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

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

#341

Post by echlebek » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

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…

Millenial here, looking to buy my first house in the next couple of years. My budget will be $1.5M to $2M for my "starter" home in Vancouver, Canada.

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

#342

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

peter_l_downs wrote: post #333

wonderwonder wrote: post #11

Millennials face a very real risk of being a lost generation financially. They have endured 2 major, years long recessions, and now the Covid pandemic coupled with social isolation and massive unemployment that does not appear to have an end date in sight. Housing is more expensive for them than prior generations, wages are stagnant, school is expensive and social conflict is also currently on deck. WW2 was of course…

18-29 year olds are sort of between generations but largely fall into Gen Z; certainly they're the youngest end of Millenial, and can not really be said to have endured the 2008-2011 recession as they were not working at that time.

> certainly they're the youngest end of Millenial, and can not really be said to have endured the 2008-2011 recession as they were not working at that time.

My 2 & 4 year old aren't working right now, and they've certainly endured the coronavirus pandemic. I don't know why not yet being in the labor force would prevent one from being accurately described as having endured an economic downturn any more than any other adverse conditions. It's hardly as if not being the breadwinner of the household insulates you from the effects if their income is reduced or eliminated.

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

#343

Post by larrik » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

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…

I did the "starter home" thing in 2006 and then the market crashed and I was under water until 2019...

I would never recommend the idea of a "starter home" to anyone, ever. It only works when housing prices are on the rise and continue that way the entire time you live there.

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

#344

Post by fetus8 » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

peter_l_downs wrote: post #333

wonderwonder wrote: post #11

Millennials face a very real risk of being a lost generation financially. They have endured 2 major, years long recessions, and now the Covid pandemic coupled with social isolation and massive unemployment that does not appear to have an end date in sight. Housing is more expensive for them than prior generations, wages are stagnant, school is expensive and social conflict is also currently on deck. WW2 was of course…

18-29 year olds are sort of between generations but largely fall into Gen Z; certainly they're the youngest end of Millenial, and can not really be said to have endured the 2008-2011 recession as they were not working at that time.

As a 29 year old, I reject this sentiment. I may not have been working but my decisions regarding college and overall early adult life were heavily affected by the 2008-2011 recession because of how it affected my family.

We endured it, just in a different way than those who were working.

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

#345

Post by tidepod12 » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #296

tidepod12 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> I have noticed that most millenials 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. "Starter homes" for young people is the stuff that was built 30-40 years ago that hasn't been updated. So they are buying those mcmansions because that's what was b…

>"Starter homes" for young people is the stuff that was built 30-40 years ago that hasn't been updated. So they are buying those mcmansions because that's what was built in the 80s-90s-00s. The really nice, older urban areas with housing built before that is way more expensive in absolute dollars.

In my metro (DFW), the neighborhoods of houses built in the 60s/70s/80s are dwindling because nobody will buy them. There are neighborhoods of perfectly fine ~200k houses just sitting on the market for months because "ewww, I don't want to live in Grand Prairie/Garland/Irving". Then those same people pine over the newly built $500k mcmansions in Frisco or the $2m mansions in Highland Park and lament about how they'll never be able to afford being a homeowner. Do you see the disconnect?

>Smaller is "established" and everyone with money wants to live in those established neighborhoods, not the suburban sprawl 50m from the city center.

It's not some secret that desirable location is a huge driver of property prices, and being closer to a city center is more desirable. My parents knew this 50 years ago, which is why even though they loved living downtown in an apartment, when it came time to buy a house they moved out to the suburbs because that's where the affordable starter homes are. Then, when they became more established in their career and built up some wealth, we moved a little bit closer to the urban center. That's just how it works. But these days, millennials seem to think that they are automatically entitled to live downtown in a 4 bedroom, newly renovated/constructed house with full amenities next to the main park and hip shopping center and zero crime while on an entry level salary. I understand that, and I wish I could have that too, but that's just not how the world works (nor how it has ever worked).

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

#346

Post by rayajason » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

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…

> I have noticed that most millenials 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

I don't know where you live but I almost find this insulting.

I'm from Amsterdam my self and friends of my are being forced out the city because of the high rent prices. I'm 32 year now and because of some shitty new rent laws that says every tenant needs to have an individual rent contract which our landlord refuses to give I'm also being pushed out of my home. I tried to find something for my self just anything would do, but I'm kinda skewed because I just earn above social housing and here in Amsterdam there is not really a market anymore for middle incomes. So yeah I'm being pushed to either live in a room or move out of the city. But I also couldn't find a room in time so now I'm going back to my parent. So yeah your comment kinda hits a nerve for me.

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

#347

Post by pgwhalen » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #283

School-Cotton wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to nitpick but the social isolation and massive unemployment are being caused by our response to the pandemic, not by the pandemic itself. Lockdowns are a choice, with tradeoffs.

This is not true. Sweden experienced a spike in unemployment, despite not having a lockdown. "People are too afraid about getting sick and dying to go outside" is pretty much directly attributable to the pandemic.

> People are too afraid about getting sick and dying to go outside

This is still a response to the pandemic, just a non-governmental one. I'm not saying such a response isn't justified, but it is not directly attributable to the disease.

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

#348

Post by School-Cotton » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #223

School-Cotton wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have we? It doesn't seem possible to permanently stop outbreaks without having either reached 20-25% of the population infected, or locking down until a cure or vaccine is discovered. Plenty of places that locked down much more stringently than the US are having new outbreaks now - Europe, New Zealand, Australia and even parts of China. Anyway, I seem to remember that extending the pandemic was the whole point of the…

Other places have managed to become entirely COVID-free due to properly following lockdown policies. The US is still gaining thousands of cases a day–the only reason this isn’t more is that most people are staying inside. The places you mentioned with “new outbreaks” have a handful of new cases, and yet are taking it significantly more seriously than the United States.

Europe is having a handful of new cases? No, that isn’t true. Spain is reporting more than 10,000 new cases a day.

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

#349

Post by ransom1538 » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

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…

"just to buy a 3-4 bedroom"

It should be noted, they don't build 2 bedroom homes anymore. I was talking to a real estate developer in Sacramento about this. New 3 bedrooms do exist, however, they would rather cram out the lot with a 5 bedroom since the cost to add on another few hundred square feet is nothing if you have the equipment and material right there. PLUS! People will go ahead and take on huge loans with that low interest rate. It is win win (unless you don't want huge crushing loans).

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

#350

Post by CodeyWhizzBang » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 5:24 PM UTC

lol768 wrote: post #332

_jxdz wrote: post #318

I earn more than my family or my peers earn, but living in London often feels like my money comes in and goes out again immediately. As a result, I currently live with my family in an extraordinarily nice house that I would never be able to afford myself. I pay them a nominal sum for rent; they refuse to take the market rate even though I am happy to pay it... I look at the rental cost of a standard 1 bedroom flat in…

> It would be cheaper to get a mortgage, but I fail the "affordability" tests I naively thought that these affordability tests would involve looking at whether my take home income minus my monthly costs was higher than the monthly cost of the mortgage. That sounds like a reasonable definition of "affordable", right? We can account for increases in interest rates too. In reality, the amount of ridiculous hoops that ne…

There's also the point that banks want you to put down a sizeable deposit so that if the market crashes and you lose your job they can sell the house, recover their outstanding debt and you lose your deposit.

So you might be able to afford £1,200 a month in mortgage payments (which on a 30 year mortgage could mean you could borrow £400,000) but you'd need a 20% deposit, meaning you'd need to have saved up £100,000 to take advantage of it.

And even then, for £500k in London that's, what an okay 2 bed flat.