Category Archives: Sociology

Mortgage fraud rates very low – but on the rise?

Posted on by

With cases of mortgage fraud in the news, one source says it is rare:

Photo by Leeloo The First on Pexels.com

About 1 in 116 mortgage applications contained fraud in the second quarter of 2025, according to Cotality’s National Mortgage Application Fraud Risk Index.

The data shows the two riskiest investments for mortgage fraud are investment properties and multiunit properties.

This is less than 1%.

But the same source says mortgage fraud is on the rise:

“The increase in the fraud risk can partly be attributed to the volatility starting to be seen in the real estate market,” Matt Seguin, senior principal of mortgage fraud solutions, said in the Cotality report. “Interest rate cuts haven’t come at the rate expected over the last year, so purchase transactions, which, historically speaking, have higher fraud risk, continue to represent almost 70% of the applications seen by Cotality.”

Cotality analyzed data in six categories of mortgage fraud: identity, transaction, property, income, occupancy, and undisclosed real estate. The research found that every category except occupancy saw an increase in the second quarter.

The largest year-over-year increases were in undisclosed real estate debt and transaction fraud risk. Undisclosed real estate debt rose 12% this year, compared with a 5.9% decline year over year in 2024. Transaction fraud risk increased 6.2% this year, following a 4.9% increase last year.

Rare and relatively small increases in the last year.

Perhaps the problem of mortgage fraud would sound more serious if this 1 in 116 mortgages was connected to the cumulative money involved. Each mortgage is connected to a good amount of money. Add all the fraud up and how much money are we talking about? Is it enough money for financial institutions or the general public to pay attention to?

Another way to think about this would be to compare fraud rates here with fraud rates with other financial instruments. How about credit card debt? Auto loans? Home equity loans? And so on. Mortgage fraud is low but perhaps it is even lower than in other areas or higher than others.

Regardless of the numbers, absolute or otherwise, fraud is still fraud. But whether it is perceived as a social problem might take more than just reporting the numbers or putting them in context.

The percent of income Cook County residents pay to own their home

Posted on by

How much does it cost to be a homeowner in Cook County?

Photo by Ricky Esquivel on Pexels.com

Homeownership expenses — including typical monthly mortgage payments, homeowners and mortgage insurance and property taxes — accounted for 29.2% of the average income earned by a Cook County resident as of the middle of this year, up from the 23.2% historical average based on data collected between 2005 to 2025, according to ATTOM, a national property data provider.

That is lower than the 33.7% national average and slightly higher than the 28% typically recommended by mortgage lenders, the data shows.

For the average Chicago resident, 42% of their mortgage payment is for expenses such as property taxes and insurance, marking it the fourth-highest share in major markets across the country, according to Andy Walden, head of mortgage and housing market research for Intercontinental Exchange, a data and financial technology firm. This is in large part, he said, because of property taxes.

This particular article suggests these costs are high for those who want to start a family; they may be able to purchase a home but there is not much left over after that point. The figures above help provide context for the 29.2% homeownership cost:

  1. This is higher than the average in the past. Homeowners in Cook County are now paying more per month than previously.
  2. The figure it higher than the 28% lenders might recommend.
  3. But the Cook County percentage is lower than the national percentage.
  4. And out of that overall percentage, Chicagoans tend to pay more for property taxes and insurance.

And a little more context: the homeownership rate in Cook County is about 62.5%.

All interesting information. Owning a home takes resources for purchasing it and maintaining it. The same lending practices that make it possible to get a mortgage for 30 years also mean costs for that long. But could the issue be something different: the costs of having children? How have those costs changed over time?

The Chicago area is often regarded as having a medium cost of living. Big cities in the Northeast and West cost more, places in the South and Midwest cost less. People living in these different contexts adjust. With the relative costs of living, how much does it differ to raise children in each place?

Homeownership is one of the biggest financial investments that a person or household will make. How many Americans now experience or believe that pursuing homeownership, a vital part of the American Dream, impedes their ability to pursue having kids?

“A board-game sociopath” and social interactions

Posted on by

Perhaps you have played games with someone like this:

Photo by DS stories on Pexels.com

Within the confines of the rules, there’s not much I won’t stoop to, and not only in games where lying is the point, as it is in Werewolf. If we are playing Settlers of Catan, where players trade resources and build settlements, I will manipulate you to try to get the best possible deal, and I will downplay how well I’m doing so I seem unthreatening until I swoop in and win in one massive turn. If we’re playing some kind of war game, say, Risk or Root, I will lock in on the person most likely to keep me from winning and work to convince everyone they’re a bigger threat than I am. I don’t always lie—that would be too predictable. A mix of heartfelt honesty and bald-faced lies keeps my opponents on their toes. All for the glory of winning at moving little plastic pieces around a cardboard surface.

This gets at the competitive nature of games: there are winners and losers. Some games might have reputations for pitting people against each other – ask people about family histories of playing Monopoly or Risk – and others might be gentler. Even cooperative games have collective winners.

Games are also social:

Of course, how you behave in a game can still affect how people see you outside of it. If you’re a poor sport, or if you go too far with the playful deceptions and actually start bending the rules, that could degrade your real-life relationships. But people can usually tell what’s all in good fun. Even if you’re backstabbing, deceiving, and betraying one another, “our brains are very smart,” Kowert said. “We know what’s real and what’s not.” For instance, in a game, “I’ll throw my husband under the bus so quick,” she said. “And I wouldn’t do that in real life.”

Both Tilton and Kowert emphasized that the main thing games teach their players is social skills. Tilton has used Werewolf in the classroom to teach small-group communication. Because the fantasy scenarios of games don’t really translate to real life, what’s most likely to carry over is the practice you get at reading people and communicating with them.

Throughout games, players interact. Sometimes those interactions are directly about the game, with some games encouraging more of this than others, and other times the interactions are about other aspects of life. Gaming groups can involve long-time friends and also help new people meet each other.

If some people are board game sociopaths, how many others are glue people that help the group stick together? Or people who help other players along? Or players who care less about the outcome and enjoy the process? Could a group of people only devoted to winning continue over time?

In the bigger picture, games and leisure activities offer humans opportunities to build relationships and practice interactions that take place in other settings. Can you handle winning and losing a board game? Can players develop skills in negotiating? Can they learn how to have small talk? Yes, they are “just games” and the consequences of winning and losing are usually small but they can be learning opportunities for other areas of life.

(Some?) suburbanites go apple picking

Posted on by

What kind of suburbanite goes apple picking in the fall? One former apple orchard resident has an idea:

Photo by Tom Swinnen on Pexels.com

I grew up on a 64-acre apple orchard in rural Ohio. To reveal my origin story to a new acquaintance is inevitably to watch their pupils dilate as they picture bucolic scenes of fruit-laden trees, decorative cornstalks, tractor-pulled hayrides, and caramel-doused apples plunked onto sticks. Orchards, I’ve come to see, are like catnip to the imaginations of boho-chic suburbanites, TikTokking wanderlusters, and harried parents on the edge of a nervous breakdown. If apple pie enjoys symbolic stature as the wholesome, patriotic dessert of America, the orchard is its hallowed birthplace and cradle—a mythical agricultural space that conjures bygone days of bliss and childhood innocence.

As a suburbanite, I am not a frequent visitor to apple orchards. What I know largely comes from advertisements for orchards and conversations with others who visit orchards. From what I can gather, the orchards are now less about apples and more about entertainment and being a mini theme park. Food options. Corn mazes. Activities for kids. Various pricing levels. Yes, some apple picking options or apple purchasing options before leaving.

Does this appeal to “boho-chic suburbanites”? Does that include people who want a controlled and cheap setting for fun with their kids, an interesting setting for selfies and family pictures, a way to fulfill some vision of what fall is supposed to look like, or some connection to an agricultural past that some have a long connection to?

I am sure there are a few good academic papers that could be written about apple orchards in 2025 as sites of consumption, social interactions, late-stage capitalism, and modern connections to nature.

Suburban disillusionment and Rules for Radicals

Posted on by

In the Prologue to the 1971 book Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky describes the disillusionment some young people in the United States felt:

Photo by u00d6merhan Datlar on Pexels.com

Today’s generation is desperately trying to make some sense out of their lives and out of the world. Most of them are products of the middle class. They have rejected their materialistic backgrounds, the goal of a well-paid job, suburban home, automobile, country club membership, first-class travel, status, security, and everything that meant success to their parents. They have had it. They watched it lead their parents to tranquilizers, alcohol, long-term endurance marriages, or divorces, high blood pressure, ulcers, frustration, and the disillusionment of “the good life.” (xiv)

By this point, the American suburbs of the postwar era had existed for roughly two decades. The growing communities outside major cities had typically catered to middle-class white residents who sought a particular vision of the good life with a home, some space, and opportunities for their children to succeed (plus multiple reasons for leaving cities).

But Alinsky is hinting at how some who lived in these suburbs or grew up in him did not find them to be the good life. Their experiences suggested the suburbs were found wanting. The answers the suburbs supposedly had did not materialize or they were not the right answers. The suburban life could not address particular and/or difficult social issues.

On the other hand, many Americans continued to move to the suburbs even as some suburbanites were disillusioned. The percentage of Americans living in suburbs continued for multiple decades after Alinsky wrote the book. How many young adults rejected this suburban way of life and turned to something else? The percentage might have been small compared to the mass of suburbanites, even as Alinsky’s work proved influential.

How much social information can we handle?

Posted on by

Humans are social. People need connections to others. This is how they learn, grow, and accomplish things both as individuals and groups. We understand ourselves in part by knowing about people and the world around us. Is there a limit to how much social activity and information people can take in and still live a good life?

Photo by Negative Space on Pexels.com

Much of the debate over social media seems to focus on either the content of the information or the time spent with it that could be better used elsewhere. Both are concerns but they only hint at this question: can we handle all the information and social interactions?

For much of human history, people lived in relatively small communities. They lived in close proximity to family, often extended family and people of similar people groups. Traditions were important and technological progress was slower. There are examples in history of large urban centers but these are rare; small villages and towns were the more common social space.

The modern era and all that came with it – rationalism, industrialism, growing populations, urbanization, liberal democracies, pushing back against tradition, new technologies – expanded the number of social connections people could have. Big cities – 1 million-plus people – became common. People had more mobility. Access to other people and information expanded rapidly.

The Internet and social media is layered on top of these processes already underway and ongoing. Through these technologies, humans can connect with many more people and can access much more information. Something happens far away and we can know about it in minutes or seconds. Rather than relying on proximity for many of our social connections, we can interact with people and groups all over the place.

Perhaps humans can figure out how to deal with this all. How many would say they would want to go back to times where people primarily relied on people around them for relationships and information? People might figure out ways to shift their focus to all the options in front of them or better compartmentalize the big picture options and the world immediately around them. Or maybe not. We have options now that most humans never had – we can find out a lot and we can interact with or find out about almost anyone we would like – and we will see how we come to grips with them.

HOA and condo association fees as part of growing mortgage costs

Posted on by

Part of the rising mortgage costs in the United States is due to fees residents pay to homeowners’ and condo associations:

Photo by Kindel Media on Pexels.com

Rising home insurance premiums and homeowners association fees have also contributed to growing monthly expenses. The median annual cost of property insurance increased by 5.3 percent last year, the Census survey found, with bigger increases for larger homes. Nearly a quarter of all U.S. homeowners paid fees to a condo or homeowners association last year, at a median cost of $135. In Nevada, Florida and Arizona, 45 to 50 percent of households paid such a fee.

The Census report has more details. Where do more residents pay association fees?

Some states like Arizona, Florida, and Nevada that typically attract a lot of retirees to planned communities had higher proportions of homeowners who reported paying condo/HOA fees.

Others with among the smallest shares: Maine, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

The prevalence of these associations differs quite a bit across contexts. And even within places with more associations, some people may more than others:

The amount of condo and HOA fees differed widely between and within states. In 2024, about 5.6 million or 26% of homes paid less than $50 a month and about 3 million homes paid more than $500 a month.

The national median (half were less and half more) monthly fee was $135. But a large share of homeowners in some states — most notably New York (64%) — reported paying more than $500. So did about half of homeowners in the District of Columbia and in Hawaii. 

These fees could be going up for multiple reasons:

  1. Increased repair and maintenance costs. Replacing roofs or maintaining common areas or other regular duties of these associations cost more, just as almost everything costs more in recent years.
  2. Increased insurance costs. As homeowner’s insurance goes up, so would insurance for associations and larger buildings.
  3. With the cost of current needs going up, this could also affect projections about the future. As associations think about their reserves and future outlays, they may need more to keep up with in order to have a required and/or prudent amount on hand.

It may be difficult to reduce these costs easily as these associations have specific responsibilities to residents.

The inefficiency of the construction industry

Posted on by

One issue that affects American housing is the lack of efficiency in the construction industry:

Photo by Bidvine on Pexels.com

Companies like Reframe are trying to solve a conundrum scholars call the construction crisis. Although most sectors of the economy have gotten more efficient over time, construction has moved in the opposite direction—construction sites are less productive today than they were 50 years ago. It’s a genuine mystery, and everyone has their own pet theory about what’s to blame.

Efficiency is the answer to numerous perceived social issues in the United States. Make government more efficient. Make the distribution of resources or services more efficient. Get things done faster and at lower cost. And in the business world, who would be opposed to more efficiency?

I also recall some of the concerns expressed by critics about efficient home building operations. Take the Levitts mentioned in this article. Amid the various concerns expressed by many was a concern about the quality and character of homes that were mass produced. Would such homes stand for a long time? What does it do to community life when there are so few models available?

The example given in the article of efficient housing is modular housing. Part of this involves logistics; can it be produced at particular quantities and price points that makes it viable. But there will also be architectural and community questions. Will neighbors want to live next to it? Do early residents find it comparable to housing built by other methods? How does it stand up over time?

It would be interesting to ask Americans if they want “an efficient house.” Is the opposite of this “an inefficient house”? I’m not sure many think about in terms of efficiency when thinking about their residence.

How about creating suburban communities that only contain data centers?

Posted on by

With some suburbanites concerned about data centers proposed for their communities, I have a possible solution: why not create new suburban communities that only contain data centers?

Photo by Josh Sorenson on Pexels.com

Imagine a suburban municipality full of data centers. It could help serve the needs of the surrounding region. It could draw on its own water and electricity supply (or make its own deals for these resources). It would not have to worry about being located near residences or other land uses where residents feel threatened.

This is not the first time I have thought of this idea. It could work for waste transfer sites. Landfills. Warehouses. Industry. Marijuana dispensaries. Religious congregations (see examples of opposition from my own research here and here)? This could work for the multiple land uses that suburban residents often object to or communities see as threats to their established way of life.

Creating such communities could be difficult. Given that many metropolitan areas are full of development, there might be three primary options to find land for such an endeavor:

  1. Locate the new municipality on the fringes of the region. This has the advantages of not changing densely developed land and it is already located further away from residences.
  2. Convert an existing suburb into such a place. While the image of American suburbs is often that of wealthy and exclusive communities, industrial suburbs have also been around for a long time. There are already suburbs with fewer residents that might be willing to take on more data centers.
  3. Take a bit of land from several existing communities and create this new municipality. This could be hard to do as suburbs are likely to resist losing land. But if the tradeoff is giving up land so that the perceived threat of a data center is not their responsibility, perhaps a conversation can start.

Any of these are unlikely. Not impossible. But suburban leaders and residents have resisted certain land uses for decades. The hope seems to be in each community that if they can successfully keep the land use out, that is success and good luck to other communities in addressing the issue.

Repairing aging American housing

Posted on by

Many older American homes need repairs but making those repairs is a challenge:

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com

Across the nation, and especially here in Philadelphia, homeowners are increasingly struggling to maintain and repair aging homes that are withering, crumbling, and forcing homeowners to exist in near-unlivable conditions.

According to the National Association of Home Builders, the average age of the U.S. home is 40 years old, up from 31 years old 15 years ago. Homes tend to be the oldest in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic states and along the Appalachian Mountains. Repair costs are rising, and homeowners face $100 billion in needed maintenance, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

Analysts say the problems associated with deferred maintenance and dilapidated properties span both rural and urban properties, resulting in structure collapses of occupied properties in Pittsburgh; Reading, Pennsylvania; Syracuse, New York; and elsewhere…

Schapira said Philadelphia has at least 60,000 houses that are “in a pretty difficult situation” and need immediate repairs. Nationwide, about 6.7 million households are living in “inadequate” properties, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Both cities and suburbs have a lot of houses that are more than 50 years old: the growing urban populations of the late 1800s and early 1900s in Northeast and Midwest cities mean there are a number of aging units there and suburban sprawl added many homes to the edges of big cities and growing suburbs. Maintaining and repairing homes requires maintenance, knowledge, and resources.

This story highlights the issue when these aging homes are in poorer neighborhoods and communities. How are residents who are struggling to make ends meet supposed to do the substantial work necessary to keep their homes in decent condition, let alone have any features that the HGTV watching crowd might expect as normal these days?

For those with resources, this might be less of an issue. Larger older homes can be fixed up with some preserved in historic districts. Others are torn down and replaced with larger, modern homes. Those with means can avoid having to purchase homes with significant repair issues and if they do take them on, they made that choice and can address the issues.

The bigger question is this: what do Americans want to do with aging housing? Metropolitan regions need housing. Repairs can be costly. What are funding options? Can this be addressed by boosting incomes and economic opportunities? Are there ways to pay people to repair these homes and keep needed housing units in the community? What happens when housing does crumble and the properties are not desirable for developers or investors?