Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 974 posts

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#391

Post by watwut »

nickff wrote: post #385
egh wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. The simple fact is the amount people pay for housing is up since the 1990s. You can find this data on the BLS web site: https://www.bls.gov/cex/csxmulti.htm Here is the data adjusted for constant 2020 dollars: 1992 $9,799.06 1993 $9,543.99 1994 $9,760.55 1995 $9,924.05 1996 $9,825.29 1997 $10,106.90 1998 $10,473.38 1999 $10,712.59 2000 $10,506.40 2001 $11,055.55 2002 $11,121.33…

I think the parent is arguing that those numbers are (only slowly) increasing because: 1) They are skewed by a few 'elite' metro areas (which are best avoided by those without very high-paying jobs). 2) The houses are nicer and have more 'features', which cost money. And that if you remove the high COL areas, and control for the amenities, you will find costs are flat or decreasing.

But people can not buy theoretical smaller cheaper house with no AC if that one is not on sale.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#392

Post by mikestew »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #247
dweekly wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RE: "unemployment was much higher than it is now" - I'm not sure what country you're in, but here is a graph of the US unemployment rate since 1950: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE (unemployment was higher this year than any other period on the chart)

UK, as per the user who I replied to.

Regardless, the U. S. had super-high interest rates at that time, too. 12% sticks in my head, but it was also the time of the Variable Interest Rate loan, where I watched co-workers really have to tighten those budgets and almost lose the house because interest rates went from "ungodly high" to "ridiculously high".

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#393

Post by babelfish »

dcolkitt wrote: post #246

> Housing is more expensive for them than prior generations I harp on this constantly. But housing is not more expensive in the majority of American metros. Adjusted for inflation the median cost per square foot of new housing is almost exactly the same as it was in 1990. (This doesn't even take into account that mortgage rates are drastically lower since then.) We get skewed on this for two reasons. One is because h…

> Two is that we're highly skewed to a handful of elite metros, whose housing markets are not representative of the country as a whole

Right, but what matters is the housing price where people are. It doesn't matter what the housing market looks like in South Dakota if I don't want to live there. While houses in South Dakota may be 1/10 the price of houses in NYC (likely cheaper, honestly), they also have 1/10 the population. The notion that the quantity of land somewhere (in this case, quantity for sale) should somehow equate to importance more than the quantity of people is ridiculous.

> It's like somebody who works as a back office bookkeeper insisting on buying custom tailored Seville Row suits for his work attire, then complaining that the costs of clothes has gotten out of hand.

No, it's like someone who works as a back office bookkeeper in New York City being forced to pay insane amounts in rent while seeing thousands of empty AirBNBs, hotel rooms, etc. and complaining that the cost of living has gotten out of hand. Housing is a necessity, "custom tailored Seville Row suits" are not. And it's simply not feasible for the vast majority of people living paycheck to paycheck to just up and leave to Raleigh like you imply.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#394

Post by watwut »

tidepod12 wrote: post #284
dcolkitt wrote: post #246

> Housing is more expensive for them than prior generations I harp on this constantly. But housing is not more expensive in the majority of American metros. Adjusted for inflation the median cost per square foot of new housing is almost exactly the same as it was in 1990. (This doesn't even take into account that mortgage rates are drastically lower since then.) We get skewed on this for two reasons. One is because h…

>One is because homes today are substantially larger and have more amenities than they did in previous generations. I have noticed that most of my fellow millennials seem to have completely forgotten the concept of "starter home" and assume that as soon as you turn 25 you should be entitled to a 4 bedroom house with a pool, huge yard, wonderful neighborhood, three-car garage, etc. Among my friends that have bought ho…

People I know buy smaller flats if childless, rent with roommates and have three kids in one room.

And cant afford large houses, not even with debt. Cause no bank will borrow them. If your friends could get that much money, they are likely well off and see the house as investnent.

Which is how we bought put flat - rent was only slightly cheaper then mortgage.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#395

Post by vondur »

jeffbee wrote: post #379
texuf wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the extremely low interest rates, I wonder if the monthly payments are about the same.

It doesn't help as much as you've implied since 1) you need 20% of the sticker price for the down payment, and 20% of $200k is more than 20% of $130k, and 2) in many jurisdictions you pay tax on the market value, so your taxes go up whenever mortgage rates fall and prices rise.

Is this true any longer? I assumed you can get into most houses with 10% down, so long as your credit and earnings are good.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#396

Post by vertbhrtn »

gpapilion wrote: post #334
Philip-J-Fry wrote: post #94

I'm my early 20s and in the UK. I earn more than my Dad who is in his 50s. He managed to get a house, have money left over for an expensive hobby, decent car, the odd holiday etc. I'm a 90th percentile earner. Will 95+ percentile earner in a few years time. Yet it feels like I am not as well off as I should be. I don't live in an expensive area either. Yet I need to save so much money to even have the opportunity to…

I’ve thought about this a lot. My parents had 2 TVs in a house of five(and one was junk). We had stick on vinyl floors, and a cheap white appliances. Counter tops were linoleum, and we had 1.5 baths. I cut the lawn, and we went shopping in stores. We took two vacations requiring planes for the first 13 years of my life. Most vacations were camping. We rarely went out to eat. We didn’t have computers. We had 1 corded…

Your countertops or your landlord's countertops? Because all the rest - all those iphones & vacations - is cheap fluff, really.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#397

Post by toomuchtodo »

jeffbee wrote: post #379
texuf wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the extremely low interest rates, I wonder if the monthly payments are about the same.

It doesn't help as much as you've implied since 1) you need 20% of the sticker price for the down payment, and 20% of $200k is more than 20% of $130k, and 2) in many jurisdictions you pay tax on the market value, so your taxes go up whenever mortgage rates fall and prices rise.

FHA mortgage down payment is 3-5%. There’s frontloaded mortgage insurance as well as ongoing monthly mortgage insurance, but the credit score and down payment requirements are very low. Most people with a pulse qualify.

If you come with enough money down, you can get a hard money loan with 70% loan to value (30% down) 1 day after bankruptcy or foreclosure.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#399

Post by vkou »

dcolkitt wrote: post #246

> Housing is more expensive for them than prior generations I harp on this constantly. But housing is not more expensive in the majority of American metros. Adjusted for inflation the median cost per square foot of new housing is almost exactly the same as it was in 1990. (This doesn't even take into account that mortgage rates are drastically lower since then.) We get skewed on this for two reasons. One is because h…

> I harp on this constantly. But housing is not more expensive in the majority of American metros. Adjusted for inflation the median cost per square foot of new housing is almost exactly the same as it was in 1990. (This doesn't even take into account that mortgage rates are drastically lower since then.)

It doesn't matter that real estate on the Moon is free. There aren't any jobs on the Moon, or in third-tier cities.

Post reply on HN