[dead]
The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents
671–680 of 974 posts
Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents
#672Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> 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?
An alternative hypothesis would be that suburban development patterns don't work generally. I don't know anything about the DFW area specifically, but it's possible people don't want to live in those cheaper areas because they are poorly laid out and the infrastructure maintenance is higher than the revenue the area can generate. This may manifest itself in different ways (poorer schools, sidewalks, amenities), but one way or another, these neighborhoods are signaling decline.
Many first and second generation suburbs are in death spirals because of this problem. Buyers who can afford it chase newer development because the areas have an optimistic future and no obvious maintenance problem. Unfortunately, many of those areas will be in the same spot 30 years down the line.
> 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'm not saying there aren't some entitled people, but I haven't encountered this attitude very often - it seems like there are plenty of other reasonable explanations for what is driving consumer choices without stereotyping.
Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents
#673Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where I live, most property agents will do a credit and income check, and would turn you away for not meeting the "minimum income level" for renting those places. Even if you feel you can afford spending 50% of your income, it doesn't follow that you can easily find a landlord who allows it. If you have a bad credit rating, as many people do these days, it will be even more difficult as more landlords check that than…
But that's no different to 2003 (you could have a guarantor - typically a parent - who would be on the hook for your rent if you didn't pay it) Before I started looking I was under the impression things were harder now then they were in 2003, but it seems not, at least in this one case (tiny studio/bedsits in a dodgy part of west london) -- unless asking prices on rent are massively depressed due to covid. In 2006/7…
Go check again, you got everything wrong. ^^
That flat is southeast England in the middle of nowhere.
Not london, not greater london by any metric, it's nowhere.
Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents
#674Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 )
You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, I can't edit the post, but yes I did mistakenly write Bay Area where I meant SF metro.
Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents
#675I 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…
>> 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 difference is the prudishness of US culture. Those couples are living life as a couple. In a US household they would be treated as kids, with many parents not allowing them to even share a room.
Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents
#676I 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…
This would not be a sustainable model for a capitalist market.
Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents
#677> 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’ll ding you on the financial sense of not living in Bay Area vs living there even if you’re just a new grad (or just below L8). I live in a very low cost of living area with salary nearly twice the median software engineer and I’d still be able to save 40% more on a google paycheck even adjusting for the rent 5 times my current for the same amenities.
We don't even need to be that frugal! 100% of the net increase to VHCOL compensation can go into VHCOL housing expense increases with plenty of room to spare.
If we would pay 33% of your income in LCOL housing, and move to someplace that pays us (net) 100% more, we can afford 4x(!) the rent we did previously.
We're bidding against everyone else who wants what we want, so it's no wonder housing is insane in the Bay Area, since household incomes are so much higher.
Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents
#678Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I contend that it's not even just this, but also that within metros millenials are highly skewed to a handful of elite neighborhoods. In St. Louis there's a small but frothy back-to-the-city movement that's driving prices up to new highs in a handful of trendy neighborhoods. And it's all anybody can talk about. It's a kind of synecdoche for "the housing market" to reference these tiny neighborhoods while using carg…
Having just been in a similar market (Baltimore): There was gorgeous old architecture to be had on the cheap, if you were okay with a couple crumbling vacants on the block, trash everywhere, poorly rated public schools, overflowing weeds, and frustratingly difficult access to the ostensibly adjoining trendy neighborhood (the ones I was looking at were separated by a half mile with a single cross street, where blocks…
> There was gorgeous old architecture to be had on the cheap, if...
St. Louis really punches above its weight in gorgeous old architecture, so there are well-maintained, affordable neighborhoods with pretty old red-brick houses, too, but the real value is to be found in plain working-class neighborhoods where the houses never show up on Instagram. That housing for actual working-class people is unsurprisingly where most working-class St. Louisans live.
Of course, nobody who has ever used the word "gentrification" on twitter has any interest in living in any of those neighborhoods, so their existence is rounded down to zero in the discourse.
It wasn't that long ago that even the coolest neighborhoods with the best housing stock were wildly undervalued against their fundamentals. And hipster St. Louis isn't thrilled that the secret is out.
Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents
#679> 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…
Cost per sq. Ft. may not have gone up significantly (adjusting for inflation) but if all you can get are larger houses (i.e., builders are not making 1300 sq. Ft. houses like they used to) then it really doesn't matter. See https://www.manhattan-institute.org/reevaluating-prosperity-...
Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents
#680> 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…
> Adjusted for inflation the median cost per square foot of new housing is almost exactly the same as it was in 1990
Now go back to ~1970, when real wages stopped keeping up with productivity, and old housing started to increase in value instead of depreciating.