This is Part 7 in our series on systems rigged against regular people. Part 1: Rankings | Part 2: Language | Part 3: Follow the Money | Part 4-6: Healthcare Series
The median first-time homebuyer in the 1980s was 29 years old. In 2025 it’s 40 — a record high (NAR 2025 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers). In 1985 a home cost about 3.5 times annual income. Today it’s 5x nationally, and 7-8x in many high-pressure metros. In Los Angeles the ratio is 12.5x, in San Jose 10.5x, in New York 9.8x. Financial planners say housing shouldn’t run more than 2.6x annual income. Pull back further and the gap gets uglier: since 1960, median home prices are up 121% in real terms while median household income is up just 29%. Prices have grown more than four times as fast as wages.
That doesn’t happen by accident. Three forces — zoning rules that make new housing illegal, investment firms treating houses as bond coupons, and a tax code wired for incumbents — all push the same direction at once.
Artificial Scarcity by Zoning
About 75% of residential land in American cities is zoned for single-family homes only. No duplexes, no townhouses, no small apartment buildings. In San Jose it’s 94%. In Charlotte it’s 84%. Add minimum lot sizes, setback requirements, height caps, parking minimums, and bans on accessory dwelling units, and even the land you’re allowed to build on can only hold very low-density, very expensive houses.
This is not how the rest of the world zones. Single-family-exclusive districts started in U.S. cities in the 1910s and 1920s, officially to separate housing from industry, actually to keep neighborhoods segregated by race and class. After WWII, the GI Bill subsidized homeownership but mostly inside those same exclusionary suburbs. Three generations of Americans grew up assuming detached single-family sprawl is just what housing looks like.
The supply numbers follow. In the 1960s the country built about 1.5 million homes a year. Through the 2010s and 2020s it’s been closer to 1.1 million — less construction with roughly double the population. Estimates of the current shortfall run from 3.8 to 7 million homes.
Housing as Asset Class
Institutional investors — firms owning 1,000 or more single-family homes — own about 574,000 houses out of 15.1 million single-family rentals nationally (Urban Institute). That’s roughly 3.8% of the rental stock, about 1% of all single-family housing. Sounds modest until you look at where the holdings sit. In Atlanta, institutional investors own 27.9% of the single-family rental stock — four times the national average (John Burns Research, July 2025). In one DeKalb County ZIP code, 30088, they own 13% of every single-family property — eighteen times the national rate.
The Q4 2025 portfolios at the top: Progress Residential, owned by Pretium Partners, around 100,000 homes. Invitation Homes, a publicly traded REIT Blackstone fully exited in 2019, around 97,000. Blackstone, having re-entered the space in 2021 via Home Partners of America and Tricon Residential, around 62,000. American Homes 4 Rent around 60,000, FirstKey Homes around 52,000-plus, the Amherst Group around 45,000-plus. The top six together control roughly 430,000 homes — about three-quarters of all institutional single-family ownership.
The business model is simple: buy with cash, rent it out, securitize the rental income, sell to investors, repeat. When a family offers $400,000 with a mortgage and a 45-day close, and a firm offers $410,000 cash with no contingencies and a seven-day close, the family loses every time. Rent isn’t an escape valve either — 22.6 million American renters, half of all renters, were cost-burdened in 2023 (Harvard JCHS 2025), with middle-income renters at $45-75K hit hardest at over 45%. Insurance up 57% since 2019; property taxes up 12% since 2021.
Honest caveat the data forces: in aggregate, institutional purchases displace fewer owner-occupier homes than the headline framing suggests — a recent Brookings estimate puts it around 0.22 units per institutional buy, because these firms also add new build-to-rent supply, and rents in some institutional-heavy markets have modestly fallen. The harm isn’t aggregate share, it’s concentration. When one firm owns 13% of a single ZIP code, it can set neighborhood rents in a way Adam Smith never had in mind. Worth noting too: the largest institutional landlords have been net sellers for six straight quarters as of late 2025, shifting capital toward build-to-rent communities. The vector is changing, not closing.
Tax Policy Tilts the Field
The mortgage interest deduction lets homeowners deduct interest on up to a $750,000 loan — a cap the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 made permanent. It costs the federal government about $26 billion a year (JCT FY2025), and 97% of the benefit goes to households making $100,000-plus, 78% to households making $200,000-plus. The bigger your mortgage, the bigger the subsidy. Renters get nothing. First-time buyers, by definition, get nothing.
Property tax structure does the same thing on a slower timeline. In states with assessment caps — California’s Prop 13 is the cleanest example — a homeowner who bought in 1980 might pay a tenth of what their next-door neighbor pays for an identical house bought today. The capital gains exclusion ($250,000 single, $500,000 married, repeatable every two years on a primary residence) quietly tells everyone the smart move is to treat your house as a trading vehicle, not a place to live.
The Generational Wealth Transfer
Older homeowners didn’t do anything wrong. They bought when the median first-time buyer was 29 and houses ran 3.5x annual income, often with GI Bill help and subsidized mortgage rates, and watched property values climb 400-1000% over forty years. Today’s median repeat buyer is 62; the median seller, 64. Homeowners 55-plus hold about $300,000 in equity on average; under-35s hold $20,000-$30,000. Math, not malice.
But the policy environment those owners now defend — exclusionary zoning, NIMBY veto power over new construction, every tax preference listed above — is the same environment locking the next generation out. Existing owners attend zoning meetings to “protect neighborhood character.” Their lawsuits have stalled statewide zoning reform in Montana and Austin. “I got mine, pull the ladder up” isn’t usually said out loud, but it is the structural effect. Investment firms aren’t the only ones benefiting from this; the most powerful interest group is older homeowners who vote.
Here’s the cleanest one-line version of the whole story, from IPUMS Census microdata: in 1960, 52% of married Americans aged 30 owned a home. In 2025, just 12% do. The Census Housing Vacancy Survey for Q4 2025 puts homeownership at about 78% for the 65-plus crowd, 61% for ages 35-44, and 37.9% for under-35s — up slightly from 36.3% a year earlier, but well below the 39.7% historical norm for that cohort under boomers and Gen X. Millennials and Gen Z are buying, on average, at 40 — after $200,000 to $400,000 paid in rent that built zero equity, often carrying $37,000 in student loan debt, against cash investors who can’t lose a bidding war.
This is the American Dream dying in real-time.
Why This Matters Beyond Housing
Homeownership was, for most of the postwar century, the primary way middle-class American families built wealth. Buy at 30, pay it off by 60, retire with an asset worth hundreds of thousands you could either live in or pass down. Buying at 40 means paying a mortgage into your 70s and accumulating far less of an asset before you stop earning. The generational wealth gap widens by definition.
The downstream effects compound. Workers can’t move to where the jobs are when rent eats half their paycheck, so labor markets get less efficient. People wait to have kids until they can afford a place to raise them, hit 40, and discover fertility has its own deadline. Would-be entrepreneurs can’t quit a job to start a business when they need that job for rent and for healthcare (Part 5!). The whole engine of economic mobility runs on being able to plant yourself somewhere stable enough to take a risk.
What Other Countries Do
None of this is inevitable. About 60% of Vienna’s residents live in social housing — high quality, mixed-income, rented at cost. Median rent runs 20-25% of income. Tokyo, with nearly 37 million people in its metro area, keeps housing affordable by setting zoning at the national level instead of letting every neighborhood veto, allowing “missing middle” construction almost anywhere, and processing approvals quickly. Singapore went further: the government owns the underlying land on 99-year leases, builds public housing for about 80% of the population, and offers affordable financing to buy in — producing a 90%-plus homeownership rate.
None of those is a copy-paste solution for the U.S. But “housing is just expensive everywhere now” isn’t true.
Solutions
Five things would help, all of which work elsewhere and most of which are being tried somewhere in America right now.
Ending single-family-exclusive zoning is the biggest lever. Minneapolis 2040 was the proof of concept, though full implementation was delayed by court order until January 2025; early synthetic-control analysis (Gu & Munro, 2025) finds Minneapolis rents rose 1.8% annually from 2020-2025 versus a counterfactual 5.6%, with home prices up 15.5% versus 47%. Hartley (2025) puts the effect smaller — the direction is favorable, the magnitude contested. Oregon ended single-family zoning statewide; California’s SB 9 legalized duplexes everywhere; Maine and Washington have similar reforms, and Montana’s were blocked by the courts.
Capping or banning corporate ownership of single-family homes is the rare reform with active bipartisan momentum. The Senate-passed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act includes a “Homes Are for People, Not Corporations” provision restricting purchases by entities owning 350-plus homes. The Trump administration has signaled support for similar restrictions. Warren and Sanders have proposed parallel legislation. Denmark already requires owner-occupancy; Berlin banned corporate purchases of apartments; Canada has moved on foreign and corporate buyers. The political window isn’t closed.
Tax reform would help on three fronts at once: convert the mortgage interest deduction into a first-time buyer credit and save $26 billion a year; eliminate the assessment caps that let long-time owners pay a fraction of their neighbors’ bills (a land value tax would do this cleaner); and limit the capital gains exclusion to once per lifetime instead of every two years.
Public and social housing — built mixed-income and well-located rather than stigmatized — gives renters an option that isn’t whatever the speculative market offers. And streamlining approval, with ministerial by-right approval for any project that meets code, real limits on appeals, and CEQA/NEPA reform, would shrink the three-to-seven-year gauntlet that kills so many projects to something measured in months.
None of this is mysterious. We’re just choosing not to.
Even that's Odd 
Leave a comment