Thank you, Eprise_Me, for articulating my objection better than I could. And yeah for Kate Wagner—she’s the best.
In all sincerity, it does seem as if this is a blind spot for you. We all have blind spots, myself included.
You mentioned Council Bluffs, IA. I happen to be familiar with the CB/Omaha market, as well as those in Madison, WI, Phoenix, AZ and that of my current city, Portland, OR. These places collectively represent a broad swath of the US housing market.
If your experience is primarily in the non-urban upper Midwest, then the trends myself and many others are discussing arrived a bit later in that part of the country. I know no one who can find a starter home in Portland. And during boom times, speculators bid up prices in Phoenix on even the crappiest of houses. Like I said initially, the “starter homes” of your memory and imagination simply don’t exist in most markets.
Rather, they do exist, but they’re no longer remotely at “starter home” prices.
Apology accepted—thank you.
You recently asked what you “did wrong.” I think passive aggression is toxic, so I’ll answer your question directly. Speaking only for myself:
-
I perceived your “not interested in starter homes” comment to be not only sneering but ill-informed.
-
You essentially said that perceived sneering was both real and entirely intentional: you said you disapproved of “excessive consumption” and of those moving into whatever you think a “forever home” is when they are young enough not to deserve it, at least not in your opinion. Candidly, I think that’s gross—and more than a little odd. At the time, I held my tongue; you have a right to your opinion. But you asked what I found so odious, so there it is.
-
You rejected Lord_Felton’s cogent observation about interest rates with a blithe “nah,” which made no sense. His point was about how interest rates drive monthly payments much more strongly than the principal does. Evidently, because he named a high interest rate (18%) that was a few points higher than what you thought you might have gotten several decades ago, you rejected the whole argument. You declared yourself “not interested” enough to engage, which was false on its face—you were interested enough to reply. So yeah, I was annoyed enough to wonder why you even bothered to respond.
-
Finally, you pushed my buttons (this is on me) by sounding a lot like the boomers who foolishly wonder aloud “why don’t these damned kids just work their way through college like I did?” Most of the people saying that, IME, had tuition bills so low that their paychecks went primarily to basic living expenses and pocket money.
I paid for grad school that way by working as a TA, but undergrads often matriculate in debt to the tune of six figures. That makes it pretty hard to pick up a “starter home” for most people, even if they were actually available. None of this is obscure; it’s been covered extensively in the mainstream press and the financial press.
I’m obviously over-analyzing this. Like I said, Eprise_Me addressed the issue quite well. It’s ultimately not that big a deal to begin with. Yes, you said some things I found fairly obtuse and reactionary. On the other hand, your last blurb sounds a little melodramatic, like you perhaps think you’ve been hectored unreasonably.
The truth is somewhere in the middle: lots of people are struggling with housing right now, even upper-middle-class professionals. It’s no surprise that those starting out have to rely on their families for help—it’s really rough out there. Ordinary, middle-class people without extra help (or years of aggressively austere savings) often can’t afford to buy right now.
Cheers for the mea culpa—I’m choosing to assume that it’s sincere. The initial comment isn’t what really got my goat—and I admit that I let my goat get got, as it were.
Can we at least agree that fake dormers are dumb at best and, at worst, an ugly nucleation site for rot? 
Edit: fixed typos
How times change so quickly.