US Housing Market Sees 'Bright Spot' Amid Struggles
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
While the U.S. housing market is at a standstill due to ongoing affordability issues keeping buyers to the sidelines, starter homes are proving to be a "bright spot" for Americans struggling to step onto the property ladder, according to a new report by Redfin.
Sales of starter homes rose 3.9 percent in June compared to a year earlier, the highest level since June 2023. At the same time, sales across all other price tiers dropped—proving that a growing number of Americans are turning toward smaller, cheaper homes to realize their dream of homeownership whereas traditional options are no longer available.
What Is Happening in the US Housing Market
The U.S. housing market is experiencing a slowdown as Americans crushed by sky-high home prices, elevated mortgage rates, rising home insurance premiums and homeowners association (HOA) fees cannot afford to become homeowners.
It is a bit of an unfortunate coincidence that, at the same time, sellers who for years had held onto their homes have now stopped waiting for mortgage rates to come down, and they want to off-load their properties. The result is a dramatic imbalance between sellers and buyers, as for-sale inventory piles up on the market without going under contract.
Under these conditions, buyers are seeking opportunities wherever they can find them—and that, right now, is in the starter homes market.
San Diego, California, experienced the biggest increase in starter-home sales in the country, up 18 percent year-over-year in June. It was followed by Providence, Rhode Island (+17.4 percent), and Sacramento, California (+14.3 percent).
While starter homes, at a median price of $260,000, reported a year-over-year increase in sales in June, every other price tier experienced a dip.
Sales for mid-tier homes, with a median sale price of $370,784, slipped by 0.9 percent in June compared to a year earlier. Sales for high-tier homes, with a median sale price of $577,117, fell by 3.6 percent year-over-year. Sales for luxury homes, priced at a median of $1.29 million, dropped by 6.7 percent.
Inventory for starter homes was also growing faster than in any other price tier. In June, it was up 19 percent year-over-year. Inventory for mid-tier homes was up 15.1 percent, while for high-tier homes, it was up 13.2 percent. The number of active listings available on the market for luxury homes was only up 9.1 percent year-over-year in June.
The total number of starter homes for sale increased the most in Las Vegas, Nevada (+53.6 percent), San Diego, California (+44.1 percent), and Phoenix, Arizona (+43.1 percent). Only in one metropolitan area, San Antonio, Texas, active listings fell year-over-year by 2.2 percent in June.
Why Americans Are Choosing Starter Homes
The reason why American homebuyers are now looking at starter homes is simple: these are cheaper homes that many can afford.
"In a market where it's difficult for most Americans to afford a dream home, many are turning toward starter homes," Redfin Senior Economist Sheharyar Bokhari said in a press release.
In an aerial view, construction workers build a home at a new housing development on July 01, 2025, in Hercules, California.
In an aerial view, construction workers build a home at a new housing development on July 01, 2025, in Hercules, California."They're typically smaller and more modest, but starter homes remain within reach for some buyers who have been priced out of higher tiers. First-time buyers are especially apt to go for starter homes, as they don't have equity from a previous home sale to help with their payments."
But their popularity is bringing up the price of starter homes across the country. Prices for starter homes grew by 3.1 percent year-over-year in June, more than mid-tier (2.1 percent) and high-tier homes (2.7 percent). While the price of starter homes remains close to its record high, price growth has been slowing for six consecutive months now.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
8 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Deep-Sea Mining Threatens U.S. Security and Ocean Peace
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Invoking national security to justify private sector economic development is a tired cliché. And yet, in a troubling twist, a Canadian company is invoking U.S. national security to obtain an exclusive license from the U.S. government for a deep-sea mining venture for critical minerals in international waters—and it appears to be working. In April 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order to greenlight deep-sea mining in international waters, signaling a possible intent to bypass international safeguards. Just days later, an application was filed—the world's first—to commercially mine the global seabed for minerals, including manganese, nickel, copper, and cobalt. These minerals are sometimes linked to defense needs, but there is little evidence that U.S. military procurement prioritizes them—or that seabed mining is necessary. U.S. sanctioned seabed mining contributes nothing to solving the real chokepoint: China's dominance in processing, not extraction. Marine biologist placing a transect and a square, for a later census of both fish and invertebrates. These image were captured on May 8,2025, in Chichiriviche de la Costa, Venezuela. Marine biologist placing a transect and a square, for a later census of both fish and invertebrates. These image were captured on May 8,2025, in Chichiriviche de la Costa, Venezuela. Getty Images Industry proposals would ship unrefined ore to overseas processors, with no domestic value added or direct supply chain benefits. The four metals targeted by would-be deep-sea miners are not subject to Chinese export controls, and the U.S. is not materially dependent on China for their raw ore. In many cases, the U.S. is a net exporter or can readily import from allies like Australia, Chile, and South Africa. There is a 50-year history of corporations attempting to access minerals on the ocean floor, with the dominant narrative shifting over time—from economic opportunity to climate necessity to national security. But invoking national security to justify deep-sea mining ignores the broader geopolitical reality: bypassing international consensus does not strengthen U.S. interests. Companies leading the push to launch deep-sea mining under a U.S. license are foreign-incorporated entities with no operational footprint—and no meaningful supply chain commitments to it. The timeline for commercial production remains uncertain and subject to indefinite delays due to technical, financial, and regulatory hurdles. Far from offering strategic value, this initiative is best understood as a speculative venture propped up by shifting political winds. Deep-sea mining is not the answer to a mineral security crisis—it's a solution to a problem that does not exist. The industry's business model not only fails to strengthen U.S. supply chains, it undermines the international legal frameworks the U.S. relies on to secure its maritime rights. This contradiction is especially stark when viewed through the lens of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the foundation of U.S. ocean diplomacy and strategic interests. The United States has long upheld most tenets of UNCLOS, benefiting from its framework even without ratifying it. In 2023, it secured sovereign rights over more than 1 million square kilometers of seabed—an area larger than Texas— coveted by Russia and Canada. Industry attempts to exploit the outdated Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA) to bypass the International Seabed Authority (ISA) directly challenges these principles. France has called it "environmental piracy." Even China has denounced the move, positioning itself as a champion of multilateralism—a recognition once held by the U.S. The consequences are not hypothetical: this legal sleight of hand weakens the U.S.' extended continental shelf claims, threatens military operations that rely on legal clarity at sea, and erodes our moral authority to lead in maritime governance. A global moratorium is urgently needed, and the ISA has a critical role to play by halting exploitation licenses under its authority until robust environmental safeguards and scientific assessments are in place. While not universally binding, a moratorium would reinforce international norms, raise the political cost of going it alone, and help protect global ocean governance. The organization's council, which met in July, passed a resolution urging its legal and technical body to look at "noncompliance" with international law. What is truly at risk is the deep ocean itself—a living, carbon-storing, biodiversity-rich system we scarcely understand. A 2023 peer-reviewed study found that deep-sea mining could have a 28 percent higher climate impact than land-based sources, which are already major climate change accelerants. Even the ISA's own financial models show collapsing economic projections due to the volatility of the market for these metals—further calling into question the wisdom of risking irreparable damage to deep ocean ecosystems. Safer, cleaner, and more cost-effective alternatives—such as mineral recycling and domestic refining efforts—are gaining momentum, many with backing from the U.S. Department of Defense. If the U.S. wants to lead, it must uphold international law, not exploit its loopholes. The International Seabed Authority must hold the line, and Congress should reform DSHMRA and prevent foreign corporations from abusing U.S. law. Protecting national security means preventing ocean conflict—not accelerating it. We cannot outpace our principles. A moratorium on deep-sea mining is not a delay tactic; it's the strongest course of action—for peace, for ecosystems, and for American leadership. Randy Manner, a retired U.S. Army major general, has served as acting and deputy director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, where he helped safeguard nuclear weapons and materials and assisted with the neutralization of chemical munitions in Russia. Kevin Green, a retired U.S. Navy vice admiral, has served as deputy chief of naval operations and was recognized with the Navy Distinguished Service Medal and the Legion of Merit. He commanded the USS Taylor during Operation Desert Shield and later led the U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
NBC News
10 minutes ago
- NBC News
Modi was ready to 'make India great again,' then Trump put America first
The U.S. and India 's blossoming friendship is at risk of falling to pieces, observers have warned, as President Donald Trump threatens to substantially increase tariffs on Indian goods over its purchases of Russian oil. At the start of the year, India seemed to be one of the countries most likely to win Trump's favor, given its growing role as an Asian counterweight to China and Trump's close relationship with its leader, Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But U.S. relations with India have instead come under strain over trade and other issues. Trump has threatened Apple and other companies that manufacture in India, moved closer to its biggest rival, Pakistan, and mocked India's 'dead' economy. 'He's threatening to undo, or at least hit pause on, what has been two decades of steadily improving relations between India and the U.S.,' said Dhruva Jaishankar, executive director of the Observer Research Foundation America, a nonprofit group in Washington. On Monday, citing India's 'massive' purchases of Russian oil, Trump said he would 'substantially' increase the U.S. tariff on Indian imports, which is already one of the highest among Asian countries at 25%. Along with China, India is a top purchaser of Russian crude oil sanctioned by Western governments after Moscow's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. In a sharp response, India, a major U.S. security partner, said such criticism was 'unjustified and unreasonable' and that it bought Russian oil with U.S. support. 'India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict,' the Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement Monday. 'The United States at that time actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets stability.' The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. U.S.-India tensions are mounting domestic political pressure on Modi, with opponents accusing him of failing to stand up to his 'dear friend' Trump. 'The country is now bearing the cost of Narendra Modi's 'friendship,'' the opposition Congress party said last week. 'I don't want you building in India' It was a different picture in February, when Modi was among the first world leaders to visit the White House after Trump returned to office. Mirroring Trump, he said he too would 'make India great again.' The bonhomie did not last long. Since then, Trump has needled India over a number of issues, including billions in investment by American companies as they shift manufacturing from China. Last quarter, India produced 44% of U.S. smartphone imports, more than any other country including China, according to data from the research firm Canalys. That includes iPhones sold in the U.S., the majority of which Apple chief executive Tim Cook says will have India as their country of origin starting this quarter. 'I don't want you building in India,' Trump said he told Cook in May, urging him to produce phones in the U.S. instead, despite the difficulties. Cozying up to India's foe A terrorist attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir that killed 26 people in April is another source of friction in U.S.-India relations. India responded by bombing neighboring Pakistan, which it has long accused of harboring terrorists, resulting in a four-day conflict that threatened to explode into a broader war fueled by decades of tensions between the two nuclear-armed countries. Trump irked India by repeatedly claiming that he had personally brokered a ceasefire. While Islamabad thanked Trump for mediating, India rejected claims of U.S. involvement, including in a call between Modi and Trump. 'India has not endorsed Trump's claim,' said Amitendu Palit, a former Indian finance ministry official and a senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore. 'That has not gone down very well with Trump,' he said. Within weeks, Trump hosted Pakistan's powerful army chief at the White House in an unprecedented meeting. He has also imposed a lower tariff rate on Pakistan of 19% and said the U.S. had reached a deal with Pakistan on exploring its oil reserves. Squeezed over Russia As Trump has expressed growing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin, he has turned his attention to India's relationship with Moscow. For years, New Delhi has benefited from its 'non-aligned' foreign policy, which allowed India to strengthen U.S. ties while continuing its longstanding relationship with Russia, one of its main suppliers of energy and military equipment. When Russian oil was hit with Western-led sanctions over Ukraine, India — the third-largest energy consumer in the world after China and the U.S. — seized the opportunity to buy it at a discount, which even U.S. officials said helped stabilize global oil prices. 'They bought Russian oil because we wanted somebody to buy Russian oil,' Eric Garcetti, the U.S. ambassador to India under former President Joe Biden, said at a conference last year. 'It was actually the design of the policy, because as a commodity we didn't want oil prices going up.' The U.S. position on India's oil purchases appears to have reversed under Trump, who said in a social media post last week that India and Russia 'can take their dead economies down together.' 'We are now at a stage where the American ability to control Russia and its allies is beginning to impact India,' Palit said. Jaishankar said that while Trump's actions won't push India out of America's orbit, they could drive India to strengthen ties with other countries such as China. During a meeting of their foreign ministers in Beijing last month, India and China agreed to resume direct flights between their countries for the first time in five years. Despite the recent setbacks in their relationship, India will continue to engage with the U.S. as a key strategic and technological partner, said Chietigj Bajpaee, a senior research fellow for South Asia at Chatham House, a London-based think tank. 'But I think it's a wake-up call of sorts,' he said.
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Why China is Becoming Donald Trump's Biggest U-Turn
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. When President Donald Trump launched the trade war with China in his first term, he did so amid a growing consensus in Washington that Beijing posed a long-term challenge to U.S. security, political and economic interests globally. Now, China watchers on both sides of the aisle are concerned at signs that Trump is pivoting away from years of efforts to compete with America's top geopolitical rival, which is likely to seize the moment and solidify its foothold in strategic industries that Trump wants to win back. The White House did not immediately comment when reached after hours. Setting Expectations While Democrats have criticized Trump's yearslong economic war with Beijing and his government's perceived lack of coordination with key allies, they were largely supportive of a tougher approach to China, citing accusations such as unfair trade practices, currency manipulation and unequal access to the Chinese market. The shift in Trump's first presidency had such far-reaching effects on Sino-American sentiment in both capitals that former President Joe Biden found the chill of the new Cold War hard to reverse. Biden not only extended, but later expanded Trump-era tariffs and further tightened controls on U.S. tech exports over fears they were accelerating China's military modernization. Trump campaigned on a promise to be even tougher. Matthew Pottinger, his deputy national security adviser from 2019-2021, predicted Trump would "pick up the baton and run with it" in pursuing Section 301 investigations into Chinese trade practices considered harmful to international and U.S. economic interests. In April, when the White House launched sweeping tariffs against friend and foe alike to bring Beijing to the negotiating table for a new trade deal, it appeared to signal the start of a new phase of the tech war, designed not only to address the trade deficit and revive U.S. manufacturing, but to ensure America stayed one step ahead of China in technological and military supremacy in an increasingly unstable world. The Biggest U-Turn of Donald Trump's Presidency The Biggest U-Turn of Donald Trump's Presidency Newsweek Illustration/Canva/Getty Reaction and Compromise The reaction from President Xi Jinping's China was swift and targeted. It played the tit-for-tat tariff game for a while but reached quickly for the nuclear option of cutting American firms out of its rare earths supply chain, weaponizing its dominance in the same way the U.S. had sought to curb Chinese access to advanced computer chips. Observers of the ongoing trade talks have sensed a shift in tone and approach, marked by a number of notable concessions in July—both symbolic and substantive—that they argued were overly conciliatory toward Beijing for the sake of securing an agreement. At the top of the list are emerging technologies and the Trump administration's decision to permit the export of U.S. tech—specifically Nvidia's H20 artificial intelligence chip—to China, following an intense lobbying campaign by company CEO Jensen Huang, who had argued that further curbs would only accelerate Chinese domestic breakthroughs in the race to dominate the global AI market. The decision has alarmed some of Trump's current and former allies in the GOP. "The H20 is a potent accelerator of China's frontier AI capabilities, not an outdated AI chip," said a July 28 letter to U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, signed by Pottinger and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, among others. Last week, it emerged that Trump had broken precedent by refusing a request by Taiwan President Lai Ching-te to transit the United States as part of his wider visit to Taipei's remaining allies in Latin American—a diplomatic coup for China, which claims Taiwan as its own. In this file photo taken on June 28, 2019, China's President Xi Jinping, right, shakes hands with U.S. President Donald Trump before a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka. In this file photo taken on June 28, 2019, China's President Xi Jinping, right, shakes hands with U.S. President Donald Trump before a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka. Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images Michael Sobolik, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who signed the letter, told Newsweek: "Several factors are contributing to the shifting climate on China policy. The Trump administration wants to open up China's market for American businesses, which is elevating the cooperative agenda for the moment." "The [Chinese Communist Party's] willingness to leverage U.S. dependency on critical minerals is also curtailing the willingness of some officials to anger Beijing," he said. Sobolik said: "Jensen Huang is putting Nvidia's profit margin ahead of U.S. national security. It's the job of leaders in Washington to put national security ahead of one company's economic interests. Selling advanced AI chips to China does the opposite: it equips China's military with powerful tools to target Americans. We need to win the AI race, not unilaterally surrender to the Chinese Communist Party." China's embassy in Washington, D.C., did not immediately respond to a request for comment after hours. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said last week that Beijing was opposed to "politicizing, instrumentalizing and weaponizing tech and trade issues and malicious attempts to blockade and keep down China" The Debate If Trump stays the course, it would be among the biggest pivots in what was to be a generational U.S.-China rivalry. But not all are convinced Trump is showing his true hand. George Magnus, an associate at the University of Oxford China Center, told Newsweek that Trump wants to demonstrate to the world that only he can strike trade deals with Beijing while his predecessor could not. "I don't think Trump and the administration are necessarily not thinking about China as a strategic adversary, but I think he wants to boast 'a win' in his first year in office and show to the world that America and China can do business together regardless," Magnus said. "We should also remember the U.S. has an America First investment policy memo which is unashamedly anti-China, and it's not unlikely that the U.S. will withdraw [most favored nation] status from Chinese goods. So there is a lot of nuance and ambiguity in Trump's poses and postures, all of which can be real," he said.
