Mortgage Rates Are Up. Is That the Real Housing Affordability Problem?

In The News

This past week, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate hit 7.45%. Moves like this routinely reignite debate over housing affordability and the role interest rates play in high monthly payments.

So how worried should we be about interest rates?

Here’s My Take

First, we have to recognize that a 7.45% mortgage interest rate is historically normal. Compared with the 10–15% rates common through much of the 1980s, it’s quite reasonable. In short, 7.45% only feels high compared with the extraordinarily low 3–4% rates of 3–6 years ago.But interest rates are only half the story of a mortgage. The other half is how much money you have to borrow. 

Consider 1985. The median single-family home sold for $75,500, while mortgage rates averaged 11.74%. A modest $60,000 house would have required roughly $23,000 in annual income under the standard affordability formula used at the time.

That was roughly what a police officer, nurse, or electrician earned at the time. In other words, an ordinary middle-class job could put a home within reach on one income, even with a double-digit mortgage rate.

Now consider Utah today. Despite the increase in homes for sale, the median single-family home still costs about $559,900. Even if mortgage rates somehow fell back to 4%, a buyer would still need roughly $105,000 in annual income to qualify for the mortgage. At 7.45%, the income required to qualify rises to about $150,000.

There is a popular real-estate saying, “Date the rate, marry the house.” However, that advice only works if you can actually afford to marry the house.

In Conclusion

Lower mortgage rates would unquestionably give buyers some relief. But relying on a return to historically unusual 3–4% mortgages is not much of a strategy for young families today.

For Utah, the affordability conversation cannot stop at the cost of borrowing. It also has to ask why the amount being borrowed has become so large, and what government barriers exist to producing smaller, more modest homes in the first place.

 

Author Profile Image
About the author

Lee Sands

Lee is the Local Government Policy Analyst at Libertas Institute, drawing on his research and entrepreneurial experience to inform and assist elected officials and the general public. He focuses on issues most relevant to local governments, such as land use, taxation, and business regulation. His work addresses the regulatory hurdles that matter most to families, small businesses, and entrepreneurs. A native of rural northeast Florida, Lee moved to Provo, Utah in 2004. Before joining Libertas, his path ran through the private sector in technical writing, journalism, and small business, giving him firsthand experience navigating the regulatory environment he now works to improve. He graduated from BYU and attended the Vermont College of Fine Arts. Outside of work, he enjoys time with his family, the outdoors, history, and creative pursuits.

Share Post:

Fighting for a Future Where Individuals Are Fully Liberated to Pursue Their Dreams, Free from Coercion and Control.

You Might Also Like

We allow people to eat sugary foods despite the adverse health effects. The same respect for individual choice should extend to other risky behaviors.
A family pulled their daughter from a school that shut them out. When an Arkansas amendment threatened that choice, parents kept it off the ballot.
Kids can handle more than we plan for. They can figure out what their supplies cost, talk to strangers, shake off a slow day, and work out what to try next. What most of them are missing is a first yes: someone who puts the idea in front of them and then gets out of the way.

Help us Nail and Scale Policies to Reduce Government Control

Your tax-deductible contributions to Libertas Institute increase freedom across the country.