Connect with us

Business

Mark Zuckerberg’s hate-speech gamble fuels Gen Z radicalization on Instagram as millions watch Hitler speeches and Holocaust denial

Published

on



A verified fashion brand with a black-and-white bunny logo called @forbiddenclothes, with a little under half a million followers, is lurking on Instagram. One of its most-watched posts, pinned to the top of the feed, shows a Nazi SS officer from the movie Inglourious Basterds sitting stiffly at a table, the caption floating above him:

“When the family is arguing about politics and they ask for my expert opinion.”

Thirty-one million people have viewed the clip. More than 1.6 million liked it. The comments are full of adoration: “My time to shine.” “They’re not ready for the truth.” A verified user asks why everyone is “glorifying fascism” and is drowned out by replies. 

And if you linger on that reel—or anything like it—you’ll quickly find that it’s almost quaint compared to what comes next.

A swipe later, you’ll get a different accounts’ reel: an AI-generated “translation” appears of what is ostensibly an Adolf Hitler speech. Over audio footage of Hitler warning of a “satanic power” infiltrating the country’s intellectual and economic life, onscreen graphics tally the number of Jewish people in Trump’s cabinet and in major media organizations, showing portraits of those people with Jewish stars photoshopped on their faces.

Roughly 1.4 million people watched that video; 142,000 liked it. Comments include lines like: “We owe the big man an apology” and “He was right about everything.”

After Fortune brought these clips to Meta’s attention, but before the company offered an official comment, the company scrubbed the clips.

Scroll again and you’ll land on some Holocaust denialism: a small-brain figure saying, “He gassed millions of people. Read a history book,” and a smug, larger-brain figure replying, “Who wrote the history books?” A follow-up image attempts to trace a media ownership conspiracy.

This got 3.2 million views. More than 250,000 likes and shares.

Within minutes, a clear pattern emerges. This content is not isolated, and it’s not niche. It’s ambient. It’s seemingly everywhere. And it’s algorithmically arranged to look like you’re the one “discovering” the truth; a feed that, once nudged in a certain direction, abruptly begins to resemble antisemitic and racist propaganda. 

Instagram’s algorithm rewards whatever maximizes watch time and shares, and in 2025 that has included conspiratorial, racist, or antisemitic memes packaged as humor or even a kind of aesthetic. Monetization programs, clip-farm networks, and incentives to sponsor with third-party products fuel that dynamic, turning extremist-flavored content into a profitable engagement strategy for creators.

But it doesn’t just seem to be creators who profit. For this Fortune reporter, those reels appeared right above and below ads from major brands—JPMorgan Chase, Nationwide Insurance, SUNY, Porsche, the U.S. Army, and many, many others. Extremist content and blue-chip advertising run back-to-back, suggesting that the monetization pipes remain open and that advertisers either don’t know or don’t view the adjacency as reputationally dangerous. Fortune reached out to all the companies mentioned above for comment, but did not receive any responses. 

In a statement to Fortune, Meta said that “We don’t want this kind of content on our platforms and brands don’t want their ads to appear next to it.” They added that they included “the relevant violating content in our database” so that they could remove “copies” if someone tries to upload them again.

Yet, minutes after Meta sent its statement, this reporter opened Instagram Reels and saw another ad from JPMorgan Chase sitting directly above a reel from the antisemitic meme account @goyimclub. The reel used a familiar Holocaust-denial setup—“If I have 15 ovens baking cookies 24/7, how many years would it take to bake 6 million cookies?”—a favorite trope of these sorts of accounts, designed to mock the death toll of the Holocaust and suggest the real number was far lower, often falsely claimed to be 271,000.

Immediately after the JPMorgan Chase ad, another reel surfaced—this one from the antisemitic account @gelnox.exe. It showed what looked like a ChatGPT conversation asking, “When did Spain expel the Jews?” (with “Jews” censored), followed by “1492.” Then: “When did the Spanish Golden Age start?” Again: “1492.” The implication, obviously, was that Spain’s prosperity began only after removing Jewish people. That reel had more than 5 million views and 316,000 likes.

Meta’s own community standards prohibit nearly every trope in these reels. Its “Hateful Conduct” policy bans “Holocaust denial,” as well as “claims that Jewish people control financial, political, or media institutions,” and calling a group “the ‘devil.’” Its “Dangerous Organizations and Individuals” policy bars content glorifying dangerous figures, giving the example: “Hitler did nothing wrong.” All of this is Tier 1 prohibited content. Yet reels containing each of these elements remain live and algorithmically promoted on Instagram today.

The reason is structural: in January, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg ended third-party fact-checking in the U.S, and loosened political-content rules. These changes included raising the confidence threshold for removing hate speech, Zvika Krieger, Meta’s former (and first) Director of Responsible Innovation, told Fortune. “Whatever creates the most engagement is going to get rewarded in this algorithm,” Krieger said, and after the rule change, the systems meant to catch dangerous content “were intentionally made less sensitive.”

Or, as one Pakistani Gen Z creator who earns money posting antisemitic reels told Fortune, “Those videos don’t get banned anymore.”

In a statement, Meta said that “[w]hile this story makes a number of claims, the facts are clear: in just the first half of 2025, we actioned nearly 21 million pieces of content for violating our prohibition on Dangerous Organizations and Individuals.” At first, Meta said that it had proactively detected nearly 99% of this content, before saying the actual percentage is in the low 90s. Meta added that their commitment to tackling antisemitism is “unchanged,” and that they removed the “violating content and accounts flagged to us.” 

Meta did not address Fortune‘s questions about how the posts Fortune flagged had been able to generate millions of views, or how they had been able to stay up for so long.

Bigger than Groypers

Washington has spent the past week arguing over a number: whether “30 to 40 percent” of young Republican Hill staffers are groyper-aligned, meaning they’re fans of Nick Fuentes, the white-nationalist streamer who infamously had a White House dinner with Kanye West and Donald Trump, and more recently went on Tucker Carlson’s podcast and repeated antisemitic rhetoric. The 30%-40% number came from conservative pundit Rod Dreher, who said he had interviewed several Gen Z conservatives and verified it, which other pundits have contested.

But the antisemitism and racism that Fuentes champions can hardly be called fringe when Instagram reels trafficking in the same tropes routinely reach millions of views.

The creators behind these videos were clear in conversations with Fortune about why they make them: money. Henry, a 26-year-old tech worker in the U.K. who runs a far-right meme page with 90,000 followers (@notchillim), who asked to withhold his last name to avoid retaliation at work, told Fortune he has made “over £10,000” from T-shirt sales and shoutouts, and that posts referencing Hitler or the Holocaust “always get more traction.”

A teenage high-school student in Pakistan, who Fortune kept anonymous out of privacy concerns and who operates a similar meme page called @perryperrymemes, told Fortune he earns $800–$900 a month, paid at $0.10 per thousand views by Whop, a clip-farm platform that gives creators logos to paste onto whatever memes perform best. For “open-category” campaigns, he can post anything he wants — and he said the reels that reliably hit payout thresholds are the racist or Hitler-themed ones. 

Fortune reached out to Whop for comment but received no response. 

A U.S. tech worker in his 20s, who makes similarly antisemitic content and requested to be anonymous to avoid retaliation at work, says he made nearly $3,000 from Instagram’s bonus and referral programs before being demonetized. He said his most “offensive and political” posts drove the fastest audience growth. He added that he is Jewish and did not believe the content himself, but said he had posted it in hopes of gaining enough followers to eventually delete the posts and then remonetize.

In fact, none of the three creators interviewed by Fortune claimed to have strong ideological motives beyond finding the memes vaguely amusing. All said controversial content is one of the only reliable, and easiest, paths to visibility — and therefore income. (Fortune was unable to independently verify the creators’ claims of their income.)

Every creator that Fortune spoke with said their reach had increased sharply after Meta’s January policy shift, which came just a few months after President Donald Trump threatened to imprison Zuckerberg over claims that he attempted to influence the 2024 election. In the aftermath, Zuckerberg sought to repair his relationship with the President, donating $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund and attending the inauguration itself.

Several said the change was immediate: reels that once got flagged or throttled were suddenly hitting millions of feeds. The Pakistani clip-farmer said those videos no longer “get banned,” and the British meme-page owner said his reach “jumped way higher.”

That shift wasn’t accidental. Meta has openly moved to lighten enforcement, personalize political content, and potentially even automate, according to internal documents, up to 90% of the privacy and integrity reviews that once slowed harmful material before it reached billions of users.

“During the early 2020s, these companies poured enormous resources into moderation,” Krieger said. “What we’re seeing now is the opposite, a conscious pullback, plus a redirecting of talent toward consumer AI.”

Krieger said he doesn’t believe that Meta is trying to platform hateful content; rather, they’re optimizing for “freedom of speech,” at the expense of other values. “I would say that is an ethical value: autonomy, people’s decision to choose,” Krieger said. “But it’s certainly coming at the cost of other ethical values, like safety and fairness.”

Krieger’s argument – that Meta has elevated freedom of speech above all other values – mirrors a common political refrain.  Ever since Twitterbanned Trump in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 riots, the President and his allies have insisted that they were victims of a massive censorship scheme by Big Tech. But the landscape has changed dramatically since then: major platforms like X and Youtube have rolled back guardrails,reinstated banned accounts and adopted “free speech” framing. 

At the same time, following the start of the Israel-Hamas war in October 2023, antisemitism has surged; and new AJC data shows 33% of Jewish Americans were personally targeted in the past year. 

The business of hate

These antisemitic reels are now so common that there are meta-jokes about their ubiquity: a reel from a movie clip of Nazis in uniform standing around captioned “POV: you’ve opened Instagram in 2025” (8.7M views, 610K likes). Another reel of a guy saying “I’ll go to bat for you, Hitler” is captioned “Gen Z after spending 5 minutes on IG reels,” (2.1M views, 216K likes).

And many of the biggest accounts pushing this content aren’t anonymous trolls — they’re influencers. One of the largest, @hermesdiditagain, with 280,000 followers, mixes racist and antisemitic “man-on-the-street” interviews with conspiratorial memes. Fortune had an interview scheduled with Hermes, until he asked whether the reporter was Jewish. After she said yes, he blocked her.

Most of the ecosystem, though, is built to avoid scrutiny. These accounts hide behind faceless branding or influencer shells, funneling traffic to crypto platforms, supplements, merch, or subscription services. In some cases, the creator isn’t even real: renowned disinformation scholar Joan Donovan told Fortune she thinks some accounts are entire “personas” that are built around clip-farmed content, using stock photos, semi-AI face sets, or lightly edited images to make racist reels appear tied to an attractive influencer. “Platforms don’t care about the quality of the content so much as the engagement it elicits,” Donovan said.

Engagement—especially angry, shocked, or provocative engagement—is what drives payouts, sponsorships, referral bonuses, follower growth, and off-platform monetization. And because so much of this material is now AI-generated, from voiceovers to visuals, the cost of production has collapsed. With a few prompts and a clip editor, a creator can churn out an endless stream of rage-bait that reaches millions, Donovan said.

Middle schoolers have embraced this content

The ambiguity of the content is part of its appeal. Many of the reels use codes: the juice-box emoji for Jewish people, the “Austrian Painter” as a nickname for Hitler. Much of it is wrapped in a hyper-ironic, esoteric aesthetic built from symbols called Vril or Agartha, a mythical underground kingdom associated with 20th century Nazism that’s become a running joke in far-right meme circles. Instagram is saturated with Agartha edits: White Monster Energy cans opening “portals,” blonde AI soldiers marching through glowing gates, Sora-style sequences overlaid with antisemitic tropes. Middle schoolers now make memes about which teachers would be “allowed in” to Agartha treating it as a kind of in-group language.

Meme scholar Aidan Walker described it as an “ironic dog whistle”—material that is plainly antisemitic, but stylized and self-referential enough that users can deny belief while still spreading the narrative.

The memes are so layered in jokes, edits, and esoteric references that “you actually can’t tell whether it’s racist or not … but if you know, you know,” Walker told Fortune.

The point isn’t that viewers literally believe in hollow-earth portals under Antarctica; it’s that by pretending to, they’re signaling a stance: Institutions are rigged, and only people fluent in this lore “really see through” reality.

The appeal, he argues, is emotional as much as ideological. The videos are competently edited, dense with references, and designed to feel like contraband.

 “You watch one and think, ‘I shouldn’t be watching this. This is horrible,’” Walker said. 

That transgression then becomes a bonding ritual—“we’ve gone there together, now you’re my brother because you get this and others don’t”—and a kind of “forbidden wisdom,” a dark explanation that makes the world feel like it secretly makes sense, he added.

From memes to real-world harm

But that esoteric world doesn’t just have the potential for violence — violence has already manifested from it.

Earlier this month, a 17-year-old set off explosives during Friday prayers at a Jakarta high school, injuring more than 50 students. When police recovered the toy submachine gun he brought into the mosque, they found phrases scrawled across it that come straight from the meme-lore circulating on Instagram Reels: “14 words. For Agartha.” Another inscription read, “Brenton Tarrant: Welcome to hell.”

The teen’s ideology is still under investigation. But his references weren’t invented in a vacuum: they’re the same symbols saturating Reels feeds today.

The U.S. has seen its own surge in antisemitic violence: firebombs thrown at a rally in Boulder, two Israeli embassy employees murdered outside a museum in Washington, and a sharp rise in harassment and threats documented by Jewish organizations. The ADL reports a 21% increase in antisemitic assaults in 2024 compared to the previous year. None of these incidents are caused by any single reel, but the worldview is familiar: conspiracies about Jewish power, an “us vs. them” frame, and a sense that violence is justified or inevitable.

The Jewish Gen-Z tech worker behind one of the meme accounts said he believed that that the violence was part of a pendulum effect. 

“Everything was so anti-white people 10 years ago, and now there’s a bunch of pissed off white people,” he said. “So, I don’t really know how bad it’s going to get, but violence seems much more likely than in the past.”

Did he not feel a sense of responsibility?

“I’m kind of just taking other accounts’ stuff and reposting it, so I guess that makes me feel like I’m not contributing as much to the whole thing,” he said, his voice trailing off into nervous laughter. “But, I mean, yeah, objectively, it’s not a great thing.”

His account, @violent_autism, which had nearly 100,000 followers, went dark soon after the interview. It’s unclear if he took it down himself or if Instagram did. 

These accounts reach far beyond Gen Z fans, too. @forbiddenclothes has a notable fan, who follows exactly 7,350 accounts on Instagram including fitness influencers to meme pages to hunting gear stores to crypto traders. And while there’s no way to prove he’s one of the millions watching Nazi-leaning content with “unclear intent,” Donald Trump Jr., the President’s son, is listed as a follower of @forbiddenclothes, too. He did not respond to Fortune’s request for comment.





Source link

Continue Reading

Business

American farmers warn Trump’s $12 billion bailout isn’t enough to solve trade, pricing woes

Published

on



President Donald Trump has delivered on his promise to provide aid to U.S. farmers hit by his sweeping tariff policy, but that hasn’t freed the agriculture industry from their worries of tight margins and volatile markets. 

On Monday, Trump, alongside Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, and National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett, announced a $12 billion farm aid program, which outlined much-needed relief for farmers who sounded the alarms about increasing input costs and fewer export opportunities amid ongoing trade tensions. Farmers will begin receiving funds by the end of February, Rollins said.

“Now we’re once again in a position where a president is able to put farmers first,” Trump said at a Monday roundtable of farmers and lawmakers. “But unfortunately, I’m the only president that does that.”

While farmers and agricultural economists see the package as a way to move forward after a disappointing harvest season, they fear the precedent of cash bailouts does not provide systemic solutions to a beleaguered industry, and don’t believe the $12 billion gesture is enough to solve agriculture’s deeper challenges.

“We’re talking $12 billion, and while it is a lot of money, in the grand scheme of things, it’s still going to be a Band-Aid on a bigger wound,” Ryan Loy, assistant professor and extension economist for the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, told Fortune. “How can we triage this situation right now, work on that longer-term solution? That’s really, I think, the overall attitude toward it.”

The one-time payment program will send $11 billion to major row-crop producers growing corn, soybeans, and rice, and the remaining $1 billion will be reserved for specialty crop-growers, such as sugar. Trump said additional aid programs will depend on whether trade improves with China and other countries. While the money is welcome, farmers say they’d rather have the government secure stable markets and trade relations.

“At the end of the day, the farmers, they just want to conduct business, not necessarily have to get these packages to help them out during these times,” Loy said.

Farmers’ struggles

Since Trump introduced expansive import taxes—especially on China, provoking a wave of retaliatory tariffs—farmers have seen input costs increase while export demand and crop prices plummet. 

“It’s been a bit of a roller coaster in terms of not just uncertainty over our global markets and our prices, but also whether or not we were going to see any relief on the input side,” Kyle Jore, an economist, northwest Minnesota-based farmer, and secretary of the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, told Fortune.

Tariffs on farming-related machinery as well as products like seeds and fertilizer sit at 9%, costing U.S. farmers about $33 billion more, according to North Dakota State University’s Agricultural Trade Monitor. That includes a more-than 15% tax on tractors and herbicides.

Soybean farmers, responsible for the U.S.’ biggest agricultural export that makes up about 14% of the country’s total crops sent overseas, have been hit particularly hard by tariffs. Trade disputes with Beijing have disincentivized China from buying American soybeans, and the country has instead turned to South American countries like Argentina and especially Brazil, which makes up about 71% of China’s soybean imports, according to the American Soybean Association.

To be sure, thawing relations between the U.S. and China has enlivened soybean trade. China committed in October to resume orders of U.S. soybeans after halting all purchases in May, promising to import 12 million tons of soybeans by the end of the year, as well as at least 25 million tons in each of the next three years. However, soybean prices have still lagged because of stifled demand, and farmers saw their third straight year of losses, in large part due to tariff turmoil.

According to agricultural economists, Trump’s farm aid program doesn’t hurt, but its benefits are limited: The bailout announcement arrived late in the harvest season, with farmers already booking orders at lower prices, nearly guaranteeing losses for the year. The package also doesn’t address input costs, which Jore sees as critical in improving tight margins.

“A lot of farmers are making purchasing decisions on the ‘26 year crop right now,” he said. “And the hope was that by now, we’d start to see some of the fertilizers and stuff come down, and it’s just not happening to the extent that we were hoping for.”

Changing systems

Joe Maxwell, a Missouri farmer and cofounder and chief strategy officer of agriculture watchdog group Farm Action, said many of the issues plaguing the U.S. agriculture industry—including input costs—go beyond the trade disputes created by the Trump administration. His celebration of the bailout package was tempered by his belief the administration should be addressing policies that for years have been hurting the industry.

“The message we’re wanting to get to Washington, D.C., is that the system is broke,” Maxwell told Fortune. “We need the financial support that the president has announced. But we need Congress to take a serious look at the structure of these programs, because it’s just failed.”

While input costs have risen substantially from tariffs, Maxwell said the reason behind rising fertilizer and seed prices have more to do with corporate consolidations and monopolies dominating the input industry. According to Farm Action’s Agriculture Consolidation Data Hub, three fertilizer companies (CF Industries, Nutrien, and Koch) control 93% of North American nitrogen fertilizer sales in North America. Four seed companies (Bayer, Corteva, ChemChina, and BASF) similarly dominated 60% of the global seed market.

On Saturday, Trump signed an executive order creating a task force to investigate alleged antitrust practices impacting the cost of farming.

“There is a disconnect from the fundamentals in the market, basic supply, demand,” Maxwell said. “One of the fundamentals is competition, and that does not exist in America’s agriculture.” 

Maxwell also noted Congress provides subsidies for export crops, which he argued has created an oversupply problem. That exposes U.S. farmers, such as soybean producers, in instances like trade disputes when export demand plummets, he added. These subsidies also discourage American farmers from planting fruits and vegetables that would make the U.S. less reliant on exports and encourage crop diversification, which lends itself better to regenerative farming practices like crop rotation, which can decrease input costs and ultimately widen profits, Maxwell argued.

The USDA directed Fortune to its press release about the bailout program when asked for comment.

Until the government addresses the purported anticompetitive input industry and how subsidies may be exposing the agriculture industry in times of trade volatility, bailout packages will only go so far, Maxwell said.

“If we don’t go after the antitrust violations that are there, and we don’t change the structure of our farm programs, we will not solve the financial crisis farmers are facing today,” he concluded.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Tesla promotes Optimus as its next big breakthrough, but one robot’s collapse has sparked doubts

Published

on



Elon Musk and Tesla are touting the company’s Optimus robot as its next revolutionary moneymaker, but after several incidents, some are questioning how autonomous it actually is.

During an event titled “autonomy visualized” at a Tesla location in Miami over the weekend, one of the humanoid robots handing out water bottles fell backwards after making upward motions toward its head with both hands, according to a video posted to Reddit. (This incident was shortly after Russia debuted its first AI-powered robot, which similarly fell onstage at an event). The Tesla event was meant to show off its “Autopilot technology and Optimus,” Electrek reported.

It made the movement after accidentally knocking some of the water bottles it was handing out off a desk, and stood out because of its similarity to a human reaction. While it’s unknown what actually occurred during the incident, the robot’s movement led some online to speculate the robot may have been taking off a VR headset. 

Tesla did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment.

Tesla Optimus
byu/Decent_Cheesecake643 inteslamotors

The incident stood out because Tesla has used human-controlled Optimus robots at prior events. During Tesla’s Robotaxi event last year, attendees interacted with Optimus robots in person. Some played rock, paper, scissors, while others served drinks or posed for photos.

Yet, it turns out—although the company did not advertise it—some of those bots were apparently being controlled remotely by humans. At least one Optimus robot admitted it, saying: “Today, I’m assisted by a human, I’m not yet fully autonomous,” although the LA Timesreported, at the time, using humans to operate the bots may have been due to a late request by Musk to include the robots in the Robotaxi event.

Tesla has previously trained its robots with workers wearing special motion-capture suits and VR headsets.

While Tesla has relied on humans before to showcase their Optimus robots, Musk has often said the robots, in other settings, are not human operated.

In reply to a post on X in October that showed Optimus practicing martial arts, Musk affirmed the robots movements were “AI, not tele-operated.” At the premiere of Tron: Ares that same month, an Optimus robot can also be seen squaring up with actor Jared Leto, a feat which Musk also said was AI-led, not human-controlled.

“Optimus was at the Tron premiere doing kung fu, just up in the open, with Jared Leto. Nobody was controlling it. It was just doing kung fu with Jared Leto at the Tron premier. You can see the videos online,” Musk said during Tesla’s third quarter earnings call. “The funny thing is, a lot of people walked past it thinking it was just a person.” 

Whether the Optimus robots still rely on human assistance is unclear, yet Musk and Tesla have pinned high hopes on the product, which Musk has called “the biggest product of any kind, ever.”

Musk has projected Optimus could represent up to 80% of the company’s total value, and during the company’s third quarter earnings call, the CEO said Tesla would next year start  building a production line that could eventually have an annual capacity of 1 million Optimus robots. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

You’re probably $30,000 short of what you need to buy a house—and you’re not alone

Published

on



Buying a home in America feels further and further out of reach. Home prices and mortgage rates have been elevated ever since the pandemic housing boom, and wages haven’t kept up with inflation. 

Considering these variables, more than 75% of homes on the market are unaffordable to the typical household, according to a new Bankrate analysis released Monday. 

“When only a sliver of the market is affordable to the typical household, homeownership starts to feel less like a milestone and more like a luxury,” said Bankrate data analyst Alex Gailey. “It’s no surprise that one in six aspiring homeowners have walked away in the last five years.” Another Bankrate analysis from September shows one in six aspiring homeowners had completely given up on finding a home to buy.

Meanwhile, there’s a $30,000 gap between what the typical U.S. household makes and what it needs to afford a median-price home, according to the latest Bankrate analysis. The typical U.S. household earns about $80,000 per year, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, but hopeful homebuyers need a $113,000 salary to afford a median-priced home. A median-priced home in the U.S. is $447,035, according to an August Redfin report.

But in some of the most desirable U.S. metros, buyers need far more to afford a median-priced home. The following is a list of the 10 cities requiring the highest salaries in the U.S., per Redfin:

  1. San Jose, Calif.: $413,100
  2. San Francisco: $393,443
  3. Anaheim, Calif.: $302,587
  4. Oakland, Calif.: $244,073
  5. Los Angeles: $234,619
  6. San Diego: $227,612
  7. Seattle: $219,498
  8. New York City: $213,245
  9. Nassau County, N.Y.: $207,386
  10. Boston: $204,465

Bankrate’s analysis also showed Los Angeles, San Diego, and Boston were among the cities where affordable homes are the hardest to find, also including New Orleans and Miami. 

“For many families, the challenge isn’t just high home prices and elevated mortgage rates,” Gailey said. “It’s that housing shortages across the country have left them with far fewer homes they can afford.”

However, there are a few U.S. cities where affordable homes are at least a little easier to find. That includes Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, and Birmingham, Ala.

Realtor.com recently crowned Pittsburgh as the most affordable city in America, where the median home price is less than $250,000. “In a housing landscape where affordability has eroded nationwide, Pittsburgh remains a rare bright spot where buying a home is still within reach for most households,” Realtor.com senior economic research analyst Hannah Jones said in a statement. 

The Washington Post also recently profiled Pittsburgh as having one of the most affordable housing markets in the U.S., giving the example of grocery store deli counter manager Liam Weaver, 30, and professional ballet dancer Issac Ray, 26, who bought their first home in Pittsburgh for just $163,000. Although they spent about $10,000 on renovations, the cost of the house was only about one-third the cost of a median-priced home in the U.S. 

But Pittsburgh, among other semi-affordable cities, is most certainly the outlier in today’s housing market. 

“Affordability looks very different depending on where you live,” Gailey said. “Some large cities still give median-income households a path to buying a home, while others have become increasingly difficult to break into.”

And some Americans—particularly younger generations—have been desperate to break into the housing market, grasping for long-term financial stability and the same security their parents and grandparents earned by buying a home. Some millennials are carpooling for homes, teaming up with friends and family to buy a house. Some Gen Zers are taking on multiple side hustles just to save up enough to afford a down payment. 

Realtors working with these clients have also encouraged them to accept the idea of “trading up,” or essentially settling for a cheaper house and one that’s certainly not a dream home. Paul Beaudreau with KW Realty in Burlingame, Calif., previously told Fortune he teaches buyers that purchasing a more affordable house first, building equity, then selling it, can be an easier way to save up for a down payment on a dream home down the road.

“While I don’t try to tell my clients to give up on that dream home, I’m trying to explain to them what the path is to get to that dream home,” he said. “Your first home is never your last home, and quite frankly is never your dream home.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.