
Harvard's Housing Market Study Flags Worrying Trends—'Shocking'
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The housing affordability crisis that has been keeping the dream of homeownership out of reach for millions of Americans over the past few years is unlikely to ease "anytime soon," according to a new report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.
The State of the Nation's Housing 2025 found that sky-high home prices—which are still rising at the national level—historically elevated mortgage rates, and rising home insurance premiums and property taxes are still keeping Americans on the sidelines of the market, despite growing inventory.
The result is that sales are falling across the country as many Americans cannot afford to buy a property. While experts believe these dynamics will bring down home prices by the end of the year, Harvard researchers said, "The increasing possibility of an economic downturn threatens to deepen these challenges."
Challenges Still Facing Homeowners in 2025
Home Prices
As of early 2025, U.S. home prices were 60 percent higher than they were in 2019, before the pandemic homebuying frenzy spurred by historically low mortgage rates began. The prices were not only significantly higher than before the health emergency but were also still rising at a rate of 3.9 percent year over year, according to the Harvard study.
In 2024, the median price of an existing single-family home hit a new high of $412,500. As of May 2025, according to the latest Redfin data, it was $441,738, up 1 percent from a year earlier.
A construction worker carrying lumber at a site where a new home is being built in a neighborhood destroyed by a wildfire in Pacific Palisades, California, on May 7.
A construction worker carrying lumber at a site where a new home is being built in a neighborhood destroyed by a wildfire in Pacific Palisades, California, on May 7."This is a shocking five times the median household income," Daniel McCue, a senior research associate at the Joint Center for Housing Studies, said in a news release. "This is also significantly above the price-to-income ratio of 3 that has traditionally been considered affordable."
While prices have continued rising this year, existing-home sales dropped to a new 30-year low of 4.06 million, the study found.
Rising Property Taxes and Home Insurance Premiums
It isn't only sky-high home prices that are keeping prospective buyers off the market. The cost of homeownership has increased dramatically over the past few years as property tax bills have risen as a result of skyrocketing home values, and home insurance premiums have climbed following the increased frequency and severity of natural disasters across the country.
Home insurance premiums jumped 57 percent from 2019 to 2024, according to the Harvard study, "with the sharpest increases in areas with the greatest risk of a climate-related disaster." Property taxes also climbed nationwide by an average of 12 percent between 2021 and 2023.
Consequently, a growing number of Americans homeowners are cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs.
In 2023, according to the Harvard study, the number of cost-burdened homeowners rose by 646,000 to 20.3 million, representing 24 percent of all homeowner households.
Mortgage Rates
Historically high mortgage rates are also discouraging buyers from making a purchase this year.
Last year, according to the Harvard study, monthly mortgage payments on a median-priced home for first-time buyers with a 30-year loan rose to $2,570. That is 40 percent higher than it was in 1990, requiring buyers to earn an annual income of at least $126,700 to afford a home and the associated taxes and insurance costs, researchers found.
"Only 6 million of the nation's nearly 46 million renters can meet this benchmark," Alexander Hermann, a senior research associate at the Harvard center, said in a news release.
The situation is unlikely to change this year or the next. As of June 18, the nationwide average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage was 6.81 percent, according to Freddie Mac, more than three times higher than the lows reached during the pandemic. Experts believe mortgage rates will keep hovering between the 6 percent and 7 percent marks throughout 2025 and 2026.
The Number of Americans Reaching Homeownership Has Shrunk
With the long-standing affordability issues weighing on prospective buyers, the number of Americans who can realize their dream of homeownership is shrinking.
Last year, the U.S. homeownership rate fell for the first time in eight years, down 0.3 percentage points to 65.6 percent. The rate has continued falling in the first quarter of 2025, sliding to 65.1 percent.
The situation is even more dire among first-time homebuyers. The homeownership rate dropped by 1.4 percentage points in 2024 for households under the age of 35 and by 0.8 percentage points to 61.8 percent for households aged 35 to 44, according to the Harvard study.
In the same year, homeownership rates for households aged 45 and above remained relatively unchanged.
An Uncertain Future
The future of the U.S. housing market is "inextricably linked" to that of the country's economy and federal policy, Harvard researchers said, adding, "As such, much of its future is uncertain."
President Donald Trump's tariffs on the U.S.'s trading partners, many of which affect crucial construction material, are bound to bring up the cost of building a home, builders and experts have said. The cost of building materials went up by 36 percent between February 2020 and February 2025, the Harvard study found, and it is likely to continue surging in the coming months. Estimates show that the Trump administration's tariffs may add $12,800 to $25,500 to the cost of building a new single-family home.
Homebuilders surveyed by the National Association of Home Builders said they expected tariffs to push up new home prices by $10,900.
Trump's aggressive stance against illegal migration could also exacerbate labor shortages in the construction sector, further increasing the cost of homebuilding. About one-third of construction workers are foreign-born, the Harvard study found—about twice the rate of the overall labor force.
On top of these issues, reductions in federal staff and funding threaten to exacerbate an already-unprecedented housing crisis, the study concluded.
"There must be a concerted effort to do more to address the affordability and supply crises," Chris Herbert, the managing director of the Harvard center, said in a news release. "The potential consequences of inaction are simply too harmful to the macroeconomy and the millions of households striving for a safe, affordable place to call home."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Not your parent's housing market: 4 ways things have changed
(NewsNation) — Homeownership has long been a cornerstone of the 'American dream,' but mounting affordability challenges have put that goal out of reach for many. These days, younger and older generations view the dream very differently. Nearly 70 percent of adults over 65 believe the 'American dream is still possible,' compared with just 39 percent of those under 30, according to a 2024 Pew survey. Housing costs appear to be a major driver of young adults' skepticism — a problem that has been years in the making. New construction plunged during the Great Recession, shrinking the nation's housing supply and worsening a shortfall that persists to this day. The inventory constraints came at a time when home prices had already been outpacing wages for years. Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Record-low mortgage rates and pent-up demand sparked bidding wars, sending home prices soaring. Investors piled in too, tightening supply and helping drive inventory to historic lows. The dust has since settled, but affordability remains elusive. Mortgage rates are higher, and many owners who locked in rock-bottom rates aren't eager to sell. Prices, meanwhile, keep climbing. Today's renters put their chances of ever owning a home at just 1 in 3 — down from more than 50 percent before the pandemic, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It's a striking shift in how Americans view their financial prospects, driven by fundamental changes that didn't exist decades ago. Here are four signs this isn't your parents' housing market. Homebuyers are older than ever Median age of homebuyers (National Association of Realtors 2024) 1981: 31 years old 2024: 56 years old (record high) In the 1980s, the typical homebuyer was in their early 30s. By 2024, that age had risen to 56 — a record high, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). Baby boomers (ages 60 to 78) now represent the largest generational group of homebuyers, accounting for 42 percent of buyers between July 2023 and June 2024. Millennials (ages 26 to 44) are the nation's largest generation but made up just 29% of buyers, NAR found. They were also far more likely to be raising kids at home. Even more striking is the contrast in how each group paid. Roughly half of older boomers (ages 70 to 78) paid in cash, skipping financing altogether. On the other hand, 95 percent of millennials financed their purchase, and 40 percent relied on family and friends to help with the down payment. The stark generational contrast shows that today's homebuyers are trending older — but more importantly, it highlights who is competing for homes. These days, younger generations are going head-to-head with older, established homeowners for houses. Share of first-time buyers at all-time low Market share of first-time buyers (National Association of Realtors 2024) It's easier to buy a home when you already own one. Today's housing market increasingly pits homeowners with built-up equity against younger buyers trying to break in. Before 2008, first-time buyers typically made up 40 percent of the market. Last year, their share fell to 24 percent — the lowest since the NAR began tracking in 1981. The shift underscores how inaccessible the housing market has become for new buyers, jeopardizing the primary path to wealth for millions of Americans. A 2024 Redfin report found that empty-nest baby boomers own nearly 3 in 10 (28 percent) large U.S. homes, twice as many as millennials with kids. Elevated mortgage rates and a lack of affordable starter homes have contributed to the gap, incentivizing many older adults to stay in place. In theory, a so-called ' silver tsunami ' could free up larger homes as older Americans downsize. But that same shift could intensify competition for entry-level homes, pushing prices even higher. Wages haven't kept up with home prices Median sales price for new houses sold in the U.S. (Census Bureau) *not adjusted for inflation 1984: $79,900 2023: $428,600 Change: +436 percent Median household income (Census Bureau) — not adjusted for inflation 1984: $22,420 2023: $80,610 Change: +260 percent Mortgage rates may be lower today than in the 1980s, but wages haven't kept pace with soaring prices. In 1984, a new home cost 3.6 times the median household income; by 2023, it was 5.3 times — a gap that widened in recent years. Homebuyers now need an annual household income of $116,986 to afford the typical U.S. home, according to a recent Bankrate study. That's a nearly 50 percent jump from early 2020, when the income needed was $78,236. A separate Harvard study found that the price-to-income ratio in 2022 was the highest on record, dating back to the early 1970s. In some West Coast markets, including San Jose and San Francisco, typical homes sold for more than 11 times the median income. Homebuyers are competing with investors Share of investor buyers ( 2001 (Q4): 1.9 percent 2024 (Q4): 13.5 percent Today's homebuyers aren't just competing with other families — they're increasingly up against deep-pocketed investors. In 2024, investors purchased 13 percent of homes sold, up from just 2 percent in 2001, according to In total, that amounted to 610,000 homes last year. States like Missouri, Oklahoma and Kansas saw investors buy an even higher share — roughly 20 percent of homes last year. found that most investors (62 percent) paid all cash, nearly double the 33% rate of all homebuyers who did the same. 'Budget-conscious buyers often find themselves in direct competition with investors for the most affordable properties, a contest many are unable to win,' senior economic research analyst Hannah Jones said in a June report.


Axios
4 minutes ago
- Axios
As Mass. labor market cools, here's how we compare
The job market is cooler than average in states like Massachusetts, new data shows. The big picture: Americans are feeling almost as gloomy about the job market as they did during the Great Recession — and entry-level workers are having an especially hard time getting their foot in the door. By the numbers: Washington, D.C. (6%); California (5.5%) and Nevada (5.4%) had July's highest unemployment rates, based on preliminary and seasonally-adjusted Bureau of Labor Statistics data out Tuesday. Massachusetts (4.8%) has also struggled with unemployment, ticking up higher than the national rate of 4.2%. South Dakota (1.9% unemployment); North Dakota (2.5%) and Vermont (2.6%) had the lowest unemployment rates. Zoom in: The Massachusetts Office of Labor and Workforce Development didn't specify what industries are being hit hardest in its latest press release, but the state has seen massive layoffs in life sciences and biomanufacturing and tech, as well as restaurant closures and downsizing in the cannabis industry.


Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
This AI-Fueled Startup Is Helping Attorneys Find New Class Action Lawsuits
At first glance, a 2021 lawsuit against dating app Bumble seemed like a run-of-the-mill data privacy case. The company was accused of collecting and storing Americans' face scans without their consent, which was illegal in Illinois, where the lawsuit was filed. While denying the allegations, Bumble settled the case for $40 million. Now, thousands of Bumble users are receiving about $1,900 apiece as compensation. The plaintiffs' attorneys are getting an even bigger payday, taking home $14 million. Beyond the large payout, what makes the case unusual is the way it came about. The alleged violation at issue was discovered by five-year-old Israeli tech startup Darrow, which uses artificial intelligence to scour the internet for arguably illegal–and more importantly, class-action-lawsuit-worthy–corporate behavior. It spots the seeds of a suit in different places, such as online consumer complaints or (in the Bumble case) an app's privacy policies. Then it compares its findings to laws and regulations to gather ideas for class action lawsuits. Darrow sells the ideas to attorneys and even helps them find people to become plaintiffs for a case through targeted digital advertising. The novel approach is a striking example of how AI is reaching remote niches of industries and transforming them (or at least speeding them up and making them more efficient). AI is already widely used by lawyers for such functions as reviewing masses of documents or emails turned over during discovery in a legal case. But the notion of using AI to discover legal causes of action is a new one. Chicago lawyer and Darrow customer Katrina Carroll, who was the lead attorney in the Bumble case, says Darrow has 'enabled me to file cases that I would never have filed were it not for their expertise.' Cofounder and CEO Evyatar Ben Artzi, 35, sports a thick, philosopher-like beard and makes grandiose statements about Darrow's mission. He says he wants to create 'a world of frictionless justice … where you don't have to look over your shoulder to see who's screwing you … where it's easy to do business, because risk is transparent.' It's expensive for attorneys to find and file class actions, since they require a lot of upfront research. Artzi wants Darrow to lower the cost of legal services and expand 'access to justice.' The CEO and his cofounder, Gila Hayat, 30, named the company Darrow after Clarence Darrow, the famous American lawyer who took on underdog clients such as John Scopes, a high school teacher accused of breaking a law against teaching evolution, and child murderers Leopold and Loeb. Artzi thinks about legal risks in a very financial sense–as an asset. 'Any legal risk is a future cash flow with some kind of probability weight to it. All you need to do is surface these opportunities, give them to the experts that can handle them–whether that's a company or a law firm–and let them create the right trade, so to speak.' Beyond selling to law firms, Darrow wants large companies to buy its services so they can see their own legal vulnerabilities and fix them. Darrow's business model is intriguing. The company makes money the same way many software firms do, by charging customers both subscription and usage-based fees. But it also has a more controversial revenue source. When lawyers win cases originated with a Darrow idea, the startup quietly takes a cut of the lucrative attorneys' fees. It does that through a little-known partnership with Arizona lawyer Don Bivens, which is enabled by a 2020 administrative order by Arizona's Supreme Court that removed an ethical rule and allowed Arizona law firms to share attorneys' fees with non-lawyers. Two lawyers who are Darrow customers told Forbes that Darrow requires them to include Bivens as co-counsel in any case that originates from the startup's research. Bivens has full oversight over Darrow's case recommendations: He helps decide which law firms to pitch them to, reviews them before they're sent out and supervises how the advertising will work to find plaintiffs. Darrow's chief revenue officer, Mathew Keshav Lewis, doesn't like discussing this setup. When we asked repeated questions about it, he was evasive and said Darrow doesn't disclose its 'commercial agreements.' Bivens, who passes a chunk of his attorneys' fees back to Darrow, confirmed the arrangement to Forbes . (Lewis added that Darrow's partnerships vary by jurisdiction and that some of its customers don't co-counsel with Bivens, without elaborating further.) Lewis says his skittishness stems from a fear that competitors will copy Darrow's model, and from sensitivity around ethical rules about sharing attorneys' fees with non-lawyers. In at least 47 U.S. states, ethical guidelines prohibit non-lawyers from sharing in attorneys' fees. Some lawyers argue convincingly that the rules are outdated and protectionist. Either way, Lewis and Bivens insist that Darrow isn't doing anything improper and that the tech company has no say in lawyers' decisions on a case. They say Darrow is just providing 'legal intelligence,' or information and data to support a case, like any other consultant regularly does. Regardless of what anti-fee-sharing sticklers might think of its business model, the 156-person startup has been growing quickly. It counts 80 law firms as customers and charges them between tens of thousands of dollars and millions of dollars a year for its services, Artzi says. The company's revenue reached $26 million in 2024, and he expects it to surpass $50 million this year. 'In 2026, we'll do $120 million of revenue,' he predicts, adding that the startup has been cash-flow positive since 2023. 'In Israel, we're the biggest legal tech company. Definitely the most profitable and revenue-generating.' Several lawyers we spoke with are convinced that Darrow is onto something and will ultimately be one of many companies offering AI-powered lawsuit-idea services. Says Jeffrey Cunningham, a legal ethics attorney and partner at law firm Cohen Vaughan: 'I think in 10 years, this is going to be normal.' Have a story tip? Contact Jeff Kauflin at jkauflin@ or on Signal at jeff.273. A rtzi grew up in Israel, and during four years of military service, rose to become a major, leading 250 special combat operations soldiers. He went to law school afterward and became a clerk at the Israeli Supreme Court, but he was frustrated by the slow, reactive nature of the legal system and the way lawsuits originated. 'The awareness layer of the system is really limited to what people will insert in there. It's not doing anything proactive,' he says today. In 2020, he met Gila Hayat, who had been a data scientist in Israel's elite 8200 military intelligence unit and had used AI to analyze large amounts of data. The pair cofounded Darrow that year with seed funding from Barak Rabinowitz, an Israeli venture capitalist at F2 who holds more than a 10% stake in Darrow. Darrow cofounders Evyatar Ben Artzi and Gila Hayat Darrow AI Today, Darrow's models uncover different flavors of possible violations, with many involving data privacy. Darrow once found out that a hospital was sharing confidential patient data, including consumers' medical conditions and illness symptoms, with online advertisers like Google and Facebook. It also regularly finds instances of employers offering poorly performing, high-fee mutual funds in their 401(k) plans, which could constitute violations of ERISA, the 1974 law that sets standards for private, employer-sponsored retirement plans. Darrow's technology uses its own home-grown models and foundational models from the likes of OpenAI and Anthropic, tailoring them to give outsize weight to legal rules. When it recommends a class action case idea to a lawyer, Darrow estimates how many consumers were harmed, how many millions of dollars the settlement would likely fetch and its likelihood of success. Many of Darrow's staffers are techies working in research and development who also have legal training. 'Our people are weird hybrids,' Artzi says. 'Think about the standard Israeli ex-intelligence, Unit 8200 kind-of-person who then went to law school.' The startup tries to identify 100 to 200 new cases per quarter and insists that it steers clear of suggesting frivolous cases to law firms. It's hard to tell to what degree the revenue-sharing aspect of its business might turn customers off, hampering its growth. The ethical rules prohibiting the practice were formally adopted in the 1980s by U.S. state bar associations, whose leaders feared that non-law-firm companies cared primarily about money and weren't morally obligated to do right by the end client. Regulatory changes to these rules have been made in Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C., Washington State, Utah and Arizona, which is why Bivens has no qualms about discussing it. Fee sharing with non-lawyers is legal in the U.K. and Australia, too. But in America, the practice is still taboo among some attorneys. One lawyer we spoke with said the revenue-sharing practice deterred him from working with Darrow. Bivens thinks the stigma is misguided. He says revenue-sharing law firms can easily avoid ethical transgressions by making sure the business side doesn't meddle in attorneys' work. 'If I were to let a non-lawyer influence my decision about what's in the best interest of the client, I'd have to be disbarred. The lawyer has an independent duty to the client, and nobody can interfere with that.' B oulder, Colorado-based startup Justpoint also uses large language models and AI to find lawsuit ideas, but of a different sort. Cofounded in 2018 by Victor Bornstein, who has a Ph.D. in biomedical sciences, it analyzes millions of medical records to find cases where pharmaceuticals are producing harmful, little-known side effects. Instead of class actions, Justpoint focuses on mass torts, or lawsuits where consumers are harmed to varying degrees, resulting in different payouts for different plaintiffs. Mass tort settlements are often larger than class actions. For example, decades-long litigation involving people harmed by asbestos has racked up tens of billions of dollars in settlements. To get its piece of the juicy attorneys' fees, Justpoint takes a different approach: It has its own law firm, Justpoint Law, that is (of course) based in Arizona. So tech startup Justpoint, with its staff of 260 people, refers cases only to Justpoint Law, with its four employees, two of whom are lawyers. Bornstein says Justpoint has brought six mass tort cases involving 13,000 claims. It has only settled 'a small fraction' of those so far, with an average payout of $355,000 per claimant. Six months ago, Bornstein raised $45 million in Series A funding for Justpoint. Artzi isn't content to stick with class actions at Darrow–he's now trying to expand into mass torts and to sell Darrow's 'legal intelligence' to large corporations. It's a hard sell, though. Companies want to know about some risks, but not all of them, because they're legally bound to fix an infraction once they're aware of it, Lewis says. A company subscribing to Darrow's service would also have to get comfortable with the awkward reality that, if Darrow finds a misdeed big enough to warrant a lawsuit, the startup might be tipping off both the offending company and a law firm that could sue it. More from Forbes Forbes As Trump Rolls Back Federal Financial Regulation, Blue State Regulators Step Up By Jeff Kauflin Forbes How Private Equity-Owned Companies Quietly Pocket Class Action Payouts By Jeff Kauflin Forbes Everyone Hates Credit Card Disputes. This Fintech Is Using AI To Fix That. By Jeff Kauflin Forbes Forget BLS. Here's How To Take The Economy's Temperature Without Using Government Data By Brandon Kochkodin