There was an unexpected rise in new housing construction in February— fueled by an 82% jump in the construction of new apartment buildings. We suppose people have to live somewhere, right? [MarketWatch]


Edit Your Comment

  1. BeerManMike says:

    If there were only 100 houses built in january and in february there was a 82% increase, that means there only was about 82 more houses built in feb… doesn’t seem that much impressive now right?

    Anyways, this is because of the $18,000 the tax payers are “giving” new/first time home buyers. Its also because the govt. wants people to move out of older houses in “odd” places and into “community” style houses. Its a land grab and population relocation scheme.

    • Burgandy says:

      @BeerManMike: It is $8,000, not $18,000. Thanks for playing.

    • acknight says:

      @BeerManMike: As long as you recognize that there were a lot more than 100 houses built in January…. the new seasonally adjusted prognosis is 500k+ houses per year, based on Feb. data.

      And Burgandy is correct, it’s $8,000. And that’s if you’ve not owned a house in at least three years. It’s not a land grab, put away your tinfoil hat.

      • jharrell says:


        Ah but if you are buying in California it is in fact $18,000. Up to $8,000 in federal and up to $10,000 in state tax credits = $18,000

        • acknight says:

          @jharrell: Sure. State credits is a different and much more widely varying measure.

          The only “universal” figure for first time buyers is $8,000 via Federal return credit, any house purchased in 2009 for a first time buyer.

          A much smaller number of house purchasers are getting $18,000 from taxpayers. And then, the difference from federal is coming from the state’s taxpayers.

  2. maines19 says:

    More like, they’re building apartment buildings to give the people who are losing their houses somewhere to live.

  3. K-Bo says:

    @ BeerManMike the 82% was apartments, it was only up 22% over all. Seems like the $8000 would actually help some people buy existing houses, causing them not to need apartments, thus keeping the total % down.

  4. 12-Inch Idongivafuck Sandwich says:

    So all those apartments that they converted into condos during the boom that are now sitting empty, there was a need for them? Who would have thought?

  5. Coles_Law says:

    @BeermanMike Not quite. The 22% increase means if 100 houses were built in January, 122 were built in February, not 22. Otherwise, a decrease would imply people were going around destroying existing homes.

  6. pigbearpug says:

    I love how The Consumerist can find a dark spot in good economic news. “Derrr…I guess people have to live SOMEWHERE…derrr…” The pessimism on this site gets tiresome after a while.

  7. Mary says:

    This is great news for my family, as our income is dependent on construction.