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

461–470 of 974 posts

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

#461

Post by graywh »

nradov wrote: post #386
MisterTea wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But housing is not more expensive in the majority American metros My parents bought their NYC home in 1976 for $76,000. Adjusted for inflation brings that to around $350,000 in 2020 dollars. The house is currently valued at $800,000.

Now repeat the calculation for a similar home in Toledo or Detroit.

just looked up a random 2-bed, 1400 sq-ft home in my city of 600k -- sold for $31k in 1975 (comparable to $150k now), easily worth $350k today

this isn't a neighborhood known for gentrification, either

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

#462

Post by annexrichmond »

dghughes wrote: post #72
yardie wrote: post #7

I live downtown in a coastal city. What I’m seeing is a lot of young men living in the streets. This is the other side of this story some young adults don’t have a home to go back to after job loss and eviction. We’re seeing just the tip of the iceberg. I expect a lot more social upheaval in the coming years. Social services are going to get severely strained.

I've seen a documentary about San Francisco it's crazy how middle income people are being pushed farther from the city. One teacher had several bus transfers and then a long walk to get to her job. Even bus stops where "poor" people (less than $100,000/year) are being crowded by private buses like Google forcing city buses to wait which adds to the wait down the line. Nuts!

California: Tax the hell out of people who need to drive because they can't afford to live near prime transit locations. Then be subjected to such transit which is unsafe, unreliable, and unpleasant to say the least.

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

#463

Post by maerF0x0 »

munificent wrote: post #443
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. Housing is expensive in San Francisco, New York, LA, and DC. But in places like Tampa, Omaha, Cincinnati, and Phoenix the cost of housing (per square foot) has barely gone up at all. I think cities are fundamentally the wrong unit to look at when thinking about housing prices. What w…

> "how much does it cost to live some place where I can get a job"

And we'd do well to price that in hours of work per week after taxes, including commute.

That is, making $30 an hour where a house is $300k can be better than making $60 an hour where a house is $600k . Think about progressive tax rates, CoL, commute time et al.

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

#464

Post by munificent »

I really love the quote at the end:

> I'm a dad who is happy to have his daughter and fiancé living with me. They pay the utilities and make me nice meals, and it makes it a lot less lonely here. ... I like the multi-generational thing. I know it won't last forever, but it makes life better for now.

It's so easy to get into that cold statistical mindset about these large-scale trends, but it's good to remember that these statistics are the aggregation of a large number of very human stories.

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

#465

Post by claudeganon »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #220
swiley wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general rent doesn't appear to be dropping. Most landlords have mortgages and many would default if they lowered rent.

Wouldn't they also default if they cannot find anyone willing to rent at those prices ?

I think the strategy is to play chicken until they either go bust or get bought out by a giant corporate real estate firm.

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

#466

Post by triceratops »

qwerty1234599 wrote: post #116
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…

High tax rates are what causes this. You are effectively giving away half your wage to sustain a completely unknown person leeching off the government.

Lowering taxes will just cause inflation.

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

#467

Post by jbay808 »

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…

> The demand for ultra-expensive housing in places like the Bay Area is driven by the huge earning potential of the high-skilled labor market.

Maybe the Bay area, but that's (sadly) not the case in places like Vancouver and Victoria. Sky high property prices, but no corresponding earning potential.

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

#468

Post by gkop »

Loughla wrote: post #128
keiferski wrote: post #39

I hope we see a cultural shift toward recognizing that so-called "flyover country" is actually ripe for re-development and cultural renewal. There are tens of thousands of small towns and cities in the Midwest in which buying a house is still possible for the average middle-class person. The main issue, of course, is the lack of jobs in the area, but with remote work growing, that might become less of an issue.

Also, many rural areas have cooperatives for their internet and have gigabit fiber, now. I live 40-50 minutes from the closest 'town' and 3-4 hours from the closest urban center, and I will have fiber by the end of this month. Remote work is absolutely an option. That being said, no one should consider flyover country to move to. Please stay away from my flyover country, it's bad enough with east and west coast inves…

Does anyone know of a convenient index of rural gigabit ISPs?

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

#469

Post by vertbhrtn »

snidane wrote: post #282
slothtrop wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't. Housing prices as they are are a product of supply and demand. Such that, regulations are preventing the building density required to meet unceasing demand propelled by immigration. Historically rate of taxes were not much different than they are now, whether for North America or the UK.

Housing prices increasing because of slow zoning and regulations has been debunked already. Typical argument used by property developers. The reality is that building houses for investment is more profitable for developers so they keep building it. As opposed to affordable housing actually used for living. The result is a glut of luxury investment apartments and lack of affordable nonluxury housing.

I'm not seeing that luxury investment housing, though. The newly built houses are usually +/- cheap junk at premium prices. At the same prices there's a low supply of 30-40 year old homes, but of a way way better quality. And in any case, new construction + available supply is nowhere near enough to meet the demand. What folks without 500k/year are doing I don't know.

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

#470

Post by lotsofpulp »

another-dave wrote: post #421
lotsofpulp wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, they refer to defined contribution and defined benefit as pension. In the US, pension is short for “defined benefit” pension, which is an annuity beginning at a specified retirement age. The liability for providing that benefit does not lie with the recipient of the defined benefit, but with the employer (or government). A defined contribution pension is one where the recipient of the benefit owns and cont…

Interesting! Do they have a term for DC pensions in the US? Is that their 401k?

Yes, a 401k is one type of DC pension. Specifically, one subject to various stipulations of the tax code section 401(k), where an employer has to setup the plan in such a way that sufficient employees benefit from it in sufficient amounts to pass the non discrimination testing. In exchange, the income contributed is not taxed until it is withdrawn after retirement age.

A Roth 401k is the opposite, where the income contributed is taxed today, but the withdrawals are not taxed after retirement age (unless politicians change their mind in the future...)

An IRA (individual retirement account) is similar to a 401k, except it involves no employer, and the amount of income that can be contributed pre tax is much less, and maybe zero if you earn too much in a year.

A Roth IRA is like a Roth 401k.

Post reply on HN