So in reality the house has doubled in price.
Not sure what that's got to do with anything we're talking about.
That's what piggyback second mortgages are for. There are also subsidized loans for first-time buyers in the US called FHA loans that allow 3.5% to 10% down payments.
and the same $30k invested in the S&P 500 in 1968 would have earned you 186x - or $5,580,000 (using http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm as a guide to calculate returns).
And yet, nobody bats an eye that this amazing returns of stocks, and continues to complain that housing prices are too high today, when it was "cheap" in the past. But was it really cheap in the past?
> and the same $30k invested in the S&P 500 in 1968 would have earned you 186x
OPs grandparents would have a difficult time living under a stock certificate.
Housing is to live in, can't compare it to stocks. Unless you plan to be stock-rich but homeless.
I guess my grandparents could've squatted in the Santa Cruz mountains for a while and kept saving to buy stocks. ;-)
As long as housing is seen as an investment it’s not going to be affordable.
Buying and owning property will always be an investment. If this investment is worth it (aka, it has outsized returns), then it can not be affordable.
Look up rents in the 60s in Los Gatos vs. rents recently to see what a terrible idea that would've been for those people.