The Oligarch Recovery - Renting In America Is Most Expensive Ever

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Characterizing the upward transfer of virtually all American wealth to a handful of oligarchs a “recovery,” represents a grotesque insult to the english language as well as common sense.

The writing was on the wall from the very beginning. I knew as soon as TARP passed that we as society would regret the day we bailed out the bankers who destroyed the world economy. It didn’t take long.

Bailed out Wall Street banks went ahead and paid themselves record bonuses less than one year after the bailouts. Then, in early 2013, the financial community’s next scheme to feed off the carcasses of the American public became crystal clear. They wanted to become America’s slumlord by buying millions of foreclosed homes and then renting them back to former homeowners. When I realized what was happening I published the post, America Meet Your New Slumlord: Wall Street. Here’s the opening paragraph:

Well they aren’t really your “new” slumlord in the sense you have been debt slaves to the financials system for decades.  What I really mean is that it is now becoming overt and literal.  Literal because financiers are now the main players in the real estate market and are buying all the homes ordinary citizens were kicked out of over the past few years.  Yep, we bailed out the financial system so that financiers with access to cheap credit can buy up all of America’s real estate so that they can then rent it back to you later.

Two and a half years later, the results are clear. Landlords getting paid, renters getting shafted. As Bloomberg reports:

Americans living in rentals spent almost a third of their incomes on housing in the second quarter, the highest share in recent history.


Rental affordability has steadily worsened, according to a new report from Zillow Group Inc., which tracked data going back to 1979. A renter making the median income in the U.S. spent 30.2 percent of her income on a median-priced apartment in the second quarter, compared with 29.5 percent a year earlier. The long-term average, from 1985 to 1999, was 24.4 percent.


While mortgages remain relatively affordable, landlords have been able to increase rents because demand for apartments remains strong. The U.S. homeownership rate fell to the lowest level in almost five decades in the second quarter, as strict lending standards and tight inventories keep many families in the rental market.

Bull market in serfdom:

Screen Shot 2015-08-13 at 10.47.36 AM

What do you expect to happen when you bailout sociopathic criminals?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
JustObserving's picture
Renting In America Is Most Expensive Ever

But we have no inflation.

Fucking tents are renting for $1000 a month in California.

Officially we had only 0.8% inflation in 2014.

Official cumulative CPI from 2011 to 2014 was 7.2%.  Chapwood Inflation was 47.1%

Tent rents for $1,000 per month in California's Silicon Valley

hedgeless_horseman's picture



Americans living in rentals spent almost a third of their incomes on housing in the second quarter, the highest share in recent history.

Nobody here but us chickens.

Renters are being fed corporate feed and farmed for their nest egg.

LawsofPhysics's picture

LOL!!!  Great analogy.  Hey, the rent is too damn high!!

hedgeless_horseman's picture



Just think, kids, some day this lease agreement and crappy Ikea furniture bought on credit will belong to you. 


Like I said back in 2010...

I repeat, all of this funny business in the markets should drive thoughtful investors to disintermediation:

1. In finance, withdrawal of funds from intermediary financial
institutions, such as banks and savings and loan associations, in order
to invest them directly.

2. Generally, removing the middleman or intermediary.

Of course, disintermediation is bad for governments selling debt and
all financial firms, but often very good for small businesses needing
capital. I am suprised to not read more about disintermediation here,
and on similiar blogs, apart from advice to buy gold and take posession.
Micro lending in your own community, angel investing, and even certain
types of municipal debt offerings are good topics for consideration.

Disintermediation, bitches!!!!! 

How can you implement it in your portfolio, business, and life?


Landlord/landlady + tenant - real estate agent = disintermediation


Be a landlord, not a tenant.


PS:  This article's generalization that landlords are oligarchs is horseshit.

LawsofPhysics's picture

Yes, but always remember, half of the people you meet are below average.  Again, don't be average.  Yes, I am a "landlord", but still have to pay all the local and federal taxes.


Warren Buffet is a much more profitable "landlord", but then again he doesn't pay shit, he calls Obama.

SSRI Junkie's picture

i almost became a landlord until i saw what tenants in this area do to the homes before they leave

toady's picture

PS:  This article's generalization that landlords are oligarchs is horseshit.

Correct. Landlords are Rentier, not Oligarchy.

Panopticon 131's picture

Tight inventories of homes under 300K is a big big problem.  Bloomberg says tight lending standards is a problem too while we know otherwise, as it's merely a "side effect" of the main problem of deliberate hyperinflation in certain sectors to include housing.  How is a bus driver with kids to support going to afford a $450K median priced home?

The Globalists are steering Americans into a collision of the uber-Fascism model and European style Socialistic high cost of living paradigm.   They WANT you to depend on government subsidies to survive.  

Tight rationing under Technocratic 24/7 Biometric Surveillance, coming to an Agenda 21 STACK 'EM and PACK 'EM "sustainable mixed use" community near you!!  Can you 'chickens' say Labor Camps?  

FreedomGuy's picture

If you put a Home Depot shed on a lot in Colorado it will start at $300k. I have had a rent analysis on my condo and just got an appraisal for an equity loan, myself. I am not sure if I will rent and move or sell and move. While I like that my place has appreciated dramatically when I look at replacing it in terms of renting or even buying something comparable I cannot see that I am ahead of the game at all. In fact, the stuff I can afford is what looked pretty much like starter homes 30 years ago when I bought my first place with my family. 

After talking to appraisers and others I was told the reason for more apartments rather than condos or even homes has to do with financing. It is far easier to get financing for apartments which will generate income than condo's. The banks still remember the last crash. 

I have seen the reappearance of the house-flippers, too. They are everywhere and they generate a false demand for homes. Although I do not blame them for trying to make money I hate how they distort the market, along with Chinese trying to cash out of their currency. 

At the end of the day the ability of people to buy or rent properties cannot exceed their ability to pay. At some point they must realign. Whether this looks like a market cooling off or another crash is anyone's guess.

Also, I do not think landlords are evil in any way. You should see what renters, especially the low rent crowd do to the places they live in. It is often virtually criminal. 

The bottom line is that there are no natural market forces anywhere in America or the world so nothing can be properly valued. Welcome to central planning by elected morons. 

skipjack's picture

Bull. You can find plenty of very livable homes under 200k in many areas. Of course, they are not 4k sq ft mcmansions.  Boohoo.

SSRI Junkie's picture

there's more intelligence in those chicken coops than on a typical college campus

asteroids's picture

You know what happens to those chickens in the end eh?

FeelinFine's picture

The art majors process them? 120k degree. We dun broke some folks.

SSRI Junkie's picture

thanks, i didn't have a good answer for his did... lol

I Eat Your Dingos's picture

---Yellen: "What's this inflation all these poor entitled taypayering debtor sheep talking about? Stawks have been down. Krugman can argee with me that QE 5 to Infinity is needed. No bubbles in sight either." [sarc]


I locked in my monthly rental rate in 2012 for a single family house. Oh and I'm allowed to convert the side/backyard to a small farm.

Most multi-unit dwellers don't have the chance or skills to reduce costs on food if allowed to have a green space or grow tents.

Most renters are in debt as is and interest rate payments don't help especially subprime.

It would be great if we knew the real dollar per square foot paid, too. It would help to understand how much AMerican renters are being screwed or getting their money's worth.

I'm waiting for the house bubble to not pop, but cascade into the firey pits of financial hell. Then I'll snag a house or two to rent out

ebworthen's picture

A third of their income spent on housing?

If you are renting and working 29 hours/week try 60% of your income.

CloseToTheEdge's picture



“The real world is where the monsters are.”

Bunga Bunga's picture

In the SF bay area it's 60% too - with a highly paid tech job!

Chuck Knoblauch's picture

The Oligarchs are targets.

Take them out.

Firepower's picture

It's THE NEW Feudal America: Hunger Games For Kids

TomJoad's picture

Jump! You Fuckers!

i_call_you_my_base's picture

Spending is about to tank.

Jason T's picture

More reason to get back to what used to be a good American culture.  In 1940, 90% of households were family while just 7.8% of household were 1 person households.

In 2010, 26.7% of households are 1 person, just 44.6% were family.

There went economies of scale for housing.  

In 1960, 5% of births in US were out of wedlock, last year 41% of births were out of wedlock.   

Not good for home economics.


i_call_you_my_base's picture

So what do you suggest, some social engineering to get families to form? Who imposes that?

Jason T's picture

social engineering was Govt taking role of Dad so mom can have kids without a dad and not have to worry about paying for things..  

Bible says bastard child not allowed in kingdom of heaven for next 10 generations.  Pretty strict law .. but nature alone suggests you'll be substantially better off being a child born with 2 parents.  

Your net worth will be substantially higher when you are 65 if you are married.  

it's just culture and it discretionary and your free will.  


Rikky's picture

where in the Bible does it say that?  not the New Testament that's for sure.

in any event there's a wealth of information that supports the family structure.  heck just look at human history for all the proof you need.

Boxed Merlot's picture

bastard child not allowed in kingdom of heaven for next 10 generations…


The Old Testament regulation prohibiting temple worship of persons born out of wedlock did not prevent some of the most celebrated judges and prophets from serving God. Jephthah’s mom was a whore, (Judges 11:1), Samson, well, that whole Delilah thing, Hosea was commanded by God to take a whore for a wife, even the ancestors of David and Jesus had a dubious beginning when Judah had twins from his deceased son’s widow, thinking she was for hire.

There are tales of whores before kings pleading their cases, and don’t forget Rahab, who sparked the first of the trans-Jordan conquests when she harbored the spies in Jericho.  Jesus himself ministered to the shadier side of humanity and was castigated by the religious elite of His day for actually eating with them.

The point being, even in the Old Testament, service to God was not necessarily limited to butchering and cooking animals in the temple, (not being a Levite was enough to preclude that specific duty), but what one did when confronted by God with their life in the present was enough to determine where one was headed.  One’s purity was / is not tied to one’s past, but is determined by where one is going.



Blankenstein's picture

A good place to start, would be for the government to stop paying people to breed.

ToSoft4Truth's picture

Role model Republicans like the Palins keep squirting out illegitimate children. 

At least the Kardashian is married. 

bigkahuna's picture

We are all renters now.

SSRI Junkie's picture

i only pay rent to the king

MaxMax's picture

It is not just the bailed out financial elites, but it is also a process of international trade.  We enjoyed a privlidged spot after WWII because most of the rest of the world's factories were destroyed.  As the destroyed economies built up, we started finding less expensive places to produce.  The net effect has been to reduce the USA standard of living while increasing other countries.  Eventually, the common man in the USA will be living as well as the commoner in China, India, Brazil, etc.  USA standard of living has been falling at least since the 1960's - very slowly, but a little bit each year.  It can be hard to see because of technical innovations, but if you have been around long enough, you can see it.

11b40's picture

Many of us saw it 3-4 decades ago, but no one wanted to listen.  It became glaringly obvious when discussions on NAFTA started in the 80's.  Ross Perot ran his election campaign on "that giant sucking sound you hear will be American jobs leaving the country".  Many common men understood it then, as he got 19% of the vote in 92 running for President as an Independent.....and exit pols said that 35% of voters would have cast their ballot for him IF they thought he had a chance to win.  Too bad we didn't get a President Perot then.

It is as simple as can be.  The pie (total world economy) is only so big.  In general numbers, America, with 3% of world's population accounted for 25% of world economy.  For those percentages to change, America's share had to be reduced.  If America's share is reduced, America's standard of living drops.  Our politicians (that we elected) gave the country away to multi-national corporations and bankers who want to homogenize the world.  This can only benefit a relatively small percentage of people, and most certainly not the average dumb American, who only sees lower prices but can't figure out why their standard of living keeps going lower.

I had a pretty good understanding of this by the early 80's, as I saw many of the factories we acted as agents for start to go out of business, or shift production out of the country.  The big shift started a decade before when Nixon/Kissinger opened the door to China trade.....and the discount retailers lobbied Congress hard to eliminate laws that allowed manufacturers to control the retail of their product lines.  All the power shifted to the retailer, and the race to the bottom was on.  The policy of "free trade" became the goal, instead of "fair trade".

So, in the 80's, we watched factories closing in waves, then irony struck in the 90's as many of the retailers that were lobbying for liberal trade laws back in the 70's found themselves going bankrupt under the crush of competitions from Wal-Mart, Big Box Specialty retailers, and Warehouse Cubs.  The entire Catalog Showroom business went away, and virtually all of the old department store chains have been consolidated under a few banners.  The carnage continues, too.

At first, it was simple factory production that was outsourced - the kinds of stuff I sell (things for the home).  Every year, outsourced goods have become more technical, complex, and advanced as we loose evermore higher paying jobs.  And what is the answer proposed by current leaders, you ask?  Well, it is even more "Free Trade" with TPP

Read it and weep.

For s country's leaders to open the borders to "free trade" is no different than opening it's borders to free immigration.  The result will be that the country gets plundered....and those leaders are guilty of treason. 

John Law Lives's picture

Good post.  This could be a feature article by itself.

The way that "free-trade agreements" get rammed through Congress these days should leave no doubt that corporations own both parties.

FreedomGuy's picture

I think you are on the right track. However, protectionism does not do anyone any good. Free and fair trade tends to benefit all as a wider array of resources and sources become available. What would Taiwan do if everyone was protectionist? 

The problem is we let other countries "game" us, like Chinese currency devaluation. We would do well for them and us if we quit allowing that. If the Chinese artificially devalue their currency then we slap a 50% tariff on their goods. In S. Korea you get an IRS audit if you buy an American car. Let us return the favor. Every Kia and Hyundai comes with an audit! How would that sound in a car ad?

We do them a favor because they win by adapting to their own economic environments for the long run. When China devalued the currency 5% the price of gas, heating oil and the likes rose at the same time. Everyone in China takes a hit economically. 

The other side that gets woefully ignored is what we do to ourselves. We are first and foremost our own worst enemies. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world, an immensely complex tax system, rules, permits, licencses, inspectors, zoning, enviro-suits, etc. to run business out of the country on a railroad even if everything was static on the foreign side. Government sticks it's fingers into everything. Obamacare is a huge dead weight loss for no extra goods or services. I had a guy who appraised my home recently tell me that he had four other great people who worked for him before the last crash. His insurance premimum for his family went up 32% this year. Because of labor rules, etc. he will not rehire anyone even though it would be nice. This is not China driving down net employment. It is we, ourselves, the good ole USA...or USSA as it should be.

If we are going to look at the reason for our economic malaise then we start with looking in the mirror and move outward from there.

MaxMax's picture

While I am generally in favor of free trade there are two sides to the coin.  It will benefit the poor countries more than the rich ones.  The rich countriies will get lower priced goods but the cost will be a long-term decline until the markets equalize.  Sort of like opening a pipe connecting two tanks at the bottom; eventually, both tanks will be equally full.  How much technology was invented in the USA, but then migrated to China once production really got moving?  What happens when that 50 year old guy who only knows one trade gets laid off because his factory moved?  Most will be lucky if they can ever find as good of a job again.

Another huge factor is that we have vast over-production capactity and more automation.  Robotic cars are coming soon and have huge implications from taxi drivers, car sales, insurance, warranties, traffic flow, etc.  Robotic fast food will be here even sooner with minimum wage increases.  Factory overcapacity is driving down costs further.  Keeping interest rates at zero means owners can buy production and pay it off even more slowly putting more downward pressure on prices.  Looks to me like big deflationary pressure on a lot of stuff while huge inflationary pressure on things like taxes, higher education, medical care and other protected industries.

I am not proposing any partiicular solutions - just making observations.  And I see really huge changes coming.

FreedomGuy's picture

Well, it all starts with observations. 

Your automation brings up the memory of a conversation I had with a friend of mine awhile back. He refused to use the self-check automated lines at the grocery store. He felt it robbed a cashier of a job. I thought about it and I asked him, "Yes, a cashier might lose their job, but what do you think about the people who make those scanner machines? Do you think they make more than a cashier, not to mention all the warehousing, shipping, etc.?" He was honest and agreed they most likely make much more.

The people who make the robots, service them and calibrate them make a very good living and almost certainly more than the person who held a torque wrench. 

One thing to remember is that when something is made in China versus America is has to buy machinery, acreaage and a factory then get shipped to a port, loaded, hauled, unloaded by American union longshoremen, reloaded onto trucks and trains and taken to market. There is a large shipping cost and production delay versus making something at home. That should always give the home team an automatic lead. 

asavet1952's picture

05k30H2R7 1970-77 Army Security Agency

buzzsaw99's picture

the oligarchs i see around here have nine rent houses (all mortgaged) and NO MONEY. i wish there would be a real estate crash to wipe them all off the face of the earth but with interest rates going to zirp across the board it probably won't happen. :sigh:

Sam Clemons's picture

that's what I see happening too.  middle class people trying to hold on by buying up property (keeping the prices up) and renting to millenials.  unfortunately they're pricing millenials out of the ownership market.  thanks baby boomers for another one.

l8apex's picture

"millenials", "baby boomers"...  Talk about misplaced logic/anger.  None of this is generational.  It's about those with the cash and those without, as it always has been.  Shoot, rather than go on about age, why not just blame racism?  

ajkreider's picture

Build more units and everyone's a winner.

saveUSsavers's picture

Yuan devaluation just drives more Chinese cash- for -mansions over here? Sincerely, Orange County CA

q99x2's picture

I'm here in NYC and I walked past a van with Citi-bikes in it and I ask the young lady driver what the bikes were. She said people rent the bikes to get around. It looked like the same Citibank logo but maybe not I don't know for sure. 

Risky's picture

30% before or after taxes?