On May 20, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Homestead Act into law. The premise was simple: 160 acres of land could be claimed at no cost, provided the recipient lived on it and made improvements.
Between 1862 and 1934, roughly 270 million acres—about 10% of all U.S. land—were distributed through this program.
Even during the era of the American Revolution, the nation’s founders recognized that property ownership encouraged responsibility, productivity, and civic engagement. When individuals had a stake in land, they also had a stake in their communities and the country as a whole.
Over time, this principle became deeply tied to the idea of the “American Dream,” which, for many decades, was attainable for millions.
Following World War II, the United States experienced a major housing expansion. With economic growth, the GI Bill, and the introduction of the 30-year fixed mortgage, homeownership rose significantly—from about 44% in 1940 to 62% by 1960.
Equally important, homes were affordable.
In 1950, the median household earned around $3,000 annually, while the average home cost approximately $7,350—about 2.5 times income. Mortgage rates hovered near 4.5%, making monthly payments relatively manageable.
As a result, many families were able to live comfortably on a single income.
Today, the situation has changed dramatically. The median home price is about $412,000, while median household income is roughly $83,700—bringing the ratio to around five times income, double what it was in the mid-20th century.
At current mortgage rates of approximately 6.4%, monthly payments on a typical home (with a 20% down payment) can consume about 30% of a household’s income.
The required down payment alone presents a major barrier, particularly for younger buyers and lower-income earners. Even households with two incomes are finding it increasingly difficult to purchase a home.
As mentioned previously, the housing crisis cannot be blamed solely on institutional investors often accused of driving up prices.
Construction costs have surged—materials alone are about 40% more expensive than they were five years ago, driven in part by inflation following large-scale monetary expansion during the pandemic.
Regulatory hurdles also add significant expense. In places like Fremont, California, development fees can exceed $150,000 per home before construction even begins, not including permits or utility connections.
At one point, the government distributed land freely. Today, in some areas, it costs six figures just to obtain permission to build.
It’s no coincidence that regions with the most aggressive housing policies often face some of the highest levels of homelessness.
Meanwhile, a potential solution is hiding in plain sight.
The office real estate sector is struggling. A combination of economic slowdown, reduced demand for office space, and the rise of remote work has caused property values to drop sharply.
In 2025 alone, more than 200 distressed office buildings were sold across the country, with average prices down 37% compared to 2019 levels. In some extreme cases, values have collapsed by over 90%.
For example, large office buildings in major cities have been sold for a fraction of their former worth—sometimes for less than $10 per square foot.
This creates an interesting possibility.
Imagine a young professional facing high rent in a major city. Instead of paying over $1,000 per month for a small shared apartment, they could purchase a large office space outright for a relatively low cost.
Of course, these buildings aren’t designed as homes. They lack features like private kitchens and bathrooms. But at a low enough price, many people would accept those trade-offs in exchange for ownership and independence.
This type of living arrangement isn’t unfamiliar—military housing and university dorms operate with shared facilities, and people adapt.
For some, especially younger individuals, the appeal could be significant: lower costs, central locations, and the opportunity to save money instead of paying high rent indefinitely.
Similar logic could apply to families in overcrowded housing situations, offering them more space at a lower cost.
There are also practical use cases for workers needing temporary accommodations in different cities without committing to expensive housing or short-term rentals.
In essence, these could function as true “starter properties”—a stepping stone that allows individuals to build financial stability rather than falling behind through rent payments.
However, current zoning laws, building codes, and occupancy regulations often prevent this kind of adaptation.
Instead of allowing individuals to decide what trade-offs they are willing to make, regulations restrict these alternatives entirely.
At a high price, such spaces would have little appeal. But at a low enough cost, they represent opportunity rather than compromise for many people.
Despite ongoing discussions about affordability and housing access, straightforward solutions like this remain largely unimplemented—often because they require reducing regulatory barriers.
Want to escape the matrix completely? Find out how.
Share this:
Discover more from CAPITALISTS.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
