cash while rent consumes an ever-larger share of income. Third is competition from buyers who need no mortgage at all and therefore do not care what rates do.

Two different kinds of unaffordability

This distinction matters more than it usually gets credit for. A household can be priced out of ownership in two separate ways, and the remedies are different.

Payment unaffordability. The household cannot cover the monthly mortgage, taxes, insurance and maintenance at current prices and rates. Lower rates or lower prices help directly. This is the constraint most discussion focuses on.

Capital unaffordability. The household could comfortably carry the monthly payment but cannot assemble the down payment and closing costs, because those require accumulated cash rather than monthly cash flow. Lower rates barely help; what helps is savings, family assistance, or a loan product requiring less cash up front.

A household in the second category can be perfectly solvent and still unable to buy for years, which is why affordability metrics built on payment-to-income ratios often understate how tight the entry point has become.

💡 Where the money actually goes. Roughly four adults in ten would need to borrow or sell something to cover an unexpected $1,000 expense. Half of renters are cost-burdened, spending more than 30 percent of income on shelter. Student loan payments, restarted after a three-year pause, compete directly with down-payment savings in the same monthly budget – and they win, because they are due whether or not a house is ever bought.

The result is a queue that moves at half speed. People who would have bought at thirty buy at forty. People who would have bought at forty are still renting at fifty. And behind them sits a cohort that has never known a market in which the arithmetic worked.

Two escape hatches exist and both are narrowing. Family assistance now funds a substantial share of first purchases, which quietly converts homeownership into a question of parentage. Longer terms do the rest – forty-year mortgages, interest-only products, adjustable-rate loans – stretching the monthly payment while raising total interest and shifting rate risk onto the borrower at the point in life when it is hardest to absorb.

5. Cash buys what a mortgage cannot

When transactions are rare, they go to whoever has the fewest constraints, and the fewest constraints belong to people paying cash.

All-cash purchases have run near a third of transactions, well above the historical norm. Roughly 38 percent of owner-occupied homes carry no mortgage at all – a figure that surprises people who assume debt is universal. Institutional buyers, largely absent from the headlines since 2022, have resumed purchasing in Sun Belt metros, and they buy the way institutions buy: in volume, quickly, and often below asking.

The market that results splits in a way the median price never captures. On one side sit households with equity, cash or family money, transacting almost normally and largely indifferent to borrowing costs. On the other sit households dependent on a mortgage at current rates, for whom the same house is a different asset at a different price. The median averages the two groups and describes neither.

Not all cash buyers are the same

Treating them as a single bloc obscures the mechanics. Three distinct groups pay cash, and they behave differently.

Equity-rich movers. Longtime owners rolling gains from one house into the next. They are indifferent to rates but sensitive to price, and they tend to buy the house they intend to live in for a decade.

Downsizers and retirees. Households leaving a larger home, often with no mortgage on either property. Their budgets are fixed and their patience is long, so they wait for the right house and rarely overpay.

Yield-seeking investors, individual and institutional. They buy against a rental return and are therefore sensitive to rents, insurance costs and property taxes – which means they pull back first when those costs rise, and return first when they fall.

The squeeze lands hardest on the entry-level segment: three-bedroom houses in decent school districts, the classic starter home. First-time buyers, cash-rich downsizers and investors all want the same property, and the first group has the least capital and the longest timeline.

6. Builders are building the wrong houses

New construction is the obvious escape valve, and it has not been wide enough to matter.

The country has added roughly 1.3 to 1.4 million housing units a year for most of the decade, against estimates of need running from 1.5 million upward. The cumulative shortfall, by the reckoning of the National Association of Home Builders and a range of independent economists, sits somewhere between three and five million units. Single-family starts turned down again mid-decade as builders worked through unsold inventory, narrowing the valve just as it was needed most.

Costs explain much of the gap. Land, permitting delays and impact fees add tens of thousands of dollars before a shovel touches dirt. Construction labor thinned after 2008, when roughly a million building workers left the trade and never returned, and those who remained are older. Tariffs on imported lumber and components raised material costs at the same moment financing did, squeezing margins from both ends.

Builders have responded rationally by building the product with the best margin: larger houses, further out, aimed at move-up buyers and retirees who can absorb the price. The starter home – small, plain, close in – has been the hardest to build profitably, and so it is the thing most missing. This is not a failure of imagination. It is what happens when land, labor and money all get more expensive at once and the only way to make a project pencil is to sell a bigger box.

A newer model has grown into the space. Build-to-rent subdivisions, in which whole neighborhoods are constructed and held as rentals, have moved from curiosity to a meaningful share of single-family construction. That solves a real problem by giving households a house without requiring a mortgage. It also means a slice of new supply never reaches the for-sale market – so a country that cannot build enough houses is now building some of them for the wrong tenure.

7. The neighbors hold a veto

The shortage is a permission problem as much as a land problem, and the permission is granted at the end of the street.

Most American residential land is zoned for detached houses on generous lots, and most decisions about what gets built are made by local boards answerable to the people already living there. The arrangement produces stability, predictability and remarkable visual consistency. Over several decades it also produces a systematic shortage of everything except detached houses. Nobody set out to create a shortage. It emerged from a million small decisions, each defensible on its own.

The reforms that worked are instructive precisely because they are unglamorous. Minneapolis eliminated single-family-only zoning and saw rents in affected areas rise more slowly than in comparable cities. Austin approved large volumes of multifamily construction and became the rare metro where prices and asking rents fell. California legalized duplexes and lot splits statewide, then limited local discretion over small apartment buildings near transit. Montana, a state with a rural self-image, passed reforms allowing more units in its cities.

Permission is not the same as completion

This distinction is routinely blurred in policy arguments, and it decides whether reform should be judged a success.

A zoning change produces legal capacity, not houses. The houses arrive three to five years later, financed by a developer who must still secure land, permits, labor and a loan, and who will abandon the project if the arithmetic stops working halfway through. The benefits therefore show up first as slower rent growth rather than lower prices, which is why reforms are so often declared failures in year two and vindicated in year seven.

Opposition, meanwhile, is rarely to density in the abstract. It is to a specific project, a specific parking situation, a specific shadow across a specific garden. That is why the reform that works best tends to be the one that removes discretion rather than the one that wins an argument.

8. An insurance letter can end a mortgage

There is a second front, and it arrives in envelopes.

In Florida, California, Louisiana and parts of Texas, the cost of insuring a house has risen faster than the cost of the house. Premiums in some coastal counties doubled within three years. Carriers withdrew from entire states after strings of bad loss years. Insurers of last resort – Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance Corporation and California’s FAIR Plan – expanded from backstops into major players, with Florida’s state-backed carrier becoming the largest property insurer in the state.

The chain from there is short and mostly automatic. A mortgage lender requires insurance. Where insurance becomes unavailable or unaffordable, the loan becomes harder to obtain, and a house that cannot be financed cannot easily be sold. Owners in the worst-exposed areas increasingly pay cash or go without coverage, which is tolerable until the first storm and then becomes a personal balance-sheet event rather than an insurance one.

Several states have responded with catastrophe funds, faster claims rules and limits on litigation. Those measures have slowed the increase rather than reversed it. Insurance is repricing a risk that was underpriced for three decades, and repricing does not stop because the risk is real and widely acknowledged.

What makes this corrosive to a housing market is its geography. Insurance does not rise evenly. It rises in bands – in floodplains, in fire corridors, along particular coastlines – drawing visible local boundaries between insurable and nearly insurable. A market already sorted by when people bought is now being sorted again, this time by where.

9. Water, fire and heat have entered the appraisal

For a century, appraisal treated climate as a footnote, and for most of that century it was right to.

Flood maps are being redrawn, and the new maps put more houses inside hazard zones. Wildfire models now reach into suburban hillsides long considered safe because they had never burned. Extreme heat, which for most of history never appeared in a valuation, is showing up in insurance loads and utility bills and, increasingly, in whether a buyer will consider a place at all. Non-renewal notices cluster, and where they cluster, closings slow.

Two slower effects follow. Municipal bond markets have begun pricing the tax bases of towns whose exposure is concentrated, which matters because a town that loses ratable value loses services, and a town that loses services loses residents. And a migration has started toward cities with water, mild summers and low hazard – Buffalo, Duluth, Cincinnati, Rochester – none of which currently has the housing supply to absorb a wave, and all of which remain comparatively cheap.

Keep three mechanisms separate

They interact, but they are not the same thing, and confusing them leads to bad conclusions.

The 2025 Los Angeles firestorm and a run of Gulf hurricanes accelerated all three. When thousands of structures burn in one event and insurers absorb losses in the tens of billions, the next round of premiums is decided by arithmetic rather than by regulators. In exposed areas this shows up first as longer time on market rather than lower asking prices, because a seller with a 3 percent mortgage can afford to wait, and waiting is cheaper than conceding.

10. The condominium bill arrived in the mail

A separate mechanism began with a collapse, and it is still running.

On June 24, 2021, Champlain Towers South in Surfside, Florida, came down at one in the morning, killing 98 people. Investigations pointed to decades of deferred structural maintenance and to reserve funds kept deliberately thin because owners voted for low dues, cycle after cycle, in buildings that looked fine from the outside. Florida responded with legislation requiring milestone inspections and, critically, full funding of reserves for structural items rather than the minimum that would pass a vote.

What followed was an avalanche of special assessments – one-time charges levied on unit owners by the association to cover work the regular dues never funded. Buildings across South Florida, and increasingly elsewhere, were handed six-figure per-unit bills for roofs, facades, plumbing, elevators and concrete restoration. Owners who had bought a condo for $250,000 were asked for $80,000 in cash, on a deadline, in a building they had chosen partly because the dues were low.

Why an assessment breaks a sale

An assessment damages a condo market twice. First, it raises the effective purchase price for any buyer who must reserve cash for a future bill, and lenders increasingly ask about reserve studies before approving a loan. Second, it can force a sale: an owner with modest savings who cannot pay the assessment in cash must borrow, and an owner who cannot borrow must sell into a market where every other unit in the building is facing the same bill.

Older condominiums are the cheapest route into ownership in many cities, which makes this more consequential than it first appears. If the cheapest route becomes expensive to hold, the last affordable rung of the ladder starts to disappear – and it disappears for precisely the households the standoff is already squeezing.

11. Rents have stopped running

For three years after 2020, renting was the pressure valve. Households priced out of buying could rent instead, at a price, and the rental market absorbed the overflow.

That is changing. Multifamily completions reached their highest level in decades, with hundreds of thousands of units delivered in a single year. Asking rents flattened and then declined in many metros, particularly the Sun Belt cities that had seen the sharpest increases, and concessions reappeared in markets that had not offered them in years.

Two consequences follow, and they pull in opposite directions. If rent growth stops, the financial case for buying weakens, because the gap between a rent check and a mortgage payment narrows less than the down payment suggests. And if landlords can no longer raise rents, some sell, adding supply to the for-sale market. Both effects are real and both are small relative to the size of the standoff.

A surplus that is temporary

The rental surge is worth distinguishing from a lasting improvement, because the two are often conflated.

The current wave of completions reflects projects financed in 2021 and 2022, when money was cheap and rents were climbing. Multifamily starts collapsed once construction costs and interest rates rose, so the pipeline empties toward the end of the decade and a brief surplus becomes a renewed shortage. Build-to-rent subdivisions sit in the middle of this, offering a house with a lease instead of a mortgage – an attractive product for households that have given up on buying, and supply that never becomes ownership.

The implication is uncomfortable: the ownership rate can fall even while construction booms.

12. Nobody is moving

The most under-discussed damage is geographic, and it compounds slowly.

In 2023, fewer Americans moved than in any year since the Census Bureau began tracking the figure in 1948 – roughly one in thirteen. Job quits fell to their lowest rate in a decade outside the pandemic. Interstate migration flattened among homeowners while staying high among renters, which is a way of saying that the people with the most to gain from moving are the ones who can least afford to.

When workers cannot move, employers in growing metros struggle to hire, wage convergence between regions stalls, and productivity growth slows in ways that are hard to attribute but real. Local economies built on relocation – moving companies, storage, furniture, home services – shrink. Whole industries lose their customer base without anyone writing about it, because the decline is spread across thousands of small firms rather than concentrated in one visible collapse.

Housing used to be the American answer to a hundred different problems. It let people chase wages, leave a bad marriage, follow a child’s school, retire near family, start over somewhere cheaper after a business failed. A market transacting at half its normal rate withdraws that answer, quietly and without ever announcing it. The country does not lose mobility all at once. It loses it one household at a time, and each household concludes, reasonably, that moving is not worth it right now.

13. The machine underneath

Beneath all of this sits a plumbing problem most borrowers never see, and it explains why mortgage rates no longer fall the way they used to.

The spread between the thirty-year mortgage rate and the ten-year Treasury yield has run far wider than its historical norm, because lenders price in the risk that borrowers refinance the moment rates fall – a risk unusually large when so many loans were written at historic lows. Nonbank servicers, which now handle most of the country’s servicing, carry that prepayment risk on thin capital. Origination volumes fell by more than half from the 2020-21 peak, and lenders cut staff accordingly. Every firm that survives the trough must rebuild capacity before it can handle a refinance wave – which means the industry is structurally slow to respond to the very event everyone is waiting for.

The practical result is that mortgage rates no longer follow the policy rate down in step. A one-point cut in the federal funds rate historically moved mortgage rates by less than half of that, and the transmission has slowed further as the spread widened.

🔎 A self-reinforcing loop. High rates suppress transactions. Suppressed transactions weaken the lending industry. A weaker industry prices loans more expensively. Expensive loans keep the market stalled. Nothing in the loop corrects itself, and it runs in the direction of less activity rather than more.

14. Delinquency without disaster

The obvious worry is that a stalled market eventually breaks the way 2008 broke. So far it has not, and equity is the reason.

FHA and VA delinquencies have crept up from pandemic lows while remaining well below 2009 levels. The typical mortgaged homeowner holds several hundred thousand dollars of equity, and total homeowner equity sits in the tens of trillions. Foreclosure starts, after a long pause, normalized at modest levels. In 2008, owners owed more than their houses were worth and were forced to sell into a falling market. Today they owe far less and are choosing not to sell.

Equity is not the same as cash

This distinction explains why a household can look wealthy on a spreadsheet and still feel squeezed.

Home equity is the difference between the market value of a house and the debt secured against it. It is large, it grows, and it is entirely illiquid unless the owner sells or borrows against it.

Liquidity is the cash available in a given month. It is small, it does not grow with house prices, and it is what pays for a new roof, a medical bill, or a car repair.

A household can hold $300,000 of equity and still fail to cover a $3,000 furnace replacement without a credit card. That is why the equity cushion prevents foreclosures without preventing hardship – and why delinquency and distress can rise together even as balance sheets look healthy.

Stress is showing up where you would expect it if the problem were affordability rather than leverage: auto loan delinquencies are at their worst since 2010, credit card balances have risen steadily, and some owners are borrowing against equity to cover ordinary expenses, converting a housing asset into a spending account at the moment it is the only thing appreciating.

15. Two markets sharing an address

By now the shape is clear, and it is less a single market than two sharing an address and a postal code.

Inside sit households that bought before 2022, holding cheap loans, large equity and fixed housing costs. Their situation is stable and, on paper, improving. They are insulated from the thing everyone calls a housing crisis, and many do not experience it at all. Outside sit everyone else: renters saving against rising rents, first-time buyers aged forty competing with cash offers, families stuck in two bedrooms, workers who cannot relocate, retirees who cannot downsize, divorced households maintaining two residences because neither party can absorb the transaction cost.

Both groups read the same median price as two different facts, and they respond to the same interest rate in opposite directions. A rate cut helps the outsider and tempts the insider, which means policy that helps one usually does so at the expense of the other. Making buying cheaper also makes holding more valuable, and holding more valuable reduces the supply of sellers.

The distributional effect is the part worth carrying forward. A market that transacts at half its normal rate distributes opportunity unevenly across cohorts in a way that will outlast the rate cycle. Households that entered before 2022 begin accumulating equity a decade earlier than those behind them, and equity compounds. The gap does not close when rates fall; it widens, because the people inside the market are the ones who benefit from its recovery.

16. How a standoff ends

History offers two exits, and they look nothing alike.

In the 1980s, mortgage rates touched 18 percent, transactions collapsed, and the market stayed quiet for years. Nominal prices barely fell; real prices were ground down by inflation while owners sat still. The standoff ended when rates came down, which took most of a decade. The mid-2000s produced no standoff at all, because credit was loose enough that everyone transacted until the whole thing broke. The similarity to the 1980s is meaningful – a long, quiet, inflation-eroded plateau. The difference is that today’s owners carry far more equity and far better credit than their 1980s counterparts, which makes forced selling less likely and a long plateau more likely.

What could change the trajectory

A rate cut to 5 percent would unlock a meaningful share of owners who say they would move at that level, and would do more than any policy currently on the books. Income growth outpacing prices would repair affordability slowly, without a dramatic moment. Zoning reform, construction and condo repair would help on a five-to-ten-year horizon, which is longer than most political cycles. Insurance and tax policy would determine where recovery happens rather than whether it happens.

The likeliest path is a slow thaw rather than a break – but it is a forecast, not a certainty. It assumes rates fall without a recession, that incomes keep pace, and that insurance costs stabilize. If any of those fails, the plateau simply extends.

Closing

What makes this situation unusual is that it is nobody’s fault and everybody’s doing. Millions of households made individually sensible decisions – refinancing at 3 percent, staying put, holding an appreciating asset – and those decisions aggregated into a national paralysis.

The market has not broken. It has stopped. That difference matters because a crash creates buyers, and a standoff creates only patience – and patience, unlike a crash, has no natural end point.

🔭 What to watch next. Four indicators would confirm or challenge this analysis: the share of outstanding mortgages below 5 percent (falling means the lock-in is decaying); months of supply (rising above five means sellers are capitulating); insurance premium growth in coastal metros (slowing means the cost shock is easing); and the Census Bureau’s annual mover rate (recovering means the geographic damage is repairing). None of these turns quickly, and all four would need to move together for the picture to change.

The signs are quiet, and easy to walk past. A street where two houses sold in three years. A thirty-eight-year-old on a good salary who still cannot assemble a down payment. A condo board meeting where the agenda is a roof and the number has six figures in it. A moving truck parked for a single day on a block where ten families used to come and go.