Investigated deeper into this so-called "basket of American dream essentials":

1. Housing that "guarantees safety" (segregated)
2. Insurance premiums, laundry services, hygiene and cosmetics
3. Eating out
4. Driving 15k miles and getting hotels and food on the road
5. Year round babysitter for children under 4, seasonal for school age

6. College degree for each child without student loans (lmao?)
7. Toys and youth sports (haven't checked the quantities)
8. Smartphones, computers, television sets, streaming services
9. Running shoes + "clothing"
10. 6 movies and 2 MLB games every year for a nuke family

In fact you can think of much of the way the state and bourgeoisie has acted since 2008 has been to ensure that line recovers to where it should have been if no collapse. Yes, Obama foreclosed on people (mostly "new wealth" Black and Latino people), but he "saved" hundreds of millions of (mostly white) portfolios.

The Bourgeoisie knows that line is necessary to deflate class struggle, they know they'll struggle with military recruitment if soldiers can't expect to own a home at the end of their service.

For tailing it's falling for the 80% of landlords that are "small" crying about corporate competition in their little dictatorships: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/6510977/5686588

The thought that they’d buy single family homes to rent out is novel to me at least; I’d never heard of such a thing before.

They started getting involved in SFH after the foreclosures of 08, because they did not lose much relative net worth compared to people who own 1-10 homes, who lost net worth on all their assets at that time. They didn't get involved before that because not many people were renting SFH in the 80s and 90s and prior, those homes were only for the middling strata and up. Also, by just financing homes in the past while prices continued to rise, there was no reason to get their hands involved to add more work when they can just seek interest on all development. When hundreds of thousands of homes suddenly became available, that's when they took the opportunity to turn it into a business. And yeah I'm minimizing them because they are indeed a minimal (0.6% of all SFH stock) component of the market and concentrated in a few markets, but that is not tied to the overall indeces of those markets whatsoever. Any investor who owns the home would have the same position as any other, corporate or "mom and pop", the resulting market will be the same.

Liberal/Petty Bourgeois media is taking advantage of the novelty of corporate investors in SFH to use us to fight for protections backing "small investors" worth millions against competition.

Housing costs (and building) are raising extra fast post 2009 because they received basically 0% interest rates to finance more homes to "recover" from the financial crisis. That corporate investors got in at that time is a simultaneous symptom of the crisis, which always benefits the highest bourgs as they eat up small capital owners (good riddance).

There is finally the last aspect that SFH cities or neighborhoods have become the "standard model" of US housing culture since the early 2000s, this is related to the eventual financial crisis too.

Artificial scarcity isn't real in the housing market

There has never been more houses to workers in the US than ever before, supply and demand is hardly a factor in the price of ground rents, those are directly tied into Imperialism's health.

Corporate investors cannot raise prices above the whole market, and if they do, all homeowners (the majority of which are "proletarians") benefit the same, so they all engage in price raising politics.

Housing prices == rents and vice versa. If housing prices collapse so will rents, because they are the same thing. As long as someone or something is able to purchase at an ever increasing price, housing costs will continue to rise.

This battle over purchasing houses, is between the petty Bourgeoisie and the haute Bourgeoisie. The only difference between mortgaging out and paying rent is whether a so-called worker can profit from their investment in years time, it's a class transition into the petty Bourgeoisie. You can look at historical charts that the price differences for renting vs loans is most often favorable towards renting, but the differences are slight.

These are also SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, 15% are rented out, 4% of those are rented out by corporations, so 0.6% of all SFH are owned to rent by corps, that 0.6% of landlords is raising the prices of all homes country wide? Besides, SFH should be for the most part destroyed for climate reasons when Socialism comes.

Home-ownership is hardly related to healthcare costs besides both being financialized sectors that seek rent, I'm not sure what your connection is.

Literally US state media

No it's not. Wages in the Imperialist countries are buffed by super-exploitation of the global South.

The amount of resources Americans use means that they are condensing into a "middle class" above the 3rd world nations workers and below the Imperial Bourgeoisie.

Spending most if not all of your paycheck does not mean you aren't "middle class" (petty bourg or labor aristocrat). You were never meant to be able to accumulate wealth, the bourgs want you to consume it and for them to get it in their balance sheets at the end of the day because you bought goods and services from their property. If you are accumulating significant wealth that can't be wiped out due to crises (ex: getting very ill, medical costs), you are certainly not exploited. If you are consuming more labor than you put out, but break even on paper, you're still not exploited (Imperialist wages).

This is why Economism (and accompanying social democracy) is dead end politics that is incapable of handling national contradictions that Imperialism feeds on.

As well, the top 80% of income brackets have been getting increased wealth and income, since the end of WW2.

Vietnam has signed the same "Security Partnerships" with Russia, China, ROK, and India. This is nothing special but elevates the seriousness of Vietnam and US military communication. The US is only marketing this as an anti-China move to keep its dogs on a tighter leash.

These land protectors are objectively doing more for anti-Imperialism than RAWM

That's what austerity is basically, and the US gets paid by European sanctions on Russia.

Turns out focusing on developing key industries and partnerships with other nations is beneficial for the economy.

not just harass...