ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Economy & Government

40 Million Empty Houses in the US

Updated on September 2, 2012


Stand Empty
Stand Empty | Source

San Diego

At the 11th annual meeting of New Partners for Smart Growth, held in San Diego, it was stated that there are 40 million homes in the United States that are not wanted.

These are large suburban homes, yet there is a shortage of 40 million smaller homes. Why is this?

As we know, builders and financiers build by trends and they certainly got this trend wrong.

It would appear that today, there is in fact 10 million that need attached houses and 30 million that need detached houses, but smaller than those available.


Now as we know, a house is built of bricks and mortar but the value of the house is not determined by the amount of bricks or mortar that are required to build the house, it is determined by what the “experts” believe someone will pay for the house.

Now what I find amazing is that the bankers asked the Government for a bailout because they were short of funds. It would now appear that they are short of funds because they had been busy building houses that nobody wanted. So 40 million houses are stood empty while people are homeless and many are facing foreclosure.

This means that because “the power to be” got it wrong, the rest of the country must pay for their mistake.


I fully appreciate that anybody on any job can make a mistake but in my experience, when the average working Joe makes a mistake, in work, it is taken out of their wages. Obviously this rule does not apply to those in “top paying” jobs.

Not only is the working Joe expected to pay for his own mistakes but he is also expected to pay for the mistakes of the highly paid.

If this alone was not bad enough, working Joe has supposedly no choice but to stand back and not only see the mistake makers not being punished but to stand witness to their large bonuses, paid for by them.

We are told that these top echelons deserve large bonuses because they make decisions that can affect millions. Well they certainly have that right, but if they make a mistake, that also affects millions and so they should be punished, not rewarded.

It is not only in the housing business that this goes on. Anywhere where a person puts a so called “worth” price on an entity, it is flawed. The value of anything should be that that it is worth, i.e. the cost of the land, the mortar, the bricks and the cost of the labor, NOT a value picked out of the air by some so called expert.

This principle equally applies to the cost of shares. They should be based on the wealth of the company and not a perceived value.

These extra values are based on nothing and have no hard wealth backing them. This gives an inflated cost to things and portrays a wrong picture; this is why countries and people go in to debt because they have to pay extra for nothing, only the bankers profit from this and the interest paid for this extra overpayment.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 5 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @rafken, more outstanding writing. Very revealing, provocative and enlightening.

      The nature of the business world is one based upon selfishness. Even if individuals within a business are compassionate and generous, the fiduciary duty of the officers of a corporation is one of selfishness -- increasing the bottom line.

      I thought it outrageous that officers of AIG promoted toxic behavior that was destined to ruin the company so that all who participate would make gargantuan bonuses at the expense of the company itself. It's almost as if they knew they'd be bailed out after the unavoidable bubble burst which they created by their greed. (Academy Award Winning Documentary: Inside Job).

      Why can't we simply give the houses to those who are homeless? Count them as house watchers or caretakers until the houses are sold? Their salary would be the upkeep of the house and protection of it from vandals simply by the fact of it being occupied. Even a small payment of cash would likely be possible by the current owner to help protect their investment. Of course, that wouldn't be the selfish thing to do.