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

621–630 of 974 posts

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

#621

Post by ip26 »

kelnos wrote: post #553
munificent wrote: post #464

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 t…

It's also useful to note that the "nuclear family" is a very Western thing, and the US takes it to an extreme. In other parts of the world it's abnormal for adults in their 20s to be living anywhere but with their parents, often even with a fiance or new spouse in the mix. The idea that having a multi-generational household means that the younger members haven't "grown up" and need to "learn to live on their own" is…

It's not all dumb cultural expectations. It's hard to chase opportunity & follow the work if you don't leave home.

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

#622

Post by war1025 »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #590
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rust belt cities don't have skyrocketing housing prices if you're willing to buy non-McMansion older stock.

And how likely are you to get a job that lets you afford said house?

That depends on your skills and / or what you're willing to do.

The rust belt is rusty in the sense that easy to obtain and hold down factory jobs are no longer a thing.

If you have marketable skills, there is work pretty well anywhere.

Just like how if cushy tech jobs someday dry up in Silicon Valley there will still be work there, it just won't be a sure thing like it is now.

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

#623

Post by FireBeyond »

mywittyname wrote: post #288
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…

> But in places like Tampa, Omaha, Cincinnati, and Phoenix the cost of housing (per square foot) has barely gone up at all. Maybe if you stop looking at like 2018. But my on-the-ground analysis living on one of these cities is cost of housing has fucking exploooded. I built a house just two years ago, which I thought was incredibly expensive at 2 times the median home price in the area. I had it in the back of my hea…

Olympia WA, 60 miles from Seattle, 100 miles from Portland:

A recognition (debate, but at least some recognition) of what is called "The Missing Middle" (medium density housing, alternative options, not just SFHs and "high rise").

A proposal is put forth, and there are screams from homeowners, because the study shows that the Average Property Value in the urban growth area will _slow_. Not decrease. But instead go from 12% YoY growth (which is insane) over the past 10 years to, if all measures are put into effect, an estimated 7% YoY growth.

Somehow these homeowners have got it into their head that they "have a right to" property value growth which, at its worst, will outpace inflation _by a factor of TEN_.

So back to the drawing board we go...

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

#624

Post by smorephism »

irrational wrote: post #506
chillwaves wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking from the younger generations perspective, this is a great way to destroy the relationship with your adult children. I'm sure it doesn't feel great for them to be dependent on you and face your scorn on a daily basis. I just hope the situation will never be reversed, for your sake.

Scorn? I haven't said a word to them. How could I? I barely see them.

I suspect they get the idea.

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

#625

Post by choward »

dcolkitt wrote: post #413
babelfish wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 po…

> Right, but what matters is the housing price where people are. We're not talking about houses in the middle of nowhere. These are major urban population centers. The Houston metro area has 7 million people. The Phoenix metro area has 4.9 million people. Tampa metro has 3.1 million people. Houston and Phoenix are both larger than the Bay Area metro is currently. Tampa's just shy of the size of Seattle. Nor is it the…

> Houston and Phoenix are both larger than the Bay Area metro is currently.

Not sure where you're getting that number from. Are you just referring to San Francisco / Oakland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%E2%80%93Oakland%...)? That completely leaves out San Jose and many other areas. The entire Bay Area is nearly 10 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area)

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

#626

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

nickff wrote: post #522
watwut wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe people don't want those houses; maybe people are happy to move somewhere less prestigious to get the house they want.

> Maybe people don't want those houses

It's not clear what kind of houses you are envisioning.

Go to Zillow or Hotpads (rentals) & search for less prestigious homes. You still don't get places that can be afforded with a HS Graduate income.

tl;dr: People can't move out in their 20s because of math.

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

#627

Post by FireBeyond »

treis wrote: post #450
hkmurakami wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YoY median home prices were up 13% nationally in August. That's largely driven by the diaspora we're seeing with WFH/COVID, with people pushing into more affordable communities and driving up prices. Until now we were all competing in major metros pushing up only the top end of the curve but now there's a push towards the median priced areas.

>YoY median home prices were up 13% nationally in August. That's a misleading statistic. It simply means that the houses getting sold has shifted towards the higher end of the market. If you look at the price for the same house it's gone up somewhere around 3% YoY.

So new construction only?

And sorry, but in markets like mine, over the last year the average house has spent about 72 hours on the market and "the same house" has been sold multiple times in the last decade each time for approximately a 20% increase.

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

#628

Post by pnutjam »

dcolkitt wrote: post #413
babelfish wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 po…

> Right, but what matters is the housing price where people are. We're not talking about houses in the middle of nowhere. These are major urban population centers. The Houston metro area has 7 million people. The Phoenix metro area has 4.9 million people. Tampa metro has 3.1 million people. Houston and Phoenix are both larger than the Bay Area metro is currently. Tampa's just shy of the size of Seattle. Nor is it the…

Sure, when you look at the whole metro area, you can get good prices. Most people don't consider the whole metro area. There is usually a specific area they want to live in, to be closer to family, to get better schools, to be closer to work, etc. I'm in Indianapolis and just look at the difference across this one affordable metro area. https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/in/indianapolis/real-estat...

Your other point about houses being "better" is also false. When you compare to economic items, you don't compare against something you can buy and something you can't buy anymore. The houses for sale are the "better" houses. That's the simple fact for Americans. It's because our culture only builds for the wealthy. The poorer get their hand me down houses.

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

#629

Post by pnutjam »

ng12 wrote: post #419
ballenf wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so the change from a decade or two ago is that young people want to live in places they can't afford. In the past they were evidently more content to live in places they could afford. Doesn't really feel like cost of housing is what's changed.

I grew up in a small rust belt city. 40 years ago there were reasons to live there: factories with union jobs and an entire local economy built upon them (financial services, a hospital, bustling main street, etc). All that's gone now. It's not that I wouldn't be content like my parents were, it's that it's fundamentally not the same city it was back then.

You can't get that through to the parent poster. He only see's spherical cows, not reality.

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

#630

Post by ip26 »

mcv wrote: post #202
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'm no millennial, but gen-X. My brick box is okay. Not as big as the one my parents had, but it's in a bigger city, which really adds to the cost. But my wife and I are double earners, unlike my parents. And we both have really good jobs. We don't have it hard, but we don't drive new cars either; we've got a second hand Prius. The only sign that we've got it good is that our house in Amsterdam is not as tiny as most…

expectations may be too high due to the constant stream of luxury lifestyles that we're being fed on TV

A vague quote comes to mind, something about the peasant classes of a few hundred years ago would have overthrown the ruling classes a lot sooner if they had any idea the luxuries the ruling classes were enjoying.

I.E., maybe what's happening is thanks to TV maybe we're finally understanding how good some of those on the top have it.

Post reply on HN