Not a Scam, Just the American Way
- Dain Ehring
- Oct 15
- 3 min read
Why the 30-Year Mortgage Still Matters
Response to Mr. Brenner’s Commentary in the WSJ, October 8, 2025
By Dain Ehring October 2025
Patrick Brenneris the President and CEO of the Southwest Public Policy Institute, a research institute dedicated to "improving the quality of life in the American Southwest" by formulating, promoting, and defending sound public policy solutions.
His latest WSJ commentary, in October 2025, launches a sort of rhetorical grenade at the 30-year mortgage, claiming it’s the reason American homeownership feels like signing up for a lifetime subscription to a debt collector’s newsletter [1]. The usual suspects—government handouts, inflation, and the awkward fact that millennials now buy their first homes roughly at the same age their parents purchased a lawnmower—appear throughout the narrative. And yes, I understand, but let's not rush into panic, shout “scam!” and drive off without taking a moment to look under the hood. The 30-year mortgage is more misunderstood than harmful and is not, in fact, the root cause of our housing affordability issues.
Now, it’s true that U.S. home prices are climbing with all the enthusiasm of a squirrel on espresso, and the average first-time home buyer now finds themselves pushing forty. Still, blaming this saga on the 30-year mortgage—yes, that Roosevelt relic—skips several pivotal chapters in the grand tale of “How We Got Here.” For context: America and Denmark stand nearly alone as lands where the 30-year term is standard, and in the United States, nine out of ten buyers select it, much like commuters stopping at Starbucks. Yet, while borrowers opt for 30-year terms, the average mortgage duration before refinance or sale hovers around 3-5 years, now edging closer to seven, suggesting that the notion of longevity is somewhat mythologized.
Consider Canada, where the 30-year mortgage is more of a myth than a reality. There, the average loan lasts five years before the stress of refinancing or sale sets in. “Responsible” or “scrappy,” as some call it, strikes me as “anxiety-inducing.” Their banks set lending standards so tight that even the family dog’s credit score might be reviewed. Yet, with all these safeguards, Canadian affordability is in rougher shape: real home prices have jumped 142% since 2005, leaving median-income families with ownership goals reduced to little more than an “inside joke”.
Pause the laughter for a moment. Despite the two wildly diverging systems, homeownership rates hover around 66% on both sides of the border. If the mortgage term were the archvillain, why does Canada—a bastion of short-term loans—struggle as much, if not more, with affordability? Perhaps the real problem is more profound: a persistent mismatch between supply and demand, compounded by policies dating back to the era when disco ruled the airwaves.
Now for a modicum of sincerity: Homeownership is still the cornerstone of wealth in America. The median net worth for homeowners ($255,000) is nearly forty times that of renters ($6,300), and almost 80% of generational wealth is passed down via homes. Without the 30-year mortgage, that ladder would not only be shorter but also missing several critical rungs entirely.
The U.S. mortgage market’s robust scale demands a vigorous and private secondary market—where most home loans are funneled to government-sponsored enterprises and securitized, providing vital liquidity and enabling wide access through instruments like the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. This offers stability, affordability, and accessibility across a broad spectrum of buyers. In contrast, Canada’s tighter, smaller market leans on banks holding loans or government-backed securitization, keeping lender-borrower ties close and private secondary markets at bay. The difference isn’t just policy—it’s structural, driven by the sheer scale of America's housing finance ecosystem.
The 30-year mortgage, then, is no panacea. It’s part blessing, part curse, and, in many ways, the marital arrangement of the housing market: easy to criticize, much harder to improve upon. Brenner’s skepticism about housing affordability is well-founded. Still, disparaging the mortgage that built America’s middle class misses the broader narrative. If only life’s other decisions came with such generous terms and fixed rates.
Sources
Comments