November 21, 2025 • 17 mins
Debunking the Housing Affordability Myth
In this episode of 'The Tenth Man', the host tackles the pervasive myth that housing has become unaffordable for younger generations due to the actions of Baby Boomers. By dissecting misleading comparisons often circulated by influencers, the host argues that the quality, size, and features of modern homes have drastically evolved from those in 1970, making direct price comparisons invalid. The episode also addresses how influencers use deceptive statistics to stir outrage and asserts that affordable housing options still exist. The key takeaway is that today's housing narrative lacks truth and is driven by misinformation aimed at generating clicks rather than offering genuine guidance.
00:00 Introduction: The Housing Affordability Myth
00:33 Debunking Viral Housing Memes
01:36 The Flawed Comparison of Houses Then and Now
06:51 Personal Anecdotes: Buying a Home in the 70s
12:05 The Real Issue: Abandoned Houses and Misleading Narratives
15:53 Conclusion: The Need for Honest Guidance
#TheTenthMan #HousingCrisisMyth #BoomersVsMillennials #affordablehousing #AOC #Mamdani
Commentary on trending issues brought to you with a moderate perspective.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:11):
Across the US young people arebeing told they'll never own a
home, and that Baby Boomersrobbed them.
Lying influencers and thehousing- affordability myth
today, on The Tenth Man,
The Tenth Man (00:34):
There are many influencers in the media
circulating those charts thatsay,"In 1970, you could buy a
house with X hours of minimumwage, but today it takes a
lifetime." Well, sure if you rigthe game.
So let's get serious and walkthrough this one honest piece at
a time.
Let's start with our source,because this is a classic- a
(00:56):
blue check financial influencernamed Jeff Rose, CFP.
He posted this viral gem:"In1970 the minimum wage was a
dollar 60, and the median homeprice was$23,000.
That's 14,000 hours of work.
Today, the median home is$420,000.
(01:17):
Divide by 14,000 hours and youget$60 per hour.
That's the real cost of homebuying power today." And he
finishes with,"$60 an hour isthe minimum wage we'd need today
to have the same home buyingpower Boomers had in the 1970s."
They pretend a house is aconstant.
(01:39):
A house in 1970 is the sameproduct as a house in 2025.
And it's easy to see throughsome of the errors in that meme,
but there are actually some hugeflaws in this reasoning that
most of us haven't considered.
It's not only untrue, the actualtruth is the opposite.
Now Rose is a certifiedfinancial planner.
(02:02):
He has the badge, he has thelicense, he has the professional
letters, so he should absolutelyknow better.
But this comparison.
This comparison makes him theAOC of financial planning.
It's flashy, it's catchy, it'semotional, and it collapses
under basic arithmetic becauseonce you examine it, you think,
(02:25):
how do they come up with theseridiculous comparisons?
It honestly looks like someoneabused AI and said, give me a
chart that makes Gen Z cry andthe algorithm obliged.
I truly think that's what theydo.
This thing is the old bellhopmissing-dollar brain-teaser of
(02:46):
economics.
In fact, let's hear that oldfavorite.
Three guys check into a motel.
Room is$30 each pays$10.
Bellhop takes the money to themanager who says, actually the
room is only$25.
Here's five dollars back.
Bellhop pockets$2, and giveseach man$1.
(03:09):
He figures you can't divide$5between three men anyway.
So now each man paid$9.
Three men times$9 equals$27.
Plus the$2 the bellhop stoleequals$29.
Where's the missing dollar?
Answer?
(03:30):
There is no missing dollar.
They're adding numbers thatshouldn't be added.
They're combining categoriesthat don't belong together.
We'll break it down at the end-the misdirection, and
misdirection is exactly whatthese housing comparisons do.
They combine minimum wage, whichmost workers don't earn, a silly
number, which most countriesdon't even have, and many states
(03:53):
have a higher one.
And in any case, it's a minimumyou can easily get more often
just by asking.
Median home price, which hidescheap homes.
Why is it the median home priceand not the average?
Because the median hides thetruth.
And the myth that the productstayed the same.
(04:16):
The numbers feel convincing, butthe entire equation is nonsense
and I'll prove it.
I still have my rotary dialphone from 1978, purchased at
Best Products for$38, If Irecall correctly.
No caller id, no texting, noapps, no GPS, no voicemail.
(04:37):
No FaceTime, no photos, nonothing.
It dialed numbers.
That's it.
Now imagine comparing the priceof this to the price of an
iPhone 15 and saying"Phones usedto be affordable, capitalism
ruined everything." No phoneschanged.
Expectations changed andcapabilities changed.
(05:01):
Everything changed.
Before 1978, it was illegal toeven own a telephone.
You had to rent it from thephone company.
There were three models and theyall did the exactly the same
thing.
And for the socialist fans, thatwas a preview.
Same thing with houses.
A house in 1970 and a housetoday are not the same product A
(05:22):
house is not a valid constant.
The standard 1970 starter homewas smaller, fewer rooms, one,
bathroom, two, if you hit thejackpot, little or no
insulation, single pane windowsor garage, just big enough for a
bicycle and your car, if anygarage at all.
(05:45):
And by today's standards, a lotof those homes will be described
as"needs everything", or"as is",or"do not enter without boots".
Now compare that to a modernhome.
Multi ton HVAC.
Walk-in closets bigger than the1970 bedrooms, high-efficiency
windows designer kitchens, andgranite everything, every
(06:08):
appliance known to man, wifi andsecurity systems, garage space
for two or three cars.
Comparing the price of those twothings and calling it economics
is ridiculous.
And here's a, here's somethingwild.
You can go to England, Canada,Australia, anywhere in the
English speaking world, and theexact same memes circulate.
(06:31):
The exact same wage to housegraphs.
The exact same"Boomers stoleeverything".
The same outrage.
Different currencies.
Same story.
It's a generational narrative.
Kind of sad, really.
People who aren't even havingkids, they're mad at their own
parents and grandparents.
(06:52):
Well, let me tell you whatbuying a home actually looked
like back then.
Before I do that, let me ask youto remember to invite a friend
to listen to The Tenth Man tothe only podcast where You'll
never hear the word"iconic"unless we're talking about an
actual icon.
And you know, your friends wouldreally like to hear that.
Now then my first house wasn'teven a house.
(07:14):
It was a mobile home.
We bought it in 1976 for$2,800.
Lived in it for not quite twoyears.
Made some small improvements,paid it off, and sold it for
$3,100.
That$3,100 was the closing costson our first real home.
And that home?
(07:35):
Two bedrooms, one bathroom, nogarage.
It was in an old neighborhood.
It was basic and humble.
Absolutely a starter home, andwe bought it using a federal VA
loan with nothing down.
We lived in that for six years,added a room with my
reenlistment bonus, doing allthe work ourselves.
(07:57):
We sold it and made a littlemoney.
I actually built a new set ofstairs in that.
I still have the rafter squareand you can see the tape marks
on it where I marked them off tocut the stringers.
26 years old, I finally builtanother set of stairs, two years
ago.
This time I bought the stairguides.
(08:17):
And anybody could do that then.
And anybody, despite thenarrative, anybody can do that
now.
Starter homes aren't supposed tobe glamorous.
They're not supposed to bePinterest worthy.
They're not perfect.
They're literally the bottomrung of the ladder.
But they existed and peopleaccepted them.
(08:39):
I gave a list of differencesbetween old houses and modern
houses, and size was a bigfocus, but here's the one big
number that you have to look at.
It puts everything intoperspective, and that is the
size of the electric service.
The electrical service today istypically 200 amps.
My first house it was 60 amps.
(09:01):
That's really all you need toknow.
When we bought our first realhome, the electric bill wasn't
the electric bill.
We called it the light bill.
Why?
Because all the electricitypowered was lights.
Maybe a refrigerator, maybe aTV.
We had a gravity furnace, a gasstove.
(09:22):
No central air.
City water.
We lived in town, but weliterally kept a decorative
hurricane lamp on the kitchentable and a bottle of scented
oil in the closet.
If the power went out, we litthe lamp, read a book and life,
basically didn't change.
Compare that to a modern home.
(09:43):
Now we have internet, wifi,cable, all the electronics that
are on battery backup, and werecently splurged on a
generator.
Now, even though we're making apoint here, this is not even the
biggest point, it's not thebiggest error in this argument.
So the activists compare today'sluxury homes to the yesterday's
(10:03):
basic starter cabins and thenpretend that proves something.
It doesn't.
They pretend that minimum wageand median home price proves
something when they do not.
And I think you get that.
But let me come back to our bigdifference after we make one
more little point.
To compare eras honestly, youuse a constant, a benchmark that
(10:27):
adjusts for inflation anddoesn't depend on taste, zoning
or HGTV trends.
One of the best constants wehave is the federal poverty
line.
1970, poverty line was$1,687.
Today it's about$14,600.
Now let's compare apples toapples.
(10:50):
In 1970 apples were 29 cents apound, and that was 0.017% of
income.
Today, apples are between a buck62 and two 40 a pound.
Or 0.14%.
Apples are more affordable.
(11:10):
But since an apple a day keepsthe doctor away, we probably
should use a less healthyexample that the food stamp
generation can all relate to.
So let's compare the price ofBig Macs.
Compare Big Macs, 1970 to today.
In 1970 0.038% of the povertyincome.
(11:32):
Today, also 0.038.
Exactly the same.
The millennials and Zoomers canbring home a sack of Big Macs to
their parents' basement for theexact same share of their
poverty income today, as theydid in 1970.
Let that mathematical truth sinkin.
(11:54):
And with that, now we arrive atthe flaming smoldering center of
the story, the climax, the partwhere you wonder why all these
people lie to us.
Detroit, Jacksonville, Gary,Birmingham, Alabama, Kansas
City, East St.
Louis, Memphis.
(12:16):
From the 1980s onward, andespecially after 2008, these
cities had tens of thousands ofabandoned houses.
Not hypothetical houses, notimaginary houses.
Not a number, but actual housesstructurally sound in need of
repairs maybe, but absolutelyhabitable with work.
(12:40):
I know.
I know people who bought them.
Many of these sold for a fewthousand dollars or a few
hundred dollars.
And yes, some for$1.
The Detroit Land Bank sold lotsfor a hundred to$250.
Entire neighborhoods wereavailable.
And here's the outrage, the partthat should make your blood
(13:02):
boil.
We spent money to throw housesaway.
We didn't just ignore them.
We bulldozed them at taxpayerexpense because nobody wanted
them.
Their narrative was not,"Wecan't afford a house".
The narrative was,"We don't wantthese houses, tear them down".
(13:26):
Here's a legendary moment.
Detroit elected Mike Duggan asmayor because he promised to
tear down houses faster,cheaper, and more efficiently.
That was the whole campaign, andit worked because Millennials
didn't want those houses andZoomers don't want them now.
And those are the same people.
(13:47):
"Reposting Houses used to beaffordable".
They were affordable and stillare.
Okay.
You just don't want thosehouses.
Now ask yourself this.
How do all the houses that werebulldozed calculate into Jeff
Rose's formula?
What minimum wage do you need tobuy a house for a dollar?
(14:11):
Of course, those values are notincluded.
He used selling prices notvalue, and those houses didn't
sell.
He could easily have looked upaverage assessed value of
properties across the country.
He's a finance guy, after all.
That would've captured the valueof all the ho, the homes that
were destroyed, as well as allthe homes that are around, even
(14:34):
if not on the market, Even ifnot being bought, sold, or
traded.
If we include the homes, peoplecould have bought, not just the
median homes that they did buy.
Yeah, the whole minimum- wage-can't buy- a- house- anymore.
Argument explodes.
But he chose what he chose, adeception that looks deliberate.
(14:57):
The problem isn't housingaffordability.
The houses are there, theyalways have been.
The problem is deceitfulinfluencers who will do anything
for clicks.
Jeff Rose is truly the AOC offinancial planners.
So what does all of this reallytell us?
Let's go back to the missingdollar riddle.
(15:18):
What happened to the missingdollar?
Well, nothing is missing.
We're just looking in the wrongplace, comparing the wrong
numbers.
The men paid$27 total, ninetimes three.
Of that$27, the bellhop kept$2.
So the correct operation is$27minus two equals 25, which is
(15:40):
the actual room price.
You don't add the bellhops selftipping to the$27 to try to get
30.
You subtract it from 27 to get25, the actual price of the
room.
So these two stories tell us theproblem isn't housing.
The houses are there, they'vealways been there.
(16:02):
What's really missing is truthand clarity.
And truth is always the firstcasualty of bad influencers.
Here's a truth older than anyhousing chart: More harm comes
from ignorance than from malice.
But the real danger, the onethat poisons whole generations,
is when you find people who maybe both: people like Jeff Rose,
(16:26):
the AOC of financial planning.
People who don't understand thesubject yet, insist on leading
the parade with a megaphone.
It's one thing for potentialhome buyers to be ignorant.
That's fixable.
But when you mix ignorance withambition, with monetized
outrage, with a need to goviral, that's when the damage
(16:48):
starts, and that's how we end upwith millions of young people
convinced they're doomed whilestanding on the ashes of entire
neighborhoods that used to beaffordable.
Starter homes still exist.
Opportunities still exist.
What doesn't exist or what isscarce is honest guidance from
the people chasing clicks.
(17:11):
If you want the truth, not thealgorithm's bedtime story, stay
here.
Stay with The Tenth man, becausearound here, the narrative never
outranks the facts.
Across the US young people arebeing told they'll never own a
home, and that Baby Boomersrobbed them.
Lying influencers and thehousing- affordability myth
today, on The Tenth Man,
The Tenth Man (00:34):
There are many influencers in the media
circulating those charts thatsay,"In 1970, you could buy a
house with X hours of minimumwage, but today it takes a
lifetime." Well, sure if you rigthe game.
So let's get serious and walkthrough this one honest piece at
a time.
Let's start with our source,because this is a classic- a
(00:56):
blue check financial influencernamed Jeff Rose, CFP.
He posted this viral gem:"In1970 the minimum wage was a
dollar 60, and the median homeprice was$23,000.
That's 14,000 hours of work.
Today, the median home is$420,000.
(01:17):
Divide by 14,000 hours and youget$60 per hour.
That's the real cost of homebuying power today." And he
finishes with,"$60 an hour isthe minimum wage we'd need today
to have the same home buyingpower Boomers had in the 1970s."
They pretend a house is aconstant.
(01:39):
A house in 1970 is the sameproduct as a house in 2025.
And it's easy to see throughsome of the errors in that meme,
but there are actually some hugeflaws in this reasoning that
most of us haven't considered.
It's not only untrue, the actualtruth is the opposite.
Now Rose is a certifiedfinancial planner.
(02:02):
He has the badge, he has thelicense, he has the professional
letters, so he should absolutelyknow better.
But this comparison.
This comparison makes him theAOC of financial planning.
It's flashy, it's catchy, it'semotional, and it collapses
under basic arithmetic becauseonce you examine it, you think,
(02:25):
how do they come up with theseridiculous comparisons?
It honestly looks like someoneabused AI and said, give me a
chart that makes Gen Z cry andthe algorithm obliged.
I truly think that's what theydo.
This thing is the old bellhopmissing-dollar brain-teaser of
(02:46):
economics.
In fact, let's hear that oldfavorite.
Three guys check into a motel.
Room is$30 each pays$10.
Bellhop takes the money to themanager who says, actually the
room is only$25.
Here's five dollars back.
Bellhop pockets$2, and giveseach man$1.
(03:09):
He figures you can't divide$5between three men anyway.
So now each man paid$9.
Three men times$9 equals$27.
Plus the$2 the bellhop stoleequals$29.
Where's the missing dollar?
Answer?
(03:30):
There is no missing dollar.
They're adding numbers thatshouldn't be added.
They're combining categoriesthat don't belong together.
We'll break it down at the end-the misdirection, and
misdirection is exactly whatthese housing comparisons do.
They combine minimum wage, whichmost workers don't earn, a silly
number, which most countriesdon't even have, and many states
(03:53):
have a higher one.
And in any case, it's a minimumyou can easily get more often
just by asking.
Median home price, which hidescheap homes.
Why is it the median home priceand not the average?
Because the median hides thetruth.
And the myth that the productstayed the same.
(04:16):
The numbers feel convincing, butthe entire equation is nonsense
and I'll prove it.
I still have my rotary dialphone from 1978, purchased at
Best Products for$38, If Irecall correctly.
No caller id, no texting, noapps, no GPS, no voicemail.
(04:37):
No FaceTime, no photos, nonothing.
It dialed numbers.
That's it.
Now imagine comparing the priceof this to the price of an
iPhone 15 and saying"Phones usedto be affordable, capitalism
ruined everything." No phoneschanged.
Expectations changed andcapabilities changed.
(05:01):
Everything changed.
Before 1978, it was illegal toeven own a telephone.
You had to rent it from thephone company.
There were three models and theyall did the exactly the same
thing.
And for the socialist fans, thatwas a preview.
Same thing with houses.
A house in 1970 and a housetoday are not the same product A
(05:22):
house is not a valid constant.
The standard 1970 starter homewas smaller, fewer rooms, one,
bathroom, two, if you hit thejackpot, little or no
insulation, single pane windowsor garage, just big enough for a
bicycle and your car, if anygarage at all.
(05:45):
And by today's standards, a lotof those homes will be described
as"needs everything", or"as is",or"do not enter without boots".
Now compare that to a modernhome.
Multi ton HVAC.
Walk-in closets bigger than the1970 bedrooms, high-efficiency
windows designer kitchens, andgranite everything, every
(06:08):
appliance known to man, wifi andsecurity systems, garage space
for two or three cars.
Comparing the price of those twothings and calling it economics
is ridiculous.
And here's a, here's somethingwild.
You can go to England, Canada,Australia, anywhere in the
English speaking world, and theexact same memes circulate.
(06:31):
The exact same wage to housegraphs.
The exact same"Boomers stoleeverything".
The same outrage.
Different currencies.
Same story.
It's a generational narrative.
Kind of sad, really.
People who aren't even havingkids, they're mad at their own
parents and grandparents.
(06:52):
Well, let me tell you whatbuying a home actually looked
like back then.
Before I do that, let me ask youto remember to invite a friend
to listen to The Tenth Man tothe only podcast where You'll
never hear the word"iconic"unless we're talking about an
actual icon.
And you know, your friends wouldreally like to hear that.
Now then my first house wasn'teven a house.
(07:14):
It was a mobile home.
We bought it in 1976 for$2,800.
Lived in it for not quite twoyears.
Made some small improvements,paid it off, and sold it for
$3,100.
That$3,100 was the closing costson our first real home.
And that home?
(07:35):
Two bedrooms, one bathroom, nogarage.
It was in an old neighborhood.
It was basic and humble.
Absolutely a starter home, andwe bought it using a federal VA
loan with nothing down.
We lived in that for six years,added a room with my
reenlistment bonus, doing allthe work ourselves.
(07:57):
We sold it and made a littlemoney.
I actually built a new set ofstairs in that.
I still have the rafter squareand you can see the tape marks
on it where I marked them off tocut the stringers.
26 years old, I finally builtanother set of stairs, two years
ago.
This time I bought the stairguides.
(08:17):
And anybody could do that then.
And anybody, despite thenarrative, anybody can do that
now.
Starter homes aren't supposed tobe glamorous.
They're not supposed to bePinterest worthy.
They're not perfect.
They're literally the bottomrung of the ladder.
But they existed and peopleaccepted them.
(08:39):
I gave a list of differencesbetween old houses and modern
houses, and size was a bigfocus, but here's the one big
number that you have to look at.
It puts everything intoperspective, and that is the
size of the electric service.
The electrical service today istypically 200 amps.
My first house it was 60 amps.
(09:01):
That's really all you need toknow.
When we bought our first realhome, the electric bill wasn't
the electric bill.
We called it the light bill.
Why?
Because all the electricitypowered was lights.
Maybe a refrigerator, maybe aTV.
We had a gravity furnace, a gasstove.
(09:22):
No central air.
City water.
We lived in town, but weliterally kept a decorative
hurricane lamp on the kitchentable and a bottle of scented
oil in the closet.
If the power went out, we litthe lamp, read a book and life,
basically didn't change.
Compare that to a modern home.
(09:43):
Now we have internet, wifi,cable, all the electronics that
are on battery backup, and werecently splurged on a
generator.
Now, even though we're making apoint here, this is not even the
biggest point, it's not thebiggest error in this argument.
So the activists compare today'sluxury homes to the yesterday's
(10:03):
basic starter cabins and thenpretend that proves something.
It doesn't.
They pretend that minimum wageand median home price proves
something when they do not.
And I think you get that.
But let me come back to our bigdifference after we make one
more little point.
To compare eras honestly, youuse a constant, a benchmark that
(10:27):
adjusts for inflation anddoesn't depend on taste, zoning
or HGTV trends.
One of the best constants wehave is the federal poverty
line.
1970, poverty line was$1,687.
Today it's about$14,600.
Now let's compare apples toapples.
(10:50):
In 1970 apples were 29 cents apound, and that was 0.017% of
income.
Today, apples are between a buck62 and two 40 a pound.
Or 0.14%.
Apples are more affordable.
(11:10):
But since an apple a day keepsthe doctor away, we probably
should use a less healthyexample that the food stamp
generation can all relate to.
So let's compare the price ofBig Macs.
Compare Big Macs, 1970 to today.
In 1970 0.038% of the povertyincome.
(11:32):
Today, also 0.038.
Exactly the same.
The millennials and Zoomers canbring home a sack of Big Macs to
their parents' basement for theexact same share of their
poverty income today, as theydid in 1970.
Let that mathematical truth sinkin.
(11:54):
And with that, now we arrive atthe flaming smoldering center of
the story, the climax, the partwhere you wonder why all these
people lie to us.
Detroit, Jacksonville, Gary,Birmingham, Alabama, Kansas
City, East St.
Louis, Memphis.
(12:16):
From the 1980s onward, andespecially after 2008, these
cities had tens of thousands ofabandoned houses.
Not hypothetical houses, notimaginary houses.
Not a number, but actual housesstructurally sound in need of
repairs maybe, but absolutelyhabitable with work.
(12:40):
I know.
I know people who bought them.
Many of these sold for a fewthousand dollars or a few
hundred dollars.
And yes, some for$1.
The Detroit Land Bank sold lotsfor a hundred to$250.
Entire neighborhoods wereavailable.
And here's the outrage, the partthat should make your blood
(13:02):
boil.
We spent money to throw housesaway.
We didn't just ignore them.
We bulldozed them at taxpayerexpense because nobody wanted
them.
Their narrative was not,"Wecan't afford a house".
The narrative was,"We don't wantthese houses, tear them down".
(13:26):
Here's a legendary moment.
Detroit elected Mike Duggan asmayor because he promised to
tear down houses faster,cheaper, and more efficiently.
That was the whole campaign, andit worked because Millennials
didn't want those houses andZoomers don't want them now.
And those are the same people.
(13:47):
"Reposting Houses used to beaffordable".
They were affordable and stillare.
Okay.
You just don't want thosehouses.
Now ask yourself this.
How do all the houses that werebulldozed calculate into Jeff
Rose's formula?
What minimum wage do you need tobuy a house for a dollar?
(14:11):
Of course, those values are notincluded.
He used selling prices notvalue, and those houses didn't
sell.
He could easily have looked upaverage assessed value of
properties across the country.
He's a finance guy, after all.
That would've captured the valueof all the ho, the homes that
were destroyed, as well as allthe homes that are around, even
(14:34):
if not on the market, Even ifnot being bought, sold, or
traded.
If we include the homes, peoplecould have bought, not just the
median homes that they did buy.
Yeah, the whole minimum- wage-can't buy- a- house- anymore.
Argument explodes.
But he chose what he chose, adeception that looks deliberate.
(14:57):
The problem isn't housingaffordability.
The houses are there, theyalways have been.
The problem is deceitfulinfluencers who will do anything
for clicks.
Jeff Rose is truly the AOC offinancial planners.
So what does all of this reallytell us?
Let's go back to the missingdollar riddle.
(15:18):
What happened to the missingdollar?
Well, nothing is missing.
We're just looking in the wrongplace, comparing the wrong
numbers.
The men paid$27 total, ninetimes three.
Of that$27, the bellhop kept$2.
So the correct operation is$27minus two equals 25, which is
(15:40):
the actual room price.
You don't add the bellhops selftipping to the$27 to try to get
30.
You subtract it from 27 to get25, the actual price of the
room.
So these two stories tell us theproblem isn't housing.
The houses are there, they'vealways been there.
(16:02):
What's really missing is truthand clarity.
And truth is always the firstcasualty of bad influencers.
Here's a truth older than anyhousing chart: More harm comes
from ignorance than from malice.
But the real danger, the onethat poisons whole generations,
is when you find people who maybe both: people like Jeff Rose,
(16:26):
the AOC of financial planning.
People who don't understand thesubject yet, insist on leading
the parade with a megaphone.
It's one thing for potentialhome buyers to be ignorant.
That's fixable.
But when you mix ignorance withambition, with monetized
outrage, with a need to goviral, that's when the damage
(16:48):
starts, and that's how we end upwith millions of young people
convinced they're doomed whilestanding on the ashes of entire
neighborhoods that used to beaffordable.
Starter homes still exist.
Opportunities still exist.
What doesn't exist or what isscarce is honest guidance from
the people chasing clicks.
(17:11):
If you want the truth, not thealgorithm's bedtime story, stay
here.
Stay with The Tenth man, becausearound here, the narrative never
outranks the facts.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.